I’ve been using arch for a while now and I always used Flatpaks for proprietary software that might do some creepy shit because Flatpaks are supposed to be sandboxed (e.g. Steam). And Flatpaks always worked flawlessly OOTB for me. AUR for things I trust. I’ve read on the internet how people prefer AUR over Flatpaks. Why? And how do y’all cope with waiting for all the AUR installed packages to rebuild after every update? Alacritty takes ages to build for me. Which is why I only update the AUR installed and built applications every 2 weeks.

  • Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nonfree software does not have the ability to be rebuilt on each update anyway, since it’s distributed as pre-built binaries. So they won’t build anyway.

    I tend to use AUR packages where possible if the package is not in the official repos. Only if the AUR package is broken do I turn to flatpaks.

    • asudox@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Right. So my priority should be like this:

      Proprietary: Flatpak

      Open Source: Official Repo then AUR

      • Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        My priority is: Official repo, AUR then Flatpak.

        No matter what license it is. Although, if I need microsoft stuff I usually go flatpak there, so it’s sealed off.

      • GolfNovemberUniform
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        This. Flatpak also provides additional privacy and security features to at least somewhat keep that proprietary garbage under control