Thanks for your response. But the Debian package is not maintained. Do you know of any other way?

It is in human nature to keep improving the state of things.

“Installing a Flatpak for example is a very valid answer and would definitely solve the problem” That wasn’t a useless comment. Although it would not have helped, it was still in the right direction. Useless comments are those claiming that I should stop using brave and just stick to firefox.

“You put the error in a screenshot which leaves it rather useless for searching the error in the web” I put the screenshot so that nothing is missed and I have seen this previously.

“In general, I’d say that you have very little error solving skills” I would say that you have very weak probabilty and statistics skill, if you can generalise the entire sample space with just a singleton event.

“and instead of thanking for “nothing” you should be thankful that people even bothered to answer.” Again, not directed to people who gave technical help or asked questions but only to those suggesting I just stick to FF or give up Brave.

“apt uses dpkg to install the deb file” Apt is a frontend for dpkg which needs a .deb file to install stuff. Apt searches for deb files in repos listed in sources.list, downloads them and then uses dpkg for installation.

My friend, when you install something using the apt package manager you are using a .deb file. It’s something getting downloaded in the background from a server (debian.org or the brave one in this case) without you realising it. Make sense?

As instructed in their webpage. Using the .deb file

Ungoogled Chromium, Chromium and Brave are not verified on flathub. I already have regular Chromium, so I can’t install the ungoogled fork as they conflict with each other.

I don’t like to leave problems unsolved. Secondly, brave comes with default adblocker. What better FOSS chromium alternatives are there?

Well the point is that he wouldn’t have the need to know if he has used something like GPL.

Linux Mint is what you are looking for.

Oh, thanks a lot for the efforts! You really are one of a kind to conduct an experiment to help out a stranger on the internet. Yeah, this actually works. I just added those lines to .xsessionrc and all problems were solved.

If you don’t mind my asking. Do you work in IT as a sysadmin or a developer or a cybersecurity expert? Or something else? I am just curious as to how may have gained such knowledge.

Hi, Thanks for the response. Sorry for disturbing you. I have tried what you have suggested here. There are two files with matching timestamps but different PATHs. I am using i3wm in Debian 11. Please tell me how to deal with this issue.

Adding those lines to .bashrc, helped with the flatpak commands. I can run them without having to type “flatpak run”. I did this for nix: export XDG_DATA_DIRS=$HOME/.nix-profile/share:$HOME/.share:“${XDG_DATA_DIRS:-/usr/local/share/:/usr/share/}” However, I still cannot see the entries in rofi. The package is Chromium browser.

I have this line export XDG_DATA_DIRS=$HOME/.nix-profile/share:$HOME/.share:“${XDG_DATA_DIRS:-/usr/local/share/:/usr/share/}” Do I need to add anything else? I do have the directory you have mentioned.

Thanks for the response. I will try to as you have advised. Adding those lines to .bashrc helped with flatpaks but not with nix.

Thanks for the response. Adding those lines to .bashrc helped with flatpaks but not with nix.

Thanks, I will check it out. Adding those lines to .bashrc helped with flatpaks but not with nix.

Adding those lines to .bashrc helped with flatpaks but not with nix.

I only have .profile. Actually adding those lines as to .bashrc as suggested by @[email protected] helped for the flatpak commands. But the issue with .desktop files for programs installed using nix still persists.

Thanks, that works with the flatpaks. However, it doesn’t seem to work with nix packages. I mean rofi doesn’t detect the .desktop files for packages installed using nix.