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.

  • alt@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

          • alt@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Apart from having all the nice KDE integration

            I'm a sucker for GNOME :P , but I'll keep it in mind.

            things like Keepass integration

            The flatpak does allow integration, but isn't built-in unfortunately; so one has to fiddle a bit themselves to set it up.

            Fido2 keys

            I should rely more on those. Do you have any recommendations? I've been hearing good things about Nitropad and Yubico, but I honestly don't know if they're actually good and how they would fare amongst eachother.

            drag and drop

            Overrated anyways /s :P .

            Also afaik the Fedora Firefox has a good SELinux profile

            It's probably better configured with the native package than the flatpak one indeed. I wonder if this will change as Fedora is interested to ship Firefox as a flatpak by default on Silverblue (and variants).

            it runs damn fast. I did a speed test and it was best

            I haven't had the best internet speeds since I've been relying on free VPN. But that's on me :P .

            • Pantherina@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fedora packages a Flatpak Firefox themselves, based off the RPM. So its good too, but lacks codecs with currently no way to enable them so yeah. They would need am extension of some sort hosted on Flathub. So simply using Firefox Flatpak from Flathub makes more sense.

              I got a Nitrokey for Heads but for some reason it never arrived? I can say these things are very expensive. And Heads uses PGP and not others.

              • alt@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I somehow forgot that Fedora also had Firefox in their flatpak repos.

                I got a Nitrokey for Heads

                You know what's good, fam.

                but for some reason it never arrived

                That's messed up, though.