I guess it’s saying that Arch people use the AUR and PKGBUILD files. Idk exactly. It might even be a reference to the (somewhat) recent malware incident with the *-patch-bin browser packages. I must admit that I don’t really find it funny. But maybe I too am missing the point here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway, in case you don’t know, and wish to use Arch at some point, the content on AUR is user submitted, and hence security cannot be guaranteed. People do report malicious packages, and it’s safe in general. But always read the PKGBUILD before installing anything, just in case something silly is going on.
I’d say it’s more about that Linux packages aren’t (distributed as) compiled binary installers (appimages are executables, but no installers), like msi or exe installers for Windows, but (as) essentially plain archives.
MSI files are actually comparable to Linux packages, from what I understand, in that the program that does the installing (and which gets root/admin permissions for that) comes with the OS itself.
And AppImage files are fun. They contain a filesystem of their own. This filesystem need to get mounted and the contained executable needs to be started in such a way that it thinks the mounted filesystem is the root filesystem.
So, AppImage does need somewhat of a runtime environment and isn’t just a plain executable. But for this particular comparison, they’re still most comparable to self-contained executables, in that they do not need root permissions, because they don’t need to install themselves.
MSI files are actually comparable to Linux packages, from what I understand, in that the program that does the installing (and which gets root/admin permissions for that) comes with the OS itself.
Neat. I’ve always wondered why e.g. 7zip is distributed as both, MSI and exe installer. Now that makes somewhat sense to me.
I guess it’s saying that Arch people use the AUR and PKGBUILD files. Idk exactly. It might even be a reference to the (somewhat) recent malware incident with the
*-patch-binbrowser packages. I must admit that I don’t really find it funny. But maybe I too am missing the point here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Anyway, in case you don’t know, and wish to use Arch at some point, the content on AUR is user submitted, and hence security cannot be guaranteed. People do report malicious packages, and it’s safe in general. But always read the PKGBUILD before installing anything, just in case something silly is going on.
@unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
I’d say it’s more about that Linux packages aren’t (distributed as) compiled binary installers (appimages are executable
s, but no installers), like msi or exe installers for Windows, but (as) essentially plain archives.MSI files are actually comparable to Linux packages, from what I understand, in that the program that does the installing (and which gets root/admin permissions for that) comes with the OS itself.
And AppImage files are fun. They contain a filesystem of their own. This filesystem need to get mounted and the contained executable needs to be started in such a way that it thinks the mounted filesystem is the root filesystem.
So, AppImage does need somewhat of a runtime environment and isn’t just a plain executable. But for this particular comparison, they’re still most comparable to self-contained executables, in that they do not need root permissions, because they don’t need to install themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Installer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppImage#Design
Neat. I’ve always wondered why e.g. 7zip is distributed as both, MSI and exe installer. Now that makes somewhat sense to me.
i did know, but thanks for telling me