3 ms·
If I understand correctly, a lot of desktop apps need to rewrite their parts of code to adopt to flatpak, and probably also snap to use the sandbox correctly. T
by akerro 6y ago
If I understand correctly, a lot of desktop apps need to rewrite their parts of code to adopt to flatpak, and probably also snap to use the sandbox correctly. This post is therefor not criticizing flatpak but GNU Octave for not having enough dev power to implement it.
- enriquto 6y ago> a lot of desktop apps need to rewrite their parts of code (...) to use the sandbox correctly. This is completely backwards. Security features and encapsulation are the responsibility of the operating system. Never of the individual applications nor the package maintainers. A good, secure, operating system should be able to run hostile apps safely. For all its shittiness and complexity, this is something that browser developers got somewhat right.
- elcomet 6y agoI don't agree with your statement. Apps can use some low-level calls to the OS, to do things that cannot be replicated in the same way in a sandbox. So it is not surprising that some parts of apps must be rewritten. If they are not rewritten, they just don't work in the sandbox. That's exactly the goal of a sandbox. Provide safe API for applications, and block apps that are trying to access more.