5 ms·

That is being worked on. On many fronts. Linux containers are getting better. iOS is sandboxing applications to some extend. Android too and is slowly adding fi

by TekMol 7y ago

That is being worked on. On many fronts. Linux containers are getting better. iOS is sandboxing applications to some extend. Android too and is slowly adding finer and finer sandboxing settings. ChromeOS also does sandboxing. I don't know about Windows, but I guess something similar is happening over there. My money is on the Browser. Because it has proven (via survival of the fittest) that it is the best platform for the modern age. It has what, 100% market share? Everybody I know can use websites. Even if one of the desktop or mobile operating systems adds sufficient sandboxing in the future, I would not want to develop applications for it. Because it would restrict my creation to the people who use that one platform. And it would give the power to censor it or mingle with it to the platform operator.

pjmlp 7y ago
Windows has been on the sandbox path since Windows 8. Every release gets a bit more of that, regardless how many feel about the store or UWP API in general.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I don't want to only use trusted sources from any software store. If UWP had provided sensible deployment options, it wouldn't be as dead as it is. Hell, personal firewalls provide a better sandbox solution, at least for network access, even if that is not really their intended function. Be that as it may, I think good privacy laws and holding software manufacturers accountable is part of a solution. That software more and more behaves like worms regarding to user data is a more recent development.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    UWP is not dead, every Windows release adds more API space, React Native for Windows uses UWP, Windows 10 drivers now use UWP APIs as well (Universal drivers), WinUI uses UWP, XAML Islands use UWP, ... WinUI is also the official replacement for MFC, which triggered the rewritte of some UWP components into C++/WinRT from .NET Native. Windows store supports side loading since Windows 8.1, and MSIX packages have replaced APPX and MSI as the future of Windows package formats. Win32 APIs are frozen in amber since Windows 7.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      Maybe. I am not really happy with it to be honest. Win32 is old and I thought WPF would be a real alternative. It did many things better than classical APIs, but I was never really into XAML and it was dropped just after a few years. I took a quick look at UWP which uses XAML in a different way, but I wasn't really convinced by it. I am not interested in side loading anything. I have just no interest to use an API that is abused to promote a proprietary store and an OS because I only see disadvantages in that. UWP may have changed by now, but for me it is too late. I have switched to other technologies and are pretty happy with them. If windows continues to be SaaS, I will not develop for it. Even if its legacy might continue for a few decades. If the primary form of deployment is a store, I could as well use Apple. Although their store isn't really shining on Mac OS as well. I believe there are good reasons for that. Windows as a platform had many advantages, but it seems to me that MS threw that away to emulate others. A futile strategy in my opinion.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        Have you been paying attention regarding Apple platforms? > Beginning in macOS 10.15, notarization is required by default for all software. Taken from https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... Web, iOS, watchOS, iPadOS, Android, ChromeOS all use some form of sandboxing. So unless your alternatives are the 1% GNU/Linux desktop market, sandboxes are here to stay.
        raxxorrax 7y ago
        That will result in a lot less software for mac OS. Since there are many applications that certainly will not spend anything on developer ids, e.g. most open source software there will simply be less builds for the platform. ChromeOS supports android apps, but yes, I would state that iOS, chromeOS and android are really bad operating systems.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Regarding ChromeOS: "Linux for Chromebooks: Secure Development" > Learn how Linux for Chromebooks (Crostini) gives you a secure sandbox for development. Through a variety of demos, this talk will explain the architecture underlying Linux for Chromebooks and the design decisions that keep it easy to use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI And Android: "Adopting the Arm Memory Tagging Extension in Android" https://security.googleblog.com/2019/08/adopting-arm-memory-tagging-extension.html https://security.googleblog.com/2019/08/adopting-arm-memory-... "https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/restrictions-non-sdk-interfaces" https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/deve... https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/restrictions-non-sdk-interfaces https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/deve... "Improving Stability with Private C/C++ Symbol Restrictions in Android N" https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/improving-stability-with-private-cc.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/improving-... "Android NDK Native APIs" https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis
papermachete 7y ago
>ecause it would restrict my creation to the people who use that one platform. And it would give the power to censor it or mingle with it to the platform operator. But that's exactly what's happening with browsers. Suddenly, Google wants to raze ad blocking, and everyone else follows. All the good points for browsers are restrictions and standardisations, which are fully present in exemplary containers. I don't see how you can get vendor locked-in via docker or kubernetes, I can see how webkit and DRM can.
- tiborsaas 7y ago
  There is no vendor lock-in if you use standard, battle tested web technologies with a few exceptions. If you use the browser as a UI platform, then OP is right.
  - anderspitman 7y ago
    DRM video is a pretty big exception, and Google is already a de facto gatekeeper there.
    - tiborsaas 7y ago
      That was I was thinking about, but DRM is flawed anyways. I don't think there's anything on Netflix for example that isn't available on torrents or other file sharing methods.

