Those are two completely different things. It is like saying "why hammers not apples?" There is no logical answer, they are just two completely different things.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
-20 points (16.7% liked)
Open Source
31218 readers
594 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I was confused, but I think they might be asking why Veracrypt isn’t available as a flatpak
I've interpreted like that as well. 🤔
this, sorry for the title
I would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn't blend well with the flatpak sandbox
You can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.
I haven't used veracrypt to encrypt linux system partitions. Does it do all the decryption in user space somehow?
and then what's the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?
and then what's the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package?
Flatpaks is a universal package format, it works almost everywhere. Also, there are immutable distros, that use flatpak as the default package format.