@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 day agoVirt-Manager, use deb version of flatpak version??message-square7fedilinkarrow-up127arrow-down11
arrow-up126arrow-down1message-squareVirt-Manager, use deb version of flatpak version??@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 day agomessage-square7fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish18•1 day agoI would use the native version. For something like this, it makes sense that it should have less restricted/sandboxed access to the underlying system.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink7•21 hours agovirt-manager only requires access to the libvirtd socket, as long as the flatpak.has that as default configuration (which I imagine would be the case), there’s zero difference beteween flatpak and native.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink11•23 hours agoHmm, wouldn’t the virt manager just be a frontend and communicate with the virtd socket though?
I would use the native version. For something like this, it makes sense that it should have less restricted/sandboxed access to the underlying system.
virt-manager only requires access to the libvirtd socket, as long as the flatpak.has that as default configuration (which I imagine would be the case), there’s zero difference beteween flatpak and native.
Hmm, wouldn’t the virt manager just be a frontend and communicate with the virtd socket though?