3 ms·
I don't understand how you can say "flatpak has never claimed to be a security panacea. They didn't invent flatpak for the sake of security." and read that whil
by jcelerier 6y ago
I don't understand how you can say "flatpak has never claimed to be a security panacea. They didn't invent flatpak for the sake of security." and read that while keeping a straight face.
Even if it takes 3 decades, it's still a goal that was there (and advertised as such) from the very inception of the project, 5-6 years ago.
- nickysielicki 6y agoWhat I wrote is, > flatpak has never claimed to be a security panacea. > They didn't invent flatpak for the sake of security. > Flatpak is fundamentally a distro-agnostic packaging mechanism. > [Security] wasn't ever billed as the main idea. and we keep digging up old posts from the flatpak folks that say their main focus isn't security, and that security isn't ready, and that the primary usage is as an environment for desktop apps to be built, packaged, and distributed. Are they not allowed to think about security and sandboxing without making it their primary focus on day one?
- jcelerier 6y ago> Are they not allowed to think about security and sandboxing without making it their primary focus on day one? a headline that titles "security first" is incompatible with security not being one of their main focus. They had to think better about it (or issue a rectification press release later).