5 ms·

This page is really old, but I disagree with "the users are misled to believe the apps run sandboxed". I think most people use flatpak (and/or snap, appimage,

This page is really old, but I disagree with "the users are misled to believe the apps run sandboxed". I think most people use flatpak (and/or snap, appimage, etc.) as a way of installing applications in a way that does not contaminate the host OS, and a way of removing them again without leaving any traces behind. For example, it's an extremely convenient way of installing Steam without having to worry about its obscure, 32-bit, dependencies. That they are sandboxed, or not, is very much secondary, for most users, I believe.

livre 6y ago
As a user and someone who knows nothing about flatpak other than "it can install apps" what you said is true. I use flatpak and appimage because they allow me to use software without cluttering my /bin and other root subdirectories. And also because I can install with them software that my distro does not include in its repositories. All resides in my home and it's easy to remove without leaving any traces. I didn't know flatpak apps were supposed to be sandboxed until I read this article when it was posted a few years ago. Whenever I want to sandbox something I use firejail.
gentleman11 6y ago
What I know about flatpak was from some Linux you tubers who led me to believe it was a sandbox. For that matter, some hn users posted similar things in the last month when talking about snaps iirc
- vetinari 6y ago
  Flatpak has a sandbox; but for some apps, it has to be a more open, otherwise they would not work as intended. All that's open is visible as a flatpak permission; if you want, you can tighten it up and see, what breaks. On the other side spectrum are people, that are disappointed, that they cannot use SDKs installed at random places in their host system with editors packaged with Flatpak. Well, duh...
trevyn 6y ago
Someone might want to fix the Wikipedia, then: “Flatpak is a utility for software deployment and package management for Linux. It is advertised as offering a sandbox environment in which users can run application software in isolation from the rest of the system.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatpak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatpak
alxlaz 6y ago
> That they are sandboxed, or not, is very much secondary, for most users, I believe. It's been very much not secondary to the PR effort behind it. A few years ago, when the first usable releases started popping up, sandboxing was the touted as Flatapk's biggest advantage and basically the reason why it was the future of Linux software distribution on the desktop. That's why that page gives sandboxing so much importance.
- jaekash 6y ago
  > It's been very much not secondary to the PR effort behind it. I disagree, have not seen container mentioned in PR materials for flatpak even once. I actually was not sure they were using that for sandboxing, I just knew they did some manner of sandboxing as it was making things break in some cases.
  - alxlaz 6y ago
    > I disagree, have not seen container mentioned in PR materials for flatpak even once. Until one or two years ago hardly a month went by without one of these hitting one of the various Linux communities. I'm not sure how you missed them. Just one example that I literally got to by googling "flatpak is the future": https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-future-of-linux-desktop-application-delivery-is-flatpak-and-snap/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-future-of-linux-desktop-ap... And sure enough, right in the middle of that piece, is this bit: "Applications delivered by either run in a virtual sandbox. This makes them safer to use. They can also run on any desktop distro. Neither users nor ISVs have to worry about the underlying distro or its version because all the needed components for the application come already bundled."

livre 6y ago

As a user and someone who knows nothing about flatpak other than "it can install apps" what you said is true. I use flatpak and appimage because they allow me to use software without cluttering my /bin and other root subdirectories. And also because I can install with them software that my distro does not include in its repositories. All resides in my home and it's easy to remove without leaving any traces. I didn't know flatpak apps were supposed to be sandboxed until I read this article when it was posted a few years ago. Whenever I want to sandbox something I use firejail.

gentleman11 6y ago

What I know about flatpak was from some Linux you tubers who led me to believe it was a sandbox. For that matter, some hn users posted similar things in the last month when talking about snaps iirc

vetinari 6y ago
Flatpak has a sandbox; but for some apps, it has to be a more open, otherwise they would not work as intended. All that's open is visible as a flatpak permission; if you want, you can tighten it up and see, what breaks. On the other side spectrum are people, that are disappointed, that they cannot use SDKs installed at random places in their host system with editors packaged with Flatpak. Well, duh...

trevyn 6y ago

Someone might want to fix the Wikipedia, then: “Flatpak is a utility for software deployment and package management for Linux. It is advertised as offering a sandbox environment in which users can run application software in isolation from the rest of the system.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatpak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatpak

alxlaz 6y ago

> That they are sandboxed, or not, is very much secondary, for most users, I believe. It's been very much not secondary to the PR effort behind it. A few years ago, when the first usable releases started popping up, sandboxing was the touted as Flatapk's biggest advantage and basically the reason why it was the future of Linux software distribution on the desktop. That's why that page gives sandboxing so much importance.

jaekash 6y ago
> It's been very much not secondary to the PR effort behind it. I disagree, have not seen container mentioned in PR materials for flatpak even once. I actually was not sure they were using that for sandboxing, I just knew they did some manner of sandboxing as it was making things break in some cases.
- alxlaz 6y ago
  > I disagree, have not seen container mentioned in PR materials for flatpak even once. Until one or two years ago hardly a month went by without one of these hitting one of the various Linux communities. I'm not sure how you missed them. Just one example that I literally got to by googling "flatpak is the future": https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-future-of-linux-desktop-application-delivery-is-flatpak-and-snap/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-future-of-linux-desktop-ap... And sure enough, right in the middle of that piece, is this bit: "Applications delivered by either run in a virtual sandbox. This makes them safer to use. They can also run on any desktop distro. Neither users nor ISVs have to worry about the underlying distro or its version because all the needed components for the application come already bundled."