3 ms·
> 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
by 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."