On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:34:32AM -0300, riveravaldez wrote: > On 4/9/21, tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 04:15:07AM -0300, riveravaldez wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> Trying to decide which is less-worse in a scenario of unavoidable > >> use of some of these. > > > > Is it really unavoidable? Or just a tad less convenient? > > Well, that's a pretty subjective issue, to be honest... ;) Of course. > > > Can you pose one concrete use case where it is unavoidable? > > Not sure if *unavoidable* but I didn't found a better solution at the > time: > A client for which laptop I'd installed Debian was in job-need of > using Skype and Zoom. Thanks for the example. > Her employers wouldn't use anything > else, so, I was looking for the better/safer way to install such damn > closed-source pieces of soft (in particular I hate Zoom, but that's > another subjective issue...) in a for anything else fully libre/secure > perfectly working Debian system. [...] Makes sense. Of course, some VM deployment could be even a tad more secure, but if you look deep down, all security is moot when you give the app direct access to, say, the GPU. And even assuming a video app could work satisfactorily with a virtualised GPU (I never tried!), I don't think current implementations are remotely secure. But I'm no expert in there. > While typing this I've checked and found that both Zoom and Skype > seem to offer through-browser video-call right now (Skype only for > Chrome, and I'm not sure if it works for Chromium). So, right now > this case only would be relevant for Skype let's say. (Anyway, I've > found that specific-application performance is usually superior that > through-browser performance when using video-calls, specially > notorious in old boxes.) Yes, Zoom has a web client, I helped a friend of mine through her steps with that. What I noticed was that it has less features than the native client: this was at times confusing, because her peer told her to push this-and-that button on the UI, which weren't in the web version. I think this is intentional on Zoom's part. They're in the "embrace" phase: suck in people even if they are reluctant to commit to the whole gorilla (aka the "native app"). Whenever they think there's enough fish securely in their net, they'll start the "squeeze" phase. Capitalists are like that. > > This may sound as an attempt to troll. > > Not coming from you, obviously. ^_^ Thanks ♥ But I'm human, too, and I do horrible things from time to time. > As any gentle and very intelligent person would do. Naturally. This is nearly too kind of you. Thanks, again. > > For example: would a more broad availability of backports reduce > > the need for snaps, flats or how they may be called? > > > > Such kind of questions. > > Well, that's an excellent point, and I think that, in general, the answer > will be 'yes', at least thinking in the use of newer packages in Stable. > But I'm a Testing user, so, not sure if this assumption has any value. > > In the other hand, for proprietary software -when unavoidable- what > would be better/simpler way to have it under control (if such thing is > somehow possible)? Up to now, I've avoided the problem. I think I'd try to go with a VM, or, if possible, with a small and nearly-disposable thingy, like a Raspberry Pi. A setup I'd like to see is a Raspi or similar, with a minimal boot "drive" (SD card) having its image on my "main" computer (the Pi 4 can even boot off the net natively), via NBD or some network file system, where I can pick and choose what to boot. A kind of externalised VM, if you like. Ah, projects :) > Thanks a lot for your answers and help. Regards! Thank you, cheers - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature