3 ms·

This is a bad title along with a bad article. Either the author has no idea what a package manager is supposed to do, or its intentionally clickbait. Really dis

This is a bad title along with a bad article. Either the author has no idea what a package manager is supposed to do, or its intentionally clickbait. Really disappointing.

topspin 10y ago
A classic piece of FUD. It is indeed disappointing.
danieldk 10y ago
In Canonical's original announcement: The security mechanisms in snap packages allow for much faster iteration [across all versions of Ubuntu] and Ubuntu derivatives, as [snap applications are isolated from the rest of the system]. Source: https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/20/canonical-unveils-6th-lts-release-of-ubuntu-with-16-04/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/20/canonical-unveils-6th... Canonical is selling snake oil here when it comes to the desktop. snap applications are not isolated, because they still have full access to any other X11 application due to X11s security model. Garret is right on calling them out on this. Compare this e.g. to OS X where there is both sandboxing (as in the application cannot touch other parts of the filesystem, unless you explicitly allow it to) and GUI isolation (applications cannot read events sent to other applications, unless it's an accessibility application and explicitly enabled by the user).
- szerated 10y ago
  You have to be looking for faults in the language to be concerned over something like this. I know everyone isn't the biggest fan of canonical, and there are good reasons why that is. But they aren't trying to mislead anyone here. You can't possibly try to fault Canonical for X11's "security problem". I don't know enough about either platform to respond to your OSX comparison. But if the concern is that they don't isolate enough then you are entitled to that opinion. But overall this is an improvement in this regard (whether or not its an improvement to the overall package management system is open to interpretation).

This is a bad title along with a bad article. Either the author has no idea what a package manager is supposed to do, or its intentionally clickbait. Really disappointing.

topspin 10y ago

A classic piece of FUD. It is indeed disappointing.

danieldk 10y ago

In Canonical's original announcement: The security mechanisms in snap packages allow for much faster iteration [across all versions of Ubuntu] and Ubuntu derivatives, as [snap applications are isolated from the rest of the system]. Source: https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/20/canonical-unveils-6th-lts-release-of-ubuntu-with-16-04/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/20/canonical-unveils-6th... Canonical is selling snake oil here when it comes to the desktop. snap applications are not isolated, because they still have full access to any other X11 application due to X11s security model. Garret is right on calling them out on this. Compare this e.g. to OS X where there is both sandboxing (as in the application cannot touch other parts of the filesystem, unless you explicitly allow it to) and GUI isolation (applications cannot read events sent to other applications, unless it's an accessibility application and explicitly enabled by the user).

szerated 10y ago
You have to be looking for faults in the language to be concerned over something like this. I know everyone isn't the biggest fan of canonical, and there are good reasons why that is. But they aren't trying to mislead anyone here. You can't possibly try to fault Canonical for X11's "security problem". I don't know enough about either platform to respond to your OSX comparison. But if the concern is that they don't isolate enough then you are entitled to that opinion. But overall this is an improvement in this regard (whether or not its an improvement to the overall package management system is open to interpretation).