3 ms·

Nope, that's an update notification not an update. And its opt-in if you use kitty via a distribution package and opt-out if you use the standalone kitty binari

Nope, that's an update notification not an update. And its opt-in if you use kitty via a distribution package and opt-out if you use the standalone kitty binaries distributed by the developer. See https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/conf/#opt-kitty.update_check_interval https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/conf/#opt-kitty.update_check...

skywal_l 2y ago
Funny, I always use the binaries distributed by the developers whenever I can thinking that the less intermediaries the better. Maybe I need to revise that position.
- sudo_chmod777 2y ago
  That's... quite a Windows mindset.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Malicious distro packagers are virtually unheard of, and another set of eyes on the software is generally better. For instance, if the developer sells out the packager can save your bacon. This is especially true on Android where selling out is more common (see: the Simple Apps situation and F-Droid) but also a valid consideration on desktop Linux.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    I wouldn't assume anything about distro packages really. It's a higher bar in some systems (like Debian), lower in some (like nixpkgs), but the time investment to be in a position to sabotage something is quite low overall and requires little skill. Then there are not-distro packages that they easily abused over time. For example sourceforge was a respected distributor of software for a long time and they moved to adware installers.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      I stick to official distro packages from distros I like, mainly Debian and OpenSUSE. Community packages are too sketchy for me, and I consider downloading packages from sourceforge/etc to be a Windowism. And while it's possible for a malicious entity to infiltrate the ranks of distro packagers, I think the threat of the developer selling out has proven to be more likely.

3 ms·

Nope, that's an update notification not an update. And its opt-in if you use kitty via a distribution package and opt-out if you use the standalone kitty binari

by aumerle 2y ago

skywal_l 2y ago
Funny, I always use the binaries distributed by the developers whenever I can thinking that the less intermediaries the better. Maybe I need to revise that position.
- sudo_chmod777 2y ago
  That's... quite a Windows mindset.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Malicious distro packagers are virtually unheard of, and another set of eyes on the software is generally better. For instance, if the developer sells out the packager can save your bacon. This is especially true on Android where selling out is more common (see: the Simple Apps situation and F-Droid) but also a valid consideration on desktop Linux.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    I wouldn't assume anything about distro packages really. It's a higher bar in some systems (like Debian), lower in some (like nixpkgs), but the time investment to be in a position to sabotage something is quite low overall and requires little skill. Then there are not-distro packages that they easily abused over time. For example sourceforge was a respected distributor of software for a long time and they moved to adware installers.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      I stick to official distro packages from distros I like, mainly Debian and OpenSUSE. Community packages are too sketchy for me, and I consider downloading packages from sourceforge/etc to be a Windowism. And while it's possible for a malicious entity to infiltrate the ranks of distro packagers, I think the threat of the developer selling out has proven to be more likely.