this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
48 points (83.3% liked)

Linux

47976 readers
1194 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
48
Are there any downsides to using Homebrew as a package manager on Linux? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by alt@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm especially concerned about it being somehow broken, unwieldy, insecure or privacy-invasive.

Case in point; at times I have to rely on a Chromium-based browser if a website decides to misbehave on a Firefox-based browser. Out of the available options I gravitate towards Brave as it seems like the least bad out of the bunch.

Unfortunately, their RPM-package leaves a lot to be desired and has multiple times just been awful to deal with. So much so that I have been using another Chromium-based browser instead that's available directly from my distro's repos. But..., I would still switch to Brave in an instant if Brave was found in my distro's repos. A quick search on repology.org reveals that an up-to-date Brave is packaged in the AUR (unsurprisingly), Manjaro and Homebrew. I don't feel like changing distros for the sake of a single program, but adding Homebrew to my arsenal of universal package managers doesn't sound that bad. But, not all universal package managers are created equal, therefore I was interested to know how Homebrew fares compared to the others and if it handles the packaging of the browser without blemishing the capabilities of the browser's sandbox.

P.S. I expect people to recommend me Distrobox instead. Don't worry, I have been a staunch user of Distrobox for quite a while now. I have also run Brave through an Arch-distrobox in the past. But due to some concerns I've had, I chose to discontinue this. Btw, its Flatpak package ain't bad either. But unfortunately it's not official, so I choose to not make use of it for that reason.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Presi300@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...why would you use homebrew on linux?

You already use an arch container that has access to the AUR, which has literally every package, available on linux.

Also, if anything, flatpaks are THE official (universal) packaging format for Linux, it's the most widely adopted and most well integrated of the universal packaging formats. I'm not saying that homebrew is bad, just why bother with it when you've got 100 other packaging formats that are all better...

[–] alt@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You already use an arch container that has access to the AUR, which has literally every package, available on linux.

Call me paranoid if you will.

if anything, flatpaks are THE official (universal) packaging format for Linux

I don't deny that, I make good use of a ton of flatpaks on my system. I also believe that it's the best we have. And I would literally switch to Brave as a flatpak if it would satisfy the following:

  • Be official and thus maintained by Brave itself.
  • Not having to forego its own more powerful sandbox due to (hopefully) current restrictions of Flatpak. Yes, you read that correctly; while flatpaks are arguably the safest way to consume most applications, this doesn't apply to apps that actually have stronger sandboxes which had to be 'slimmed down' when packaged as a flatpak. Thus, currently, for maximum protection, one simply can't rely on flatpaks for their Chromium-based browsers. If you choose to do so and it has worked out for you wonderfully; that's awesome, I've been there and enjoyed the experience as well. But, I can't justify it for myself any longer.
[–] Presi300@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I rely on flatpaks for all non-firefox browsers and haven't had any issues with them, I've used the brave flatpaks specifically for almost a year now and no issues...

[–] zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's still factual that flatpaks sandbox is weak by default, especially compared to what chromium provides on its own.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The web process sandboxing is basically the same inside and outside of flatpak.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would you mind elaborating? First time hearing this and a quick search didn't resolve it.

[–] alt@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

I think I already addressed that point with

If you choose to do so and it has worked out for you wonderfully; that’s awesome, I’ve been there and enjoyed the experience as well. But, I can’t justify it for myself any longer.

If you meant something else, then please feel free to correct me.

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Officially supported doesnt mean its more stable. They can just take binaries, add dependenciesy tadaa.

Bubblewrap is not insecure. But I am not an expert

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Officially supported doesnt mean its more stable.

Never implied that anyways. Official merely ensures that the amount of trusted parties can be minimized.

Bubblewrap is not insecure.

Bubblewrap, when properly applied is indeed excellent; perhaps the best utility to sandbox applications on Linux. I'm thankful that flatpaks makes use of bubblewrap, namespaces and seccomp to offer relatively safe/secure apps/binaries, I'm unaware of any other '(universal) package manager' within the Linux-space that offers similar feats in that regard. Unfortunately, Chromium-based browsers just happen to have an even stronger sandbox -if properly configured- than flatpaks are currently capable of.

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay true. I am not so much into this Browser sandbox thing and dont really get it. Its a different way than bubblewrap, as from Firefox RPM for example I can open any file and save anywhere. But its process isolation right?

[–] alt@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

as from Firefox RPM for example I can open any file and save anywhere. But its process isolation right?

For Firefox, the verdict on its native sandbox vs Flatpak's native sandbox doesn't seem conclusive. With -assumingly- knowledgeable peeps on both sides of the argument, which indeed does raise the question how knowledgeable they actually are. Nonetheless, for myself, I've accepted Flatpak's sandbox to not be inferior to Firefox' native one. Thus, I don't see any problem with using its flatpak.

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Apart from having all the nice KDE integration and things like Keepass integration, Fido2 keys, drag and drop and some more things...

Also afaik the Fedora Firefox has a good SELinux profile and it runs damn fast. I did a speed test and it was best, along with Mozillas all-together-binary.