I know its user produced content. But there are still rules that are enforced by Archteam and they host and link to it. And why not tell people about security issues? They could at least tell people in the news, so we can act accordingly. This is super disappointing. Is there any trustworthy RSS feed that covers this?

Why is this not found in the official news for Archlinux? https://archlinux.org/news/

There are couple of factors that makes this a confusing topic.

Vim: On a high level, normally Vim (and Neovim) have their own clipboard system. Vim has multiple internal clipboards that can be used like variables and accessed with other commands. So its kind of sandboxed from your system. But you can explicitly use the commands to access the system clipboard. There is a configuration you can set to use the system clipboard by default.

Linux: Unlike Windows, in Linux we also have two kind of clipboards: the “system” clipboard as you know and the “primary” clipboard. This has nothing to do with Vim and is a feature on Linux systems itself. If you in example in your browser mark a text without copying, it is automatically copied into the “primary” clipboard. Then you should be able to access and paste it with middle mouse button in example. The system clipboard where you explicitly copy stuff is not affected by it.

You should read following documentation: 09.3 The clipboard - Neovim

Unless its coded with JavaScript (me mocking the date function). Not that I am a JavaScript programmer, I just happen to know its totally broken.

Could someone explain what’s going on with this comment and why its upvoted so much? It’s a genuine question. What’s wrong with his phone (and how do you know what he uses)?

The quoted image does not say so, they do not say the native packaging from your distribution is borderline unusable. That judgement was added by YOU. The devs just state the package on Archlinux is not officially supported, without making a judgement (at least in the quoted image).

As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue. Fedora did package the application in Flatpak their own way and presented it as the official product. That is a complete different issue! That has nothing to do with Archlinux packaging their own native format. Archlinux never said or presented it as the official package either and it does not look like the official Flatpak version.

So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is “borderline unusable”?

And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.

But why is that? I mean just because it is packaged by someone else does not mean its unusable. So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right? In installed the Flatpak version, because they developers recommended it to me. I’m not sure why the Archlinux package should be unusable (and I don’t want to mess around with it, because I don’t know what part is unusable).

(just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu)

Aged like fine milk. Looking at you, GNU Hurd.