this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
742 points (93.9% liked)

linuxmemes

21263 readers
1079 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    742
    Flatpak haters seem to believe that if an app isn't on their distro's repos, it's the developers' fault. (lemmy.world)
    submitted 4 months ago by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    200 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] renzev@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

    that website is such a joke, I can't believe the guy's still paying for the domain name... The whole argument boils down to "Many flatpak apps don't make use of the sandbox by default, which is less secure than not having a sandbox at all" and "this one app I like doesn't work in flatpak, therefore all of it is bad".

    ...unless it literally is a joke and I'm just missing out on the sarcasm?

    [–] user@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Its only worse than not having it at all in the sense of giving users a false sense of security. Imagine if apps on mobile could decide what permissions they want automatically granted without the user opting in. The sandbox HAS to be enforced by default to be good. And the other issue with flatpak is the security, which we had several problems with in the past. On the same note, people criticise snap but its a much more competent solution from a technical standpoint regarding security and since people get all their apps from flathub anyways, the "propreitary" backend is mostly irrelevant. And before anyone says "snap store had malware hosted" that is not an issue with the format itself but the infrastructure.

    [–] user@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

    Also. Maintaining snap packages are easier for developers, and companies, therefore they are more likely to distribute apps on Linux to begin with.

    [–] renzev@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

    Its only worse than not having it at all in the sense of giving users a false sense of security.

    Flathub's website has a bigass banner telling you if an app requires permissions that they consider dangerous. And flatpak's CLI tells you what permissions are needed when installing an app. It's pretty hard to miss, no?

    [–] user@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

    This is still not a reason to automatically grant them. This permission model is fundamentally flawed. Besides, the CLI doesn't even show these.