-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to bbs.geminispace.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini; charset=utf-8
1. Download binaries and place them in a standard path for programs
██▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 8%
2. Download binaries and place them in a custom path
██▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 10%
3. Download installer pack
███▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 12%
4. Via repository
████████████▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 50%
5. Via flatpak
██▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 8%
6. Via snap
█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 5%
7. Via AppImage
█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 3%
8. Download source and compile
█▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ 3%
60 votes were cast.
Jan 21 · 4 months ago · 👍 scops
It depends! For Firefox on my Mac, I use the installer. But for other browsers I’ll use how homebrew or a binary in the default location, or pacman on Arch.
If by repository, you mean the various Linux distro package managers, then I'll keep my vote!
Plus, I use scoop on Windows and I used that to install various browsers (when I was working on a webdev project). I feel like that could fall under package manager too.
Then, you'll keep your vote, thanks!
A bit weird, but first thing I do on a new machine is grab a LibreWolf binary and drop it somewhere in my own .bin dir or something like it. I then do the same with tor.
Ideally, I don't because Firefox is preinstalled
Haiku Package manager. Voted for repository.
Well, I use ports on FreeBSD, so both 4 and 8 apply.
I usually use the distro's app manager, but if the the browser I want isn't available that way (more likely on my AARCH64 machines) then I build from source.
would option 1 be like manually putting stuff in /usr/bin? isn't that a bit unhinged eh?
well i guess windows does that, just putting downloaded executables in "C:/Program Files/"...
As my computers get progressively older, building browsers from source takes longer and longer, and browsers are probably some of the most frequently updated programs on a machine.
To save time and CPU cycles, I've started installing them from Flatpak lately. Works great!
I use qutebrowser from source, but it is not really "compiled" since it is written in python. but the core component is QT's packaged version of chromium, fetched from pypi. So, well...
Only if stuff is the whole directory of Firefox 😖
It's a kind of repo, it isn't?
Between Flatpak and Snap, I prefer AppImage 😅
i only tried waterfox for some time and i used their binaries. but for a long time i don't like to use binaries, so i just use `emerge firefox -av` or update world via emerge and that's it.
well i use binaries in binary distros like alpine/postmarketos and maemo-leste/devuan.
i install from repos and then the browsers get updated from repos.
The question came to me because, recently, I got an update from Firefox's PPA stable, to 122 version, when the "official" stable versión, downloable from their website, was 121. The repository update made Firefox really slow, like Internet Explorer, and running from downloaded binaries, even after use Sync to get all my bookmarks, history and extensions, the binaries way was flawlessly.
I'm a "repository man", but I admit that installing official binaries, in standard paths, applying symbolic links and so on, is going better for me than repos, specially with Mozilla software.
interesting.
i think i trust repository binaries much more than binaries from even mozilla.
on the number, i don't know what is their case, but i had to use wrong, and more up to date number recently for lagrange, in maemo-leste repos. because i was changing its cmakelists.txt file, and for the builder it is part of the original source. so when i realized i need to make more changes in that file, the builder refused, since then the fingerprint of the _orig package changed, while version didn't.
so i had to bump up version and i mentioned it in the commit or somewhere that that's a fake version which doesn't exist yet, but i had not other choice. well the choise was to be wiser, eh.
i just have this general trust in repository software. i believe it is much much harder to have malicious code in them, than in, of course, let's say nodejs or rust repos. and in waterfox tar.gz binary files that i was downloading.
and sometimes, when i have no other choice than to try something binary, i try it from chroot, or at least from other user.
i became paranoid a little bit too much than it worth it, after using waterfox, and rebuilt every single package i had. though i only ran waterfox as user, but i thought, well, maybe it used some vulnerability to get root privileges and contaminate something in the system. well i realized that's not probable. but still rebuilt everything.
and if it contaminated the compiler - it would not save me anyway, since the contaminated compiler would compile malicious code in to newer binaries.
LibreWolf is apparently still not available on Ubuntu Jammy repositories (long-time Kubuntu user here), so I install the AppImages on my $HOME, sometimes also wrap them around "firejail --private=<dir> --appimage" for a bit of extra security.
I add it to the nixos config...
"via repository" but sometimes that means manually adding repositories, not just the OS defaults
librewolf is surprisingly lightweight.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sun May 19 14:33:22 2024