💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › u › leoperbo › 14225 captured on 2024-06-16 at 17:15:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: "How do you install your Internet browsers?"
Between Flatpak and Snap, I prefer AppImage 😅
Jan 22 · 5 months ago
1. Download binaries and place them in a standard path for programs
██▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 8%
2. Download binaries and place them in a custom path
██▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 10%
3. Download installer pack
███▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 12%
4. Via repository
████████████▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 50%
5. Via flatpak
██▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 8%
6. Via snap
█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 5%
7. Via AppImage
█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 3%
8. Download source and compile
█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 3%
60 votes were cast.
i only tried waterfox for some time and i used their binaries. but for a long time i don't like to use binaries, so i just use `emerge firefox -av` or update world via emerge and that's it.
well i use binaries in binary distros like alpine/postmarketos and maemo-leste/devuan.
i install from repos and then the browsers get updated from repos.
☯️ leoperbo [OP] · Jan 23 at 02:37:
The question came to me because, recently, I got an update from Firefox's PPA stable, to 122 version, when the "official" stable versión, downloable from their website, was 121. The repository update made Firefox really slow, like Internet Explorer, and running from downloaded binaries, even after use Sync to get all my bookmarks, history and extensions, the binaries way was flawlessly.
I'm a "repository man", but I admit that installing official binaries, in standard paths, applying symbolic links and so on, is going better for me than repos, specially with Mozilla software.
interesting.
i think i trust repository binaries much more than binaries from even mozilla.
on the number, i don't know what is their case, but i had to use wrong, and more up to date number recently for lagrange, in maemo-leste repos. because i was changing its cmakelists.txt file, and for the builder it is part of the original source. so when i realized i need to make more changes in that file, the builder refused, since then the fingerprint of the _orig package changed, while version didn't.
so i had to bump up version and i mentioned it in the commit or somewhere that that's a fake version which doesn't exist yet, but i had not other choice. well the choise was to be wiser, eh.
i just have this general trust in repository software. i believe it is much much harder to have malicious code in them, than in, of course, let's say nodejs or rust repos. and in waterfox tar.gz binary files that i was downloading.
and sometimes, when i have no other choice than to try something binary, i try it from chroot, or at least from other user.
i became paranoid a little bit too much than it worth it, after using waterfox, and rebuilt every single package i had. though i only ran waterfox as user, but i thought, well, maybe it used some vulnerability to get root privileges and contaminate something in the system. well i realized that's not probable. but still rebuilt everything.
and if it contaminated the compiler - it would not save me anyway, since the contaminated compiler would compile malicious code in to newer binaries.
— see compiler backdoor section.
LibreWolf is apparently still not available on Ubuntu Jammy repositories (long-time Kubuntu user here), so I install the AppImages on my $HOME, sometimes also wrap them around "firejail --private=<dir> --appimage" for a bit of extra security.
🌧️ miragearchitect · Jan 25 at 06:57:
I add it to the nixos config...
"via repository" but sometimes that means manually adding repositories, not just the OS defaults
librewolf is surprisingly lightweight.
How do you install your Internet browsers?