• LoudWaterHombre
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        Flatpak acts like its virtualizing the applications, AUR shipped binaries are build by trusted arch users. Those eco systems operate on totally different levels, there are (more) audits in AUR.

        Flatpak or god forbid even Snap are fucked up software distribution platforms you should only use as last resort and when the software you are trying to get is not available on your OS repository/package manager and should be simply avoided.

        • @CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Ah, it’s subjective. You trust AUR users rather than flatpak users. Flatpak and snap are hardly comparable. The flaws of Snap are not the flaws of Flatpak. You also prefer binaries to sandboxed apps. You’re old school?

          • LoudWaterHombre
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            It is not subjective. Its not any AUR user, there are big streams tested especially for that certain system by trusted people before releasing.

            And for the record, your sandboxed apps are also binaries and to set it straight, flatpak is mostly not really virtualizing your app. It’s complete garbage, have a look at how flatpak achieves this “virtualization” and how it’s implemented in 9 out of 10 flatpaks.

    • @shirro@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A subset of AUR PKGBUILDs are downloading a prebuilt desktop application binary packaged for another distro (deb, rpm, tarball, appimage) from upstream and then unpacking it. Those packages are trying to solve some of the same problems as flatpak, distributing a generic desktop binary but often do it worse and people should be weighing the alternatives. More broadly AUR packages aren’t comparable with flatpak but some are.