410
submitted 7 months ago by mr_MADAFAKA@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tanja@lemmy.blahaj.zone 153 points 7 months ago

Nice

Good to see one of the two big packaging hubs do something against malware

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 14 points 7 months ago

Next step, display the "potential unsafe"-badge next to verified or unverified, that can be found on the same page. In example https://flathub.org/apps/io.github.shiiion.primehack is marked as verified, but if you scroll down you can see the application has full system and data access and is marked as potential unsafe.

[-] Cwilliams@beehaw.org 10 points 7 months ago
[-] Montagge@lemmy.zip 3 points 7 months ago

Snap already marks unverified apps

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JakobDev@feddit.de 5 points 7 months ago

How does that Help against Malware?

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Because if you search Firefox and see a badge that says verified, you can be confident that it was Mozilla that packaged it and added it to FlatHub as opposed to some random scammer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 7 months ago

Apt has done this forever

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] million@lemmy.world 63 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is a good step but I still feel like it's pretty obscure where a package is actually coming from. "by Google" or for the Steam package "by Valve" is really confusing and makes it sounds like it's coming directly from the company. Unverified tells the user to pay attention but there is no hover over to say what it actually means.

[-] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 63 points 7 months ago

Wait… so the author displayed in “by ” is the supposed author of the software, not the one that put it on the store? That’s insane! Also sounds like you’d be open to massive liability since the reputation of the software author will be damaged if somebody publishes malware under their name.

It should be:

  • Developed by:
  • Uploaded by:
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 7 points 7 months ago

Also maaany packages direct to issuetrackers of projects not supporting that flatpak.

If someone knows where that flathub metadata is stored I would love to know, as the manifest is not it. I would like to fix those to link to their own bugtrackers

[-] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 19 points 7 months ago

Traditional GNU/Linux distributions (as well as F-Droid) are not "app stores" even though they are superficially similar. Traditional distributions are maintained and curated by the community, and serve the interests of users first and software developers second, whereas an "app store" has minimal curation and serves the needs of software developers first and users second.

I point this out because there's an annoying meme that traditional distributions are obsoleted by the "app store" model. I don't think that's the case. "Verification" is essential for an app store but pointless for a distribution.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 12 points 7 months ago

So all of them?

Would be nice if FlatHub actually supported cryptographic verification of apps..

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] pewgar_kbin@fedia.io 10 points 7 months ago

great, when appimage hub begin doing this

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 8 points 7 months ago

I still don't understand why a central repository for AppImages exist. The moment you are using a repository (and possibly version management), the format looses its reason to exist.

[-] GnomeComedy@beehaw.org 10 points 7 months ago

I don't see how that's true. The main point of AppImage is it 'just works' on any distro. If you have one primary place to distribute them to any distro - it's still meeting AppImage's vision.

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 9 points 7 months ago

To be fair, after some thinking I think you are right and I was a bit in a tunnel vision logic. My previous statement looks a bit foolish now.

[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No. Appimages are selfcontained and thus useful for archiving software or carrying it around in random ways. Flatpak could do this too but not as easy.

Still, don't use Appimages

[-] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago

I personally use a few AppImages, but want replace them with Flatpaks. Flatpaks have their own issues, and because I did not want to troubleshoot in case I encounter another issue, just carry on using AppImages for these selected applications. Also I was not able to archive Flatpak easily, its very complicated with keys and not. Compared to it, I just have the AppImages included in my regular backup process with regular files.

My point was not if AppImages are useful (they clearly are and I use them), but was talking bout repositories. However after some other replies I thought about it and indeed such a repository makes sense even for AppImages. I personally just don't have to use them.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

What app is that GUI from?

[-] UmbraTemporis@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 7 months ago

This screenshot is from the Flathub website. The only good GUI for Flatpaks...

[-] simple@lemm.ee 26 points 7 months ago

The only good GUI for Flatpaks…

Ain't that the truth. I don't know why KDE Discover is so sluggish when it comes to Flatpak, it takes me like 10+ seconds to load the landing page and see the popular apps.

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 12 points 7 months ago

And several minutes to update a 10MB app...

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

what? there's something wrong with your internet

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nah, it's Discover that's shit. Flatpak's CLI works fine.

[-] Cwilliams@beehaw.org 4 points 7 months ago

Seriously why does Gnome software feel so much faster!

[-] UmbraTemporis@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

First time I've heard someone call Gnome Software fast. In my experience that app feels like it's on it's last legs; the Flatpak CLI is far better than any desktop GUI.

[-] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Gnome Software has received numerous updates over the last few years which make it considerable faster. Searching and viewing apps is now fast enough to be usable, compared to it taking many seconds to minutes for basic tasks.

I've stopped removing Software on every system, altough I'm not usually using it. I've not tested it, but I feel like Discover is now slower than Software.

[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 3 points 7 months ago

COSMIC Appstore ;D

[-] Cwilliams@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm not saying it's fast; I'm saying that it's faster than KDE Discover

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

Gnome Software is pretty similar. KDE Discover way worse.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
410 points (98.3% liked)

Linux

48143 readers
757 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS