this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
-19 points (17.2% liked)

Open Source

31352 readers
162 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
-19
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by cplusplus to c/[email protected]
all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Those are two completely different things. It is like saying "why hammers not apples?" There is no logical answer, they are just two completely different things.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I was confused, but I think they might be asking why Veracrypt isn’t available as a flatpak

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

I've interpreted like that as well. 🤔

[–] cplusplus 2 points 1 month ago

this, sorry for the title

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would assume because the whole model of encrypting your drives and installing bootloaders doesn't blend well with the flatpak sandbox

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You can give a Flatpak the necessary permissions to modify disks. All the permissions needed by Veracrypt could be granted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and then what's the benefit of having veracrypt as a flatpak package? that it can be used with older dependencies? if so, is that a good thing to have for things that modify system startup?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I haven't used veracrypt to encrypt linux system partitions. Does it do all the decryption in user space somehow?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago