Not doing that is the whole point of flatpak. XDG_HOME is a bad design because it leads to a giant and hard to sift through swamp of mixed files, with no separation in terms of tidyness and security whatsoever.
skilltheamps
joined 2 years ago
The second statement is not true, the standardization is flatpak portals and they by now cover almost every aspect of the system. The screenshot api is this: https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/portal-api-reference.html#gdbus-org.freedesktop.portal.Screenshot
I think one puzzle piece of improvement is flatpak:
- It has a verification system, such that users can see which apps are packaged by their developers. For those apps, this eliminates the need to trust a separate maintainer entirely
- It targets almost all linux distributions with a single package. This cuts down the packaging effort for covering the majority of the linux landscape so much, that the number of package maintainers required to be trusted collapses - in the ideal case to just the developers themselves as in the first bullet point
- It makes use of sandboxing, so in case of a malicious app it (in theory) only has access to the stuff the user gave it permission to.
In reality there's a plethora of problems obviously:
- verified apps are the minority
- some people don't like the additional storage needed for runtimes (although the more flatpaks you use the more runtimes can be shared and its overall impact gets smaller)
- A lot of apps do not yet use all the portals, and require the classical full access to the system to work properly (in some cases the user can still remove some permission if certain features of the application are not needed by them though). This is just a question of ongoing development work, and hopefully we reach a point in the near future where a flatpak app without tied down permissions raises eyebrows
I wholeheartedly agree, yet this is the same for stuff like the AUR, every PPA, or even just blindly copy & pasting inductions from some blog - all of which are very popular. (Just to name some examples that are closer to what op wants to do).
I still wouldn't use scripts from a random dump site because they are just likely to mess up the os with junk and cruft that will be there forever. But fundamentally from a security point of few its not necessarily worse than what many are doing - simply because it doesn't get worse than blindly executing stuff from sources missing the reputation to justify trusting them.
In terms of helluvalot less critical - is it really though? Remember that the app on your phone is also witten by them, closed source and does whatever they want with your clear-text messages. If the trustworthyness of a messaging vendor is part of the critical-ness question, e2e encryption does not add anything: Either you trust them and could also do so when they process your message on their server, or your don't and they could indeed spy on you on the proprietary client app.
End 2 end encryption is only a real benefit when the ends actually belong to the user, i.e. theres transparency about the ends being clean, which can only be shown for open source ends. If the ends are potentially compromised, there's so security / privacy guarantee.
Because the seemingly great choice of Webbrowsers in reality boils down to a risky monoculture of chromium (/its webengine). The only real alternative is Firefox/Blink. Risky, because the main driver behind Chrome-/ium (Google) is not acting on behalf of the public interest towards a free, open and privacy preserving internet. Instead they're working on a privacy exploiting one that gets locked down using DRM technologies. Them being a vendor of major parts of the internet as well as the browser to use it makes this a lethal combination. Firefox will definitely exist for as long as Google exists, because its their tool to defy claims of a monopoly, but they will do everything to keep it the small and mostly irrelevant "competitor" it is currently. Therefore, stand against Googles evil play and help Mozilla to gain some actual indipendence and leverage for keeping the internet free (as in freedom), open and privacy preserving.
Sowas wie ne minimale Wattzahl gibt es nicht. Alles was nen USB-Stecker hat verträgt grundsätzlich 5V, hohe Ströme und höhere Spannungen werden dann zwischen dem Gerät und den Ladestecker ausgehandelt. Das schlimmste was passieren kann ist, dass das Gerät nicht laden kann. Das ist z.B. bei vielen Laptops so, wenn man sie an ein altes Handyladegerät (ohne Powerdelivery) ansteckt.
Das einzige was passiert ist, dass das Gerät natürlich langsamer lädt. Das hat für den Akku allerdings nur Vorteile, weil das die Lebensdauer weniger stark verkürzt als Schnellladen. Also wenn man sein Handy z.B. immer über Nacht lädt, kann man es getrost an einem alten langsamen Netzteil laden, und richtet damit alles andere als einen Schaden an.
There's softmaker office, it's from a german company: https://www.softmaker.com/en/products/softmaker-office
Have you taken care about the calendar in flatpak having access to the evolution data server in the distrobox?
Keine Ahnung von ZFS, aber wenn es genauso ist wie bei BTRFS, dann braucht man beim Differenziellen Senden den Stand des Ziels, um die Differenz überhaupt ausrechnen zu können. Sprich die Lösung ist den letzten Snapshot immer da zu lassen. Snapshots brauchen im übrigen nur den Platz den die Änderungen belegen - also auf einem System auf dem nicht ständig alles verändert wird ist das in der Regel sehr wenig, insbesondere wenn der Snapshots nur bis zum letzten Backup zurück reicht
La Pavoni Handhebel-Siebträger von 1996 ist täglich im Gebrauch ☕
Because it's the same story as with Mir or Upstart: it will die, because its half assed and tailored to Ubuntu, this time with dubious non-free parts even