no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
23 comments in c/linux@programming.dev view that post
[–] 12 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Is that preferred over other types of distributions of the application?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    The flatpak has always been unofficial so many people distrust it for that reason

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    The signal-desktop package on Arch Linux isn't official either, I'm guessing — should that not be trusted either?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    If you don't trust your distro packages, you should not use that distro. In my mind Arch Linux maintainers are way more trustworthy than a random guy maintaining the Flathub version.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Didn't Arch just have a major security issue due to their packages essentially being random guys too? (And I think the same thing could theoretically happen to most distributions?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    No, that was AUR. Those were user-generated packages with nearly no vetting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    To add to that, the wiki also makes it pretty clear users should be careful. It's nice to have for packages that aren't in the main repos, so it makes sense to have it somewhat part of the distro, but it does take manual effort to install aur packages, so in my mind, that's the best way to do it.

    Big red label at the top: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository

    Windows users are out there downloading random exe files...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago

    Can't wait for them to adopt the community-maintained Flathub version.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Nice move. AppImage makes distribution much simpler, especially for people who don't want to depend on a specific package manager.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    IMO flatpaks are a better option, appimages are just bringing people back to the insecure "find it on a website and download it" method of package management

    This is also one of the reasons why I dislike curl sh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Flatpaks can be unsafe too though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    AppImage defended and used grossly outdated core component like FUSE2 for a long time, and comes with zero sandboxing by default.

    IMO, flatpak needs to improve in terms of security, but it is a strict improvement over AppImage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    I'll stick to Session anyways.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    It works well

  • source
  • [+] -10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Does it still require a phone number, thus eliminating all possibility of privacy?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago

    There's a difference between privacy and anonymity. You can have privacy without anonymity. So, it's about what you want out of the app. If you're looking for anonymity then it's not the app for you, and there are other apps that can do that better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    yeah I have concerns about using signal as well. but that's unfortunately grounds for a witch hunt in these parts.

    people who use signal are obsessed with defending it at all costs. they're a scary bunch. the users honestly turned me off to using the app as much as the app itself did.

  • source
  • parent