4 ms·
Yes and no. Application sandboxing is not a need I have or one that I want my display manager to solve. But incompatibility vs the architecture disallows feat
by ralfn 6y ago
Yes and no.
Application sandboxing is not a need I have or one that I want my display manager to solve.
But incompatibility vs the architecture disallows features like screen sharing, automation or accessibility means I will not ever have it installed anywhere.
I can't tell people want to do, but those features seem very "contemporary" to me.
Perhaps it's because I use linux as my work desktop. I suppose if this is the feature I should just migrate to OSX.
Because I need video conferencing. I don't need a sandbox. I already am selective about what I install and most of those things aren't even desktop applications.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago> I already am selective about what I install and most of those things aren't even desktop applications. in X any application can turn into a keylogger, and you don't need a GUI for it, as long as the program can "speak X" it will be able to read the shared memory of all other programs the X server manages.
- ralfn 6y agoYeah. But that's a company risk. Not being able to participate in video conferencing and desktop sharing is an employment risk. Im a picky person though. I already use i3, but also have NVidia gpu's. I don't mind spending some money on another real GPU (will it work with AMD). I understand the frustration of the developers too. But screen sharing or my custom screenshot tool.. are things that will make me recompile if needed for days before I give up and abandon linux for the desktop. I realize I'm spoiled, but I do wonder if this is the direction things are going who is going to be that hypothetical user that cares?
- sam_lowry_ 6y agoI run 4 applications: Chromium, Xterm, Gimp and IntelliJ. Am I unsecure?
- rkangel 6y agoYou don't need application sandboxing from your display manager. I at least, do want my display manager not to break all other application sandboxing.