• HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Note that AUR is generally untrusted, and is not an part of the Arch distro (but included in some derivatives). Arch users always were and are warned not to install packages from it without proper inspection. [Added: And adequate inspection just did become very hard!]

    I think AUR is great for trying out things and sharing with people you know personally - and not much more.

    For installing or distributing established, trusted software that is not part of the Arch distribution, I think Guix is better (which runs fine as an extra package manager in Arch, and has currently 31,000 packages, in spite of that it is relatively young).

    But the general thing is one just cannot run untrusted, unverified code. Regardless from where - regardless whether it is AUR or pip or Anaconda or MELPA or Guix or crates.io . In terms of computing, it is like giving a stranger on the street the keys to your house.

    Having a competent community reviewing software before it becomes part of a distro is what makes using Linux relatively safe (but not foolproof).

    • Cryxtalix@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Is thr solution truly to tell people to read the build instructions and decide if a package is safe? I’m not an arch user, but I’ve used nixos and assessing nixpkg before installation gets old real quick real fast. Somehow I really doubt telling an average user to assessing pkgbuild on their own will be very effective.

      • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Somehow I really doubt telling an average user to assessing pkgbuild on their own

        Arch Linux is not really made for the average user, and using code from AUR even less so. I doubt it that everyone using Arch+AUR or CachyOS or youname it is served well by this.

        And making it kind of accepted norm to run untrusted code as a non-technical user will bite the Arch community in the ass. For Arch, it is a phony measure of success to have many such users.

        This is also a result of Windows user attitudes leaking into the Linux universe. You need to discern code and data, and you can’t run untrusted code, period.

      • pineapple@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        it is bloat. also were is your package for (insert any very obscure program). I guess your going to have to rely on appimages or building from source for this one!

        • IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Bloat implies the extra space is unused or without utility. The extra bytes in Flathub packages usually come from containerization, which adds a layer of protection for the user and makes apps interoperable across all OSes. It’s also funny that you’re calling those extra bytes bloat in a post where AUR users would have benefited from the containerized design.

          • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Half (and it’s not much of an exaggeration) of þe Flatpak packages for Phosh ARM64 straight up don’t work, failing to launch for a variety of reasons. Trying to inspect what’s going on is an exercise in frustration. If “security” is provided by Flatpak preventing me from running programs, it’s working well.