Can't wait for them to adopt the community-maintained Flathub version.
Is that preferred over other types of distributions of the application?
The flatpak has always been unofficial so many people distrust it for that reason
The signal-desktop package on Arch Linux isn't official either, I'm guessing โ should that not be trusted either?
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.
If you don't trust your distro packages, you should not use that distro.
Kind of my point. How high should my trust fence be before I can't install anything at all. ๐
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?)
No, that was AUR. Those were user-generated packages with nearly no vetting.
Ah gotcha, that is different indeed!
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...
No. Their "here's also this unofficial repository of builds completely maintained by random community users... USE AT YOUR OWN RISK - You have been warned!" ArchUserRepository got the least used (often long abandoned) packages hijacked by some bad actors.
But "Less than 1% of the least used packages in the unofficial repository you were explicitly warned about got hijacked by people trying to infect oyur PC" would not have been an interesting headline gathering attention.
Ah, gotcha! Well, if it's any consolation, clearly I didn't click on the clickbaity headline to read the actual low-quality article :P
Nice move. AppImage makes distribution much simpler, especially for people who don't want to depend on a specific package manager.
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
Flatpaks can be unsafe too though.
Same goes for .debs from Debian stable. There is no absolute safety. But downloading unsigned code from a random website is far down the safe list.
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.
I still prefer repositories, but official AppImages beat unofficial downloads.
I'll stick to Session anyways.
It works well
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP