-17
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 10 hours ago

I would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn't blend well with the flatpak sandbox

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 5 points 8 hours ago

You can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 27 minutes ago

I haven't used veracrypt to encrypt linux system partitions. Does it do all the decryption in user space somehow?

[-] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 3 hours ago

and then what's the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?

[-] JustMarkov@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

and then what's the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package?

Flatpaks is a universal package format, it works almost everywhere. Also, there are immutable distros, that use flatpak as the default package format.

[-] TechieDamien@lemmy.ml 14 points 12 hours ago

Those are two completely different things. It is like saying "why hammers not apples?" There is no logical answer, they are just two completely different things.

[-] BlueSquid0741@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 12 hours ago

I was confused, but I think they might be asking why Veracrypt isn’t available as a flatpak

[-] lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago

I've interpreted like that as well. 🤔

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
-17 points (16.0% liked)

Open Source

30834 readers
553 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS