5 ms·

It says it uses abroot rather than ostree https://github.com/Vanilla-OS/ABRoot/ https://github.com/Vanilla-OS/ABRoot/ https://coreos.github.io/rpm-ostree/ http

It says it uses abroot rather than ostree https://github.com/Vanilla-OS/ABRoot/ https://github.com/Vanilla-OS/ABRoot/ https://coreos.github.io/rpm-ostree/ https://coreos.github.io/rpm-ostree/ https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree My impression from the splash page is you're more encouraged to install packages to the base system. Silverblue only has that as the last resort (after flatpak, toolbox and podman).

forgotpwd16 4y ago
>you're more encouraged to install packages to the base system From documentation, I'm not even sure how this is done. The only options for packages documented are platform-independent packages (Flatpak, etc) and apx (distrobox-based toolbox alternative).
- ccouzens 4y ago
  This is the command for silverblue. For Chrome to work you'll need to enable it in "Software Repositories" (which you get to through the hamburger menu in the "Software" app). rpm-ostree install google-chrome-stable vim mozilla-openh264 virt-manager libvirt
  - Squarex 4y ago
    wouldn't it be better to just use flatpack version?
    - ccouzens 4y ago
      Of Chrome? https://github.com/flathub/com.google.Chrome https://github.com/flathub/com.google.Chrome Maybe. I'm more comfortable signing into my accounts using Chrome packaged by Google than by a third party. I should probably familiarise myself with the linked repo to show I'm worrying about nothing.
      - Operative0198 4y ago
        Google only packages Chrome for Ubuntu (deb) officially. If you are not using Ubuntu, you are probably not using Chrome directly from Google. However, if you use flatpaks you might as well trust this one package from flathub since the trust model is the same.
        ccouzens 4y ago
        They have both an RPM and deb download https://www.google.com/chrome/ https://www.google.com/chrome/ But I get your point that if I'm enabling it through fedora's interface I'm already trusting more than just Google.
      - curt15 4y ago
        It not only is packaged by a third party but also uses a community-written patch[1] to replace Chrome's built-in sandbox with Flatpak's own sandbox. It's unclear to me whether Chromium upstream has vetted or is even aware of this modification. [1] https://github.com/refi64/zypak https://github.com/refi64/zypak

forgotpwd16 4y ago

>you're more encouraged to install packages to the base system From documentation, I'm not even sure how this is done. The only options for packages documented are platform-independent packages (Flatpak, etc) and apx (distrobox-based toolbox alternative).

ccouzens 4y ago
This is the command for silverblue. For Chrome to work you'll need to enable it in "Software Repositories" (which you get to through the hamburger menu in the "Software" app). rpm-ostree install google-chrome-stable vim mozilla-openh264 virt-manager libvirt
- Squarex 4y ago
  wouldn't it be better to just use flatpack version?
  - ccouzens 4y ago
    Of Chrome? https://github.com/flathub/com.google.Chrome https://github.com/flathub/com.google.Chrome Maybe. I'm more comfortable signing into my accounts using Chrome packaged by Google than by a third party. I should probably familiarise myself with the linked repo to show I'm worrying about nothing.
    - Operative0198 4y ago
      Google only packages Chrome for Ubuntu (deb) officially. If you are not using Ubuntu, you are probably not using Chrome directly from Google. However, if you use flatpaks you might as well trust this one package from flathub since the trust model is the same.
      - ccouzens 4y ago
        They have both an RPM and deb download https://www.google.com/chrome/ https://www.google.com/chrome/ But I get your point that if I'm enabling it through fedora's interface I'm already trusting more than just Google.
    - curt15 4y ago
      It not only is packaged by a third party but also uses a community-written patch[1] to replace Chrome's built-in sandbox with Flatpak's own sandbox. It's unclear to me whether Chromium upstream has vetted or is even aware of this modification. [1] https://github.com/refi64/zypak https://github.com/refi64/zypak