this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
735 points (93.8% liked)

linuxmemes

20471 readers
688 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
poopsmith@lemmy.world
zephyr@lemmy.world
735
Flatpak haters seem to believe that if an app isn't on their distro's repos, it's the developers' fault. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
200 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hmm, okay, that doesn't sound too bad.
Does the sandboxing get into the way much? Can a user tell it to poke a hole into the sandbox, to use some specific folder, for example?

I think, my real problem is that I don't actually use Flatpak for any software I have installed. ๐Ÿ˜…
I'm not opposed to using Flatpak, but I disabled Flathub pretty quickly on my distro's software store thingamabob, when I accidentally installed some proprietary software from it. Fuck that shit, no matter how much sandboxing I get.

[โ€“] ace@lemmy.ananace.dev 3 points 1 month ago

In regards to sandboxing, it only gets as far in the way as you ask it to. For applications that you're not planning on putting on FlatHub anyway you can be just as open as you want to be, i.e. just adding / - or host as it's called - as read-write to the app. (OpenMW still does that as we had some issues with the data extraction for original Morrowind install media)

If you do want to sandbox though, users are able to poke just as many holes as they want - or add their own restrictions atop whatever sandboxing you set up for the application. Flatpak itself has the flatpak override tool for this, or there's graphical UIs like flatseal and the KDE control center module..