discord VS awesome-webauthn

FWIW, with a Discord install from a .rpm made with RPM Outpost's discord rpm maker[1], Discord works perfectly for me on Fedora. The only issues I've had is when I used the flatpak. Though I do suppose Discord should take some flak for only providing .deb files.

[1] https://github.com/RPM-Outpost/discord

He seems to have good knowledge of what he does. I don't think he installed any stuff without checking it. He even used a rpm packager for discord. From the thread: https://github.com/RPM-Outpost/discord

Please use the Flatpak from Flathub. The RPM Fusion package is poorly maintained and very often goes out of date. If you insist on using an RPM, build your own using RPM Outpost's script here.

So I have updated to 0.0.139 (canary as well of course) on Fedora/Nobara (with this: https://github.com/RPM-Outpost/discord) and I don't see Krisp on my end. Maybe they are slowly rolling it out to users?

i actually use both multimc and discord, to fix discord being corrupted when you download it as a tar from discord, i use this rpm package creator from github that fixes all of that. and for multimc, i just download it from the official site as a tar.gz and kde plasma let’s me pin the executable on my taskbar, so i’m fine there. (there is a multimc package on rpmfusion, but for whatever reason it doesn’t let you login with a microsoft account so i don’t use it)

Hello, I've tried to install discord from this repository, but i faced issues with missing packages. I did ignored them and now i cant update anything. Discord itself seems to work properly, no corrupted notification is showing up.

For Discord, I'll recommend this GitHub repo because you'll be building the packages yourself, and it usually only need a single build for a very long time + automatic updates are supported (am using Canary)

I personally use this repo to build Discord RPM and install it on my local machine. Automatic updates are supported too, have a try!

https://github.com/herrjemand/awesome-webauthn

You don't need those either, perhaps https://github.com/herrjemand/awesome-webauthn is more to your liking than the website of a standards organization.

> That’s my point. If it’s not worth your time then let others who are interested discuss rather than just pissing all over the author’s project.

I feel like there's a glass houses/stones thing going on here.

Please, quote me anything I said that was "pissing all over" it. I'm getting a strange hurt feeling vibe from you given that my only comments were entirely material.

> And what’s left is essentially wireguard for logins.

I don't get the comparison.

> People love wireguard for its simplicity because it doesn’t use certs and PAKEs and whatnot.

I don't know of a VPN that uses PAKE, so I don't get this comparison, but whatever.

> WebAuthn’s crowd and browser implementers on the other hand seem fixated on making sure users never have the option to deploy the protocol in such a way. That’s the problem.

https://github.com/herrjemand/awesome-webauthn#software-auth...?