VideoLAN @videolan App Stores were a mistake. Currently, we cannot update VLC on Windows Store, and we cannot update VLC on Android Play Store, without reducing security or dropping a lot of users… For now, iOS App Store still allows us to ship for iOS9, but until when?
Can someone break down the thinking behind this?
“Ios still allows us to deliver to ios 9”
It’s a poorly written post. On whatever site this is. Looks like crap.
It’s explained here: https://social.treehouse.systems/@Aissen/112139649840297169
same thing for linux. their repo’s latest version is 1.16 while their github version is 2.4.
I’m not too sure about the numbers but probably that.I don’t think app stores are the problem. I think big company app stores are the problem, such as the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store. I think something like F-Droid where you can add your own app sources or Droid-ify that has a ton of sources by default you just need to enable is the way to go.
The issue there is similar though - who controls Fdroid? They have the final say. Besides, 99% of users stick with the defaults.
Fdroid has no say in what repos are added by the users.
That’s right. Fdroid the app is just a program that accesses repositories. It’s not even the only one, Aurora has a similar version of their own called Aurora Droid.
Fdroid the repo is a repository of FOSS apps maintained by the Fdroid team with apps they’ve reviewed and compiled themselves, to provide an element of trust that you might not get from every random developer.
There’s no fool proof way of handling app trust other than developing your own understanding of the code. Otherwise you have to trust someone. Fdroid seem pretty trustworthy, more than the big corporations, and more than many unknown small time developers - however you can get app updates quicker direct from the developer, through the Fdroid app, if you’re willing to trust them.
Theoretically yes, but in practice for the vast majority of users it makes no difference. Very few people are going to go through the trouble of vetting another source, adding it, etc. That’s what the tyranny of the default is all about.
I like the defaults personally.
Do you also like being tracked and having your private data sold without your knowledge?
I’m sorry what? F-droid takes security, privacy and freedom very seriously. You can read more about it here:
https://f-droid.org/en/2024/03/08/privacy-design-of-fdroid.org-webservers.html
You said you like the defaults… Fdroid is not the default.
Oh I misunderstood, I though you were about to argue that the play store us more secure or something
Probably beating a dead horse, so… sorry, but look into the Gab fiasco or FreeTusky.
F-Droid does ‘censor’ or moderate their app repository. However, they do not control which sources or repos you may install from.
If there’s an app you want that f-droid doesn’t stock, see if the app has a private repo, like Bitwarden, or is in another repo, like IzzyOnDroid.
Its open source.
Fdroid is the obvious answer me thinks. Anyway love you guys/gals at videolan still haven’t come across a software that destroys every other in its field in every aspect.
Winrar?
7zip.
I tried it and went back so winrar.
PeaZip is something you should check out too
What does 7zip do better?
Not show annoying popups about licenses?
Encryption?
7z is better than rar and its algorithm is fully open source
Removed by mod
I dont think that works for windows?
How about winget or the other commandline package managers? winget does have VLC according to winget-pkgs. This is the kind of “stores” we need, ones that emulate Linux repositories instead of locked down smartphone garbage.
Is singer secure tho? Iirc chocolaty isnt
Asking if something is secure on an insecure OS. Seriously, both the program and the repositories are on github:
https://github.com/microsoft/winget-cli
https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs
So you be the judge.
Unfortunately even FlatPak is insecure, so OS doesn’t really matter
Maybe don’t check all the permission boxes in flatseal and you might find it’s more secure than you think.
It’s all about default permissions
On Windows you should be downloading from the website.
Or winget if they provide it.
Or use scoop or something similar. Or better yet don’t use Windows
Thats not secure. Isn’t the pount of the Windows Store that packages are signed by developers and verified when downloaded?
Pretty sure they’re signed by Microsoft instead? At least that’s what other app stores do.
It’s all a game of shifting the point of trust around. Personally, I’d trust most small time developers more than the likes of Microsoft and Google, however I’d trust Fdroid more than unknown developers (but still go direct to the developers I do trust).
The good ones are signed by the devs, otherwise there’s a risk of malicious modifications at upload or on the publishing infrastructure. This is how Maven works. All packages MUST be signed with PGP by the devs.
Apt isn’t signed by the devs but its signed by the package maintainers, whose job it is to verify the packages that they prepare (devs can’t upload software in Debian)
No, the point of the windows store is that Microsoft gets more control over your machine.
Code downloaded from websites can still be (and is) signed; when it’s not you get that box where you have to click “Run Anyway”
I think the point of the Windows store is to coerce developers into either using the Visual Studio environment and beta testing new package formats, or paying MS a fee to get a signed certificate.
You don’t have to use the visual studio to package in MSIX
You can pay a one time fee if $25 to get Microsoft to sign your app on the Microsoft store, or you can pay $400+ per year to buy your own certificate. So Microsoft Store is sadly the cheap way to release apps on Windows. (Without users getting scary warnings from Windows and AV about installing unsigned aoftware)
Right. My memory is a bit hazy (I don’t use the store). What I was trying to address was the revenue funnel they built around the environment. MS still gets a cut of the $400 certs, right?
