this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
41 points (90.2% liked)
Linux
8223 readers
297 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Installing a random .deb comes with enormous security implications. I am not sure that making the process more beginner friendly is a really good idea.
"Beginner friendly" should be limited to things from the main repositories, and for that there is the Software Center.
What linux does and does not protect the user from is endlessly hilarious to me.
Hey linux, I want to install a file you downloaded.
Linux: Sounds risky man
I'd like my file explorer to have super user privleges.
Linux: Are you out of your god damned mind?
Hey linux, I want to delete the kernel that I'm actively using right now.
Linux: Hell yeah. I'll go to the looney bin with you.
It's the same thing with .exe on windows. It's potentially dangerous and people need to be mindful what they download and install.
That is fair, I suppose being able to click and run stuff like Appimages has less security issues because in theory they are isolated? But don't the appimages get to decide their own permissions?
It's not any more secure. The point that "installing random debs is insecure" has been running around for at least the last 16 years I've been a Linux user.
While it's technically true, AppImages are as secure as random debs. Same with random repositories that are not provided by your system. Same with flatpaks.
And unless you're an extremely basic user, you'll eventually have to install an application not in your repositories. The method doesn't really matter, it's all equally (in)secure.