3 ms·

I wrote an analysis of the most popular creative apps across various industries[0], none of them are sandboxed, and all of them support plugins of some kind, wh

I wrote an analysis of the most popular creative apps across various industries[0], none of them are sandboxed, and all of them support plugins of some kind, which is the main type of functionality that sandboxing makes difficult. Also, Photoshop was once also the undisputed king of user-interface design, but they were dethroned by Sketch, an app that was first released one year before sandboxing came into effect. Is any of this conclusive? No. But do I see a pattern sandboxing putting a ceiling on how successful a creative app can be? Overwhelmingly yes. [0]: https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-have-failed-creative-apps/ https://blog.robenkleene.com/2019/08/07/apples-app-stores-ha...

pjmlp 7y ago
The way things are going across all consumer OSes, running without a sandbox will eventually something only available in FOSS OS clones. And I seriously doubt that applications like Photoshop will migrate to them just because of that.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  If that happens then interesting new applications and ideas will start appearing on these FOSS OSes since those will be the OSes where such things will be possible. People do not use computers for their OSes, they use computers for the applications they can run on them and if all the new interesting stuff comes out in the free FOSS OSes then people will start migrating to using those OSes. Nowadays this doesn't happen much because there is no incentive.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    I remember that speech when DX 10 was not available on XP, I also used to believe in Desktop Linux dream, nowadays I just use Apple, Google, MS desktop and mobile platforms.
    - badsectoracula 7y ago
      Both of what you write have nothing to do with what i wrote. DirectX 10 might not have been available on XP, but DirectX 9 was, as was OpenGL that exposed the DX10 level functionality through extensions. If anything, DX10 pretty much failed to gain traction exactly because it was not available on the OS gamers wanted to use at the time. Very very few engines used DX10 and pretty much every engine skipped form DX9 to DX11. Also as i already wrote above, currently there isn't really much of an incentive for people to switch (outside of ideological and/or very niche reasons) so the "Desktop Linux dream" doesn't apply.

pjmlp 7y ago

The way things are going across all consumer OSes, running without a sandbox will eventually something only available in FOSS OS clones. And I seriously doubt that applications like Photoshop will migrate to them just because of that.

badsectoracula 7y ago
If that happens then interesting new applications and ideas will start appearing on these FOSS OSes since those will be the OSes where such things will be possible. People do not use computers for their OSes, they use computers for the applications they can run on them and if all the new interesting stuff comes out in the free FOSS OSes then people will start migrating to using those OSes. Nowadays this doesn't happen much because there is no incentive.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  I remember that speech when DX 10 was not available on XP, I also used to believe in Desktop Linux dream, nowadays I just use Apple, Google, MS desktop and mobile platforms.
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    Both of what you write have nothing to do with what i wrote. DirectX 10 might not have been available on XP, but DirectX 9 was, as was OpenGL that exposed the DX10 level functionality through extensions. If anything, DX10 pretty much failed to gain traction exactly because it was not available on the OS gamers wanted to use at the time. Very very few engines used DX10 and pretty much every engine skipped form DX9 to DX11. Also as i already wrote above, currently there isn't really much of an incentive for people to switch (outside of ideological and/or very niche reasons) so the "Desktop Linux dream" doesn't apply.