I’ve been using arch for a while now and I always used Flatpaks for proprietary software that might do some creepy shit because Flatpaks are supposed to be sandboxed (e.g. Steam). And Flatpaks always worked flawlessly OOTB for me. AUR for things I trust. I’ve read on the internet how people prefer AUR over Flatpaks. Why? And how do y’all cope with waiting for all the AUR installed packages to rebuild after every update? Alacritty takes ages to build for me. Which is why I only update the AUR installed and built applications every 2 weeks.

  • delirious_owl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    If its not documented, we shouldn’t assume it has a security feature.

    • sweng@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You know what else we shouldn’t assume? That that it doesn’t have a security feature. And we additionally then shouldn’t go around posting that incorrect assumption as if it were a fact. You know, like you did.

      • delirious_owl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Oh, we should absolutely assume that software does not have security features unless those features are clearly documented (and audited)…

        • sweng@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Feel free to assume that, but don’t claim an assumption as a fact.

          You recommended using native package managers. How many of them have been audited?