3 ms·
I don't see an issue with the tone. Actually, why are people so concerned about tone nowadays? It matters, but this is perfectly fine. I feel like you can't f
by ylyn 6y ago
I don't see an issue with the tone.
Actually, why are people so concerned about tone nowadays? It matters, but this is perfectly fine.
I feel like you can't find anything to nitpick about the post, so you pick on the tone instead.
- zaarn 6y agoI've brought up issues beside tone because of this. In case those aren't enough; I think the issues brought up aren't issues with flatpak. The first issue is with a GUI application on top of flatpak and the second is a packaging issue of the runtimes. These aren't inherently problems with flatpak so I mentally don't count them.
- steerablesafe 6y agoDon't forget lying about sandboxing.
- dylan-m 6y agoYeah, that's a dubious claim as well. Here is how GNOME Software presents a sandboxed application: https://i.imgur.com/VMsj6mk.png https://i.imgur.com/VMsj6mk.png Is it a bad interface? Sure. Is the list of permissions hard to find? Hell yes. Is the Sandboxed emblem kind of misleading? Yeah. But here (in at least GNOME Software 3.36) you see a list of the relevant permissions available to the application. Nobody is lying here. For contrast, here is an application with a stricter sandbox: https://i.imgur.com/lCGgA1B.png https://i.imgur.com/lCGgA1B.png The point here is both of these are sandboxed. Each sandbox just has particular holes in it. For GNU Octave, more than seems appropriate. Users misunderstand that in the same way people misunderstand "autopilot" and that's a good issue to bring up, but then I don't think non-technical users understand what "sandboxed" means anyway and technical users should be able to take one more gorramn step and learn that "sandboxed" obviously comes with particular limitations [at least in the present day] or it isn't going to do anything.