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.

  • Presi300
    link
    English
    41 year ago

    I rely on flatpaks for all non-firefox browsers and haven’t had any issues with them, I’ve used the brave flatpaks specifically for almost a year now and no issues…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      it’s still factual that flatpaks sandbox is weak by default, especially compared to what chromium provides on its own.

      • @AProfessional
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        The web process sandboxing is basically the same inside and outside of flatpak.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Would you mind elaborating? First time hearing this and a quick search didn’t resolve it.

            • @[email protected]OP
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I am thankful that zypak exists so that Chromium-based browsers and Electron apps don’t have to explicitly flag --no-sandbox to continue functioning. However, it doesn’t undermine the fact that native Chromium’s sandbox is more powerful than Flatpak’s sandbox. As such, if one desires security, then one should gravitate towards the native installed one.

              It lets Chromium use flatpak sub-sandboxes

              Are you sure that’s the case?

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      I think I already addressed that point with

      If you choose to do so and it has worked out for you wonderfully; that’s awesome, I’ve been there and enjoyed the experience as well. But, I can’t justify it for myself any longer.

      If you meant something else, then please feel free to correct me.