The UX of the scary warning is to make the user feel safe installing signed software in comparison, but there is no guarantee that a signed app does not contain an exploit. It’s an abuse of people’s misunderstandings of security, for profit and user share.
Maybe I should have worked through my thoughts a little more before posting, but hopefully this clarifies my sentiment. And like I said, I don’t use the store at all, so if I still have some inaccuracies then I welcome corrections.
The certs are sold by certificate authority companies, and Microsoft doesn’t get a share of that, though I’m not sure.
Yeah, software being signed says nothing about it not being malicious or insecure, but it does prove the author is what it says, and if it is malicious then the responsible party is clearly visible.
For non-commercial hobby/open-source software the certificate price is prohibitive, so the only 2 options are Microsoft Store or accepting that users will see the scary warnings, and of course complain to the developer about it.
Come on man, every single software developer in existence uses package managers. It should not be complicated to understand the point of the store.
You can try chocolatey store then. Community maintained.
Have people actually checked the versions there before making the suggestion?
F-Droid: Version 3.5.4 (13050408) suggested Added on Feb 23, 2023
Google Play: Updated on Aug 27, 2023https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.videolan.vlc/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.videolan.vlcThe problem seems to be squarely with VLC themselves.
But why is fdroid so behind?
Oh, then it has no purpose then
I wish I was lost in dessert, but it’s better for my wasteline that I’m not.
And good on VLC for standing up against this. This type of thing should absolutely be opt-in by the developer.
Feel for these guys.
Also MPC has been better for ages.
Don’t care, vlc is the best .
Windows only. Useless
MPC is decidedly not better than VLC.
VLC is still on Twitter? I thought they would be quick to migrate to Mastodon, slightly disappointed.
And thanks OP for linking outside of Twitter.
Mastodon and other federated platforms are still confusing to normies and less ideologically-minded users. Aside from that, unless VLC starts hosting their own instance, it is hard to say if the particular one they decide to use will stick around. They can relocate by taking some extra steps of course. But they would likely care to put that effort into making VLC Player better instead of into social media. For now at least. X has been more or less the same for a long time (even with the past couple of years) for what they use it for. I am sure they would like to be on an open platform over propriety if that were the only difference. And nothing is stopping them from using both at the same time in order to reach as many people as possible.
Probably on both?
I’ve scrolled through the F-Droid repositories in Droidify app and see that VLC does not have their own F-Droid repository ? They could create one, and set up mirrors for it, think of a way to cover the hosting costs, why not ? Making yourself depend on Apple and Google and saying that app stores were a mistake feels wrong.
Unlike certain services, the main fdroid repo is pretty reliable
Better to use the official fdroid repo
Generally with small time apps, sure, but VLC are trustworthy enough to get it straight from the source. However, it’s not like VLC is an app that you need to keep up to date as soon as possible.
It doesn’t because you should get the app from F-droid main.
and yet the fdroid version was updated last month!
I just checked it’s 23 February 2023. Last year…
Oh Jesus
Or just using their official release APK over obtainium
i love how google is not even trying to hide the fact that they are engaging in obvious extortion
“give us the keys to all your secrets so that we can secretly inject NSA malware, or be setenced to obscurity”
anyway this is what we get when we trust gargantuan multi billion corpos not to royally fuck us over
TIL that my country has bended over the copyright trolls and blocked Archive.is, need a VPN to view…
So install and updated it without going through the store apps … you can download all the installers directly from their website. Absolute non-issue.
With Play App Signing, Google manages and protects your app’s signing key for you and uses it to sign optimized, distribution APKs that are generated from your app bundles
You can use google’s play app signing. It’s not mandatory.
That is not better, it still means that the app is signed with a non private key, which goes against the very concept of the private/public key concept
Thats what they complain about. They can use it. They dont have to. Yes its bad but they mix up a lot in one post.
An unacceptable option is not an option. This is like saying somebody has access to multiple Internet providers when one ISP is so slow as to be nearly unusable, but it technically exists and you can technically pay for it. That’s not really what we mean by “choice.”
Your response is so typical and frustrating to be honest. It’s flippant nonsense where you know what we are talking about but you don’t want to agree so you hide behind lazy responses like the one you wrote.
Why do Google need the private key? I can only see it being used to modify apps without notice.
Iirc, they build the app and publish it for you. “For convenience and security”
Wow, that is terrible.
Yes, but only because it’s Google. Fdroid do exactly the same thing in their repo.
The idea behind it is sound, because otherwise you’re putting all your trust in the app developer. By having the store do some basic checks and compile the app the idea is they can guarantee no third party/bad actor has inserted malicious code.
However, this being Google, they are the bad actor.
No, that is wrong, the app developer signs the app with their private key, sends it to Google, google scans ans verifies the app, and add their signature with their own private key.
The app can thus be verified to have been built by a specific developer and verified by Google before publishing, without breaking trust
