I use the apps my friends use but it gets tiring to keep up with so many.

    • CubitOom
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      Security is a compromise between convenience and safety.

      However, simply using flatpaks isn’t inherently more secure than using a binary or compiling from source. But it can make it easier to be secure for people that don’t want to manage their own sandboxes.

      It’s also easier for devs so they only have to make one version of their app which in theory should work on all systems. But in practice I find it doesn’t always work that way

      • @Pantherina@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        The AUR is not verified or audited at all, isnt it? So you need to check every release if that script was modified to download something malicious. For sure this works somehow, but idk how.

        And sandboxing… flatpak has GUI tooling unlike anything else. Bubblejail is usable.

        • CubitOom
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          From a maximum security perspective, you should be checking all the code you install on your computer. No matter if it is foss, audited by some group, or proprietary (if possible). What would stop a bad actor from auditing malicious code and approving it?

          As for sandboxing, there’s multiple options, not the least of which is containerization.

          Again, security is a compromise. More security normally comes at some cost just as less security does.

          But back to the topic of the post. You are complaining that SimpleX doesn’t work when installed though a flatpak (because one doesn’t exist). So perhaps it’s not a good software to rely on flatpaks for. Unless you choose to only install software via flatpaks, to which I’d say that’s admirable but also perhaps needlessly limiting. Either way it’s your choice, but I would suggest some open mindedness of options that may let you use the software you want.