hellostick@lemm.ee to Linux@lemmy.ml · 22 hours agoVirt-Manager, use deb version of flatpak version??message-squaremessage-square11fedilinkarrow-up126
arrow-up126message-squareVirt-Manager, use deb version of flatpak version??hellostick@lemm.ee to Linux@lemmy.ml · 22 hours agomessage-square11fedilink
minus-squareliliumstar@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17·21 hours agoI would use the native version. For something like this, it makes sense that it should have less restricted/sandboxed access to the underlying system.
minus-squaredeadcade@lemmy.deadca.delinkfedilinkarrow-up7·17 hours agovirt-manager only requires access to the libvirtd socket, as long as the flatpak.has that as default configuration (which I imagine would be the case), there’s zero difference beteween flatpak and native.
minus-squarealteredEnvoy@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up10·20 hours agoHmm, wouldn’t the virt manager just be a frontend and communicate with the virtd socket though?
I would use the native version. For something like this, it makes sense that it should have less restricted/sandboxed access to the underlying system.
virt-manager only requires access to the libvirtd socket, as long as the flatpak.has that as default configuration (which I imagine would be the case), there’s zero difference beteween flatpak and native.
Hmm, wouldn’t the virt manager just be a frontend and communicate with the virtd socket though?