@linux Sharing a 'small' inconvenience I had to fix with #opensuse#slowroll (I suspect #tumbleweed is the same) - I couldn't launch snaps (spotify, bitwarden) after update - error was: cannot determine seccomp compiler version in generateSystemKey fork/exec /usr/lib/snapd/snap-seccomp: no such file or directory
The fix (I first tried re-installing, didn't work) was to:
a. locate snap-seccomp - was in /usr/libexec/snapd
b. symlink: ln -s /usr/libexec/snapd /usr/lib/snapd
@pastermil@linux I use both. There are packages where the website officially lists snap packages, no flatpaks.
Unless the project website has a link/install instruction recommending flatpak, I prefer either the distribution package where available, or snap otherwise - this is more from a supply-chain perspective - since snap requires the original developers of the package to package snaps.
If the developers have officially listed flatpak on their site, that however, is good enough for me.
@pastermil@linux the attack surface for something that isn't officially maintained by the developers, and that doesn't have more vetting (e.g. distribution packages) opens up room for malicious actors.
e.g. #arch / #aur recommends verifying scripts manually before installing, and malicious scripts have been found and removed.
There are actors like #jiatan out there. An unofficial #flatpak needs manual verification before install - that's why I just go with #snap if the flatpak isn't official
@Bitrot@linux interesting, thank you for that information: I had been under the impression they did do manual verification of authors.
I did some checking: the closest I found to verification was this (so you're right- no need to be the original author, but a bit of vetting does seem involved).
