• @theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    2427 days ago

    This is the first time I ever find myself kind of disagreeing with the Mint team. As others have said, some of the most popular packages on Flathub are unverified so popular programs like Inkscape are not going to show up as Flatpaks?

    I think just a warning, like what Flathub does, and maybe a dialog before installing, warning the app is packaged by an unverified packager, would have been enough.

    • @GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      2127 days ago

      Idk if a warning is a good idea too. As you said, most of the apps are unverified. If a beginner sees warnings when installing every package, it will raise some questions

    • Diplomjodler
      link
      fedilink
      927 days ago

      I think their approach is pretty solid. For beginners, it’s probably better to only see the verified FPs. More advanced users can change the preference. There is simply no ideal solution in this case, until we get more verified FPs

      • @theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        Completely unrelated but your use of FP really confused me at first, as I’ve been studying for a Programming exam, half of which is on FP (Functional Programming).

    • @biribiri11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      827 days ago

      If a new user installs malware from flathub while trying out mint for the first time, they’ll probably blame mint instead of flathub. Nobody will say “damn, I should have listened to that warning” while their “discrod” app rm -rf’s their entire PC away, they’ll instead claim Linux is crap and go somewhere else. Doing this helps keep mint safe, and definitely encourages unverified FOSS apps to hurry up and get verified.

      • GoogleSellsAds
        link
        fedilink
        -427 days ago

        That sounds suspiciously similar to the kind of gatekeeping Apple is doing.