by TekMol 7y ago

pjmlp 7y ago

Windows has been on the sandbox path since Windows 8. Every release gets a bit more of that, regardless how many feel about the store or UWP API in general.

raxxorrax 7y ago
I don't want to only use trusted sources from any software store. If UWP had provided sensible deployment options, it wouldn't be as dead as it is. Hell, personal firewalls provide a better sandbox solution, at least for network access, even if that is not really their intended function. Be that as it may, I think good privacy laws and holding software manufacturers accountable is part of a solution. That software more and more behaves like worms regarding to user data is a more recent development.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  UWP is not dead, every Windows release adds more API space, React Native for Windows uses UWP, Windows 10 drivers now use UWP APIs as well (Universal drivers), WinUI uses UWP, XAML Islands use UWP, ... WinUI is also the official replacement for MFC, which triggered the rewritte of some UWP components into C++/WinRT from .NET Native. Windows store supports side loading since Windows 8.1, and MSIX packages have replaced APPX and MSI as the future of Windows package formats. Win32 APIs are frozen in amber since Windows 7.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Maybe. I am not really happy with it to be honest. Win32 is old and I thought WPF would be a real alternative. It did many things better than classical APIs, but I was never really into XAML and it was dropped just after a few years. I took a quick look at UWP which uses XAML in a different way, but I wasn't really convinced by it. I am not interested in side loading anything. I have just no interest to use an API that is abused to promote a proprietary store and an OS because I only see disadvantages in that. UWP may have changed by now, but for me it is too late. I have switched to other technologies and are pretty happy with them. If windows continues to be SaaS, I will not develop for it. Even if its legacy might continue for a few decades. If the primary form of deployment is a store, I could as well use Apple. Although their store isn't really shining on Mac OS as well. I believe there are good reasons for that. Windows as a platform had many advantages, but it seems to me that MS threw that away to emulate others. A futile strategy in my opinion.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Have you been paying attention regarding Apple platforms? > Beginning in macOS 10.15, notarization is required by default for all software. Taken from https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... Web, iOS, watchOS, iPadOS, Android, ChromeOS all use some form of sandboxing. So unless your alternatives are the 1% GNU/Linux desktop market, sandboxes are here to stay.
      - raxxorrax 7y ago
        That will result in a lot less software for mac OS. Since there are many applications that certainly will not spend anything on developer ids, e.g. most open source software there will simply be less builds for the platform. ChromeOS supports android apps, but yes, I would state that iOS, chromeOS and android are really bad operating systems.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        Regarding ChromeOS: "Linux for Chromebooks: Secure Development" > Learn how Linux for Chromebooks (Crostini) gives you a secure sandbox for development. Through a variety of demos, this talk will explain the architecture underlying Linux for Chromebooks and the design decisions that keep it easy to use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRlh8LX4kQI And Android: "Adopting the Arm Memory Tagging Extension in Android" https://security.googleblog.com/2019/08/adopting-arm-memory-tagging-extension.html https://security.googleblog.com/2019/08/adopting-arm-memory-... "https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/restrictions-non-sdk-interfaces" https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/deve... https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/restrictions-non-sdk-interfaces https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/deve... "Improving Stability with Private C/C++ Symbol Restrictions in Android N" https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/improving-stability-with-private-cc.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/improving-... "Android NDK Native APIs" https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis

papermachete 7y ago

>ecause it would restrict my creation to the people who use that one platform. And it would give the power to censor it or mingle with it to the platform operator. But that's exactly what's happening with browsers. Suddenly, Google wants to raze ad blocking, and everyone else follows. All the good points for browsers are restrictions and standardisations, which are fully present in exemplary containers. I don't see how you can get vendor locked-in via docker or kubernetes, I can see how webkit and DRM can.

tiborsaas 7y ago
There is no vendor lock-in if you use standard, battle tested web technologies with a few exceptions. If you use the browser as a UI platform, then OP is right.
- anderspitman 7y ago
  DRM video is a pretty big exception, and Google is already a de facto gatekeeper there.
  - tiborsaas 7y ago
    That was I was thinking about, but DRM is flawed anyways. I don't think there's anything on Netflix for example that isn't available on torrents or other file sharing methods.