3 ms·

> The security model of allowing apps access to your full filesystem (assuming your user has access) is flawed. Your are neglecting the option of exposing a li

> The security model of allowing apps access to your full filesystem (assuming your user has access) is flawed. Your are neglecting the option of exposing a limited subview of the filesystem like containers do. > But people are working on a solution.[1] The big red box on top says it's not on standards-track. > WebRTC while not the same and far more overhead (due to TCP sockets vs OS level sockets) can function very much like IPC. Can I send open file descriptors like I can with unix domain sockets? Can I share memory for low-latency atomics? Futexes? > So is X Window. Maybe if you're remoting X, few people do that these days. In practice X applications have access to the same machine that they are drawing on.

throwaway2016a 8y ago
> Your are neglecting the option of exposing a limited subview of the filesystem like containers do. No I'm not. I said the limitation is a step forward. I didn't intend to imply it is perfect. It is not at all perfect. > The big red box on top says it's not on standards-track. Correct, but most standards started as experiments by the browsers. I think it qualifies as "people are working on it" but means it is probably far from being standardized. > Can I send open file descriptors like I can with unix domain sockets? Can I share memory for low-latency atomics? Futexes? No. But you already knew that. But it does allow for data communication which in my opinion solves the 80% use case for IPC. From my experience (YMMV) the features you described while useful are not needed for most consumer apps. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The problem isn't perfectionism, but that at least some of us believe that things are moving in the wrong direction - towards making vendors own everything, and end-users in control of nothing.

throwaway2016a 8y ago

> Your are neglecting the option of exposing a limited subview of the filesystem like containers do. No I'm not. I said the limitation is a step forward. I didn't intend to imply it is perfect. It is not at all perfect. > The big red box on top says it's not on standards-track. Correct, but most standards started as experiments by the browsers. I think it qualifies as "people are working on it" but means it is probably far from being standardized. > Can I send open file descriptors like I can with unix domain sockets? Can I share memory for low-latency atomics? Futexes? No. But you already knew that. But it does allow for data communication which in my opinion solves the 80% use case for IPC. From my experience (YMMV) the features you described while useful are not needed for most consumer apps. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The problem isn't perfectionism, but that at least some of us believe that things are moving in the wrong direction - towards making vendors own everything, and end-users in control of nothing.