[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would you mind elaborating? First time hearing this and a quick search didn't resolve it.

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Officially supported doesnt mean its more stable.

Never implied that anyways. Official merely ensures that the amount of trusted parties can be minimized.

Bubblewrap is not insecure.

Bubblewrap, when properly applied is indeed excellent; perhaps the best utility to sandbox applications on Linux. I'm thankful that flatpaks makes use of bubblewrap, namespaces and seccomp to offer relatively safe/secure apps/binaries, I'm unaware of any other '(universal) package manager' within the Linux-space that offers similar feats in that regard. Unfortunately, Chromium-based browsers just happen to have an even stronger sandbox -if properly configured- than flatpaks are currently capable of.

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not sure why you would want to.

😅, it's explained in OP.

Linux package managers are state of the art.

I wonder if Nix-users would agree 🤔.

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks anyways!

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Nice, their marketing works.

You can't deny its merits. At best you can question their integrity based on bad business-practices in the past. Their CEO being "X" and doing "Y" does not inherently make the software bad.

If you really cared about privacy you’d probably use something like Librewolf, which is not proprietary.

From OP: "at times I have to rely on a Chromium-based browser if a website decides to misbehave on a Firefox-based browser"

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This comment of mine begs to differ 😜 . Though, I can see where you're coming from.

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Oh lol :P , thanks for answering my curiosity. Isn't that like annoying to deal with for yourself as well 😅?

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Wow, great comment! Much appreciated!

Where’s the logic in that? Why not just install to the user’s home directory so that you don’t even need root access in the first place?

Excellent remark! Wow, that by itself already wrote it off for me.

Why is sudo hard-coded? Answer: it’s to prevent people from using doas and other sudo alternatives.

Another home-run! Especially as I've been a staunch user of doas for quite a while now and wouldn't like to give up on that. Thank you so much for informing me on this!

Your third point is also interesting to ponder upon, though it wasn't as impactful to me personally as the previous two were.

I would like to thank you once again for your astoundingly awesome insights on this matter! This comment has definitely contributed the most in me letting go of the thought of using Homebrew entirely (while some others already informed me that GUI-apps (mostly) can't be installed from Homebrew to function on Linux anyways).

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You can also use AppImages.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, as I do use them if they're inaccessible to me otherwise and if it's official and up-to-date. But for security-sensitive apps (like a browser) I would rather not rely on it. Furthermore, it seems it's unofficial anyways.

https://portable-linux-apps.github.io/

This is a cool resource. Thank you!

[-] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Unfortunate. Thanks for the headsup :D !

view more: ‹ prev next ›

alt

joined 1 year ago