5 ms·

> You can sandbox desktop apps You can do a lot of things in theory, but in practice browsers are much better sandboxes than desktop operating systems. > a br

> You can sandbox desktop apps You can do a lot of things in theory, but in practice browsers are much better sandboxes than desktop operating systems. > a browser that is so complex that nobody can even imagine writing a new one. I'm not sure how this is relevant? As a user I don't care how complex a browser is. I care that it sandboxes applications better than my desktop operating system. Unless you mean to say that the complexity implies a greater surface area for security related bugs, in which case surely the underlying os is even more complex (which is what native apps run on). I would imagine writing a new desktop os would be even more complex than writing a browser app that runs on top of it. > For instance Android does that sandboxing by default. Ok, so now we're talking about mobile operating systems rather than desktop operating systems, which to me feels like an implicit concession that desktop operating systems are indeed bad at sandboxing applications. But even if we do shift the goalposts — even mobile operating systems pale in comparison to a web browser when it comes to sandboxing. Android and iOS will notify you if an app reads from the clipboard (which they've only recently started doing), but your browser won't just notify you, it'll ask you to confirm before a website reads from the clipboard. A website can't even make a request to a third party domain unless the website has cors enabled. And new vulnerabilities pop up all the time. There was an article that generated a lot of traction on HN just a few weeks ago about how certain iOS applications can pinpoint your location by scanning for known hot spots your device has access to [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38720656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38720656

palata 3y ago
> but in practice browsers are much better sandboxes than desktop operating systems. Do you know anything about sandboxing, or are you throwing that there for the sake of the argument? > I would imagine writing a new desktop os would be even more complex than writing a browser app that runs on top of it. Oh right, I guess you don't really know about sandboxing then. So it won't be a super constructive debate given that your position is apparently fundamentally based on your intuition about sandboxing. > As a user I [...] I don't know who invented that "As a user" thing, but I find it completely stupid. In my view it is just used as a justification for anything one wants when they don't have a better argument. In this case users are perfectly fine running standalone apps on their smartphone, let's not pretend they would really not want the same model on their desktop. > which to me feels like an implicit concession that desktop operating systems are indeed bad at sandboxing applications. Not at all, I was just giving a real-world example of sandboxing of apps at scale. > even mobile operating systems pale in comparison to a web browser when it comes to sandboxing If your baseline is sending a full web browser with every app you make, on desktop you could run each app in a VM and it would obviously be better. > A website can't even make a request to a third party domain unless the website has cors enabled. An app can't make a request unless it has the internet permission, what's your point? My point is that webapps move everything into the browser, going towards a world where something like ChromeOS is the only valid way to use a computer. I want to choose my OS, I don't want to rent an OS provided by BigTech, whether it is ChromeOS, Windows or anything else. The model where users pay for a product but don't own it is good for companies, not for users. "As a user", I want to own the product I pay for. And I want to pay for the product I want to own.
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  > I don't know who invented that "As a user" thing, but I find it completely stupid. In my view it is just used as a justification for anything one wants when they don't have a better argument. > "As a user", I want to own the product I pay for. Ironically, you're the one who lacks a concrete argument, which is why you're attacking the wording of my statement, rather than the substance of it. You're honing in on the first three words of my sentence, because you can't debate the argument on its merits. You then use the exact same wording in your final sentence, but encase it in quotes as if that somehow absolves you of your hypocrisy. Given that this website is frequented by software developers, I think there's a useful distinction to be made between thinking about problems in terms of their development, versus thinking about them in terms of their utility to end users. > Not at all, I was just giving a real-world example of sandboxing of apps at scale. It would be charitable of me to call it a "real-word example". You simply said "Android does that sandboxing by default", without a single supporting statement or example, despite your so-called extensive knowledge of sandboxing. > If your baseline is sending a full web browser with every app you make, on desktop you could run each app in a VM and it would obviously be better. No one is "sending a full web browser with every app you make". Browsers come preinstalled on every popular operating system. > An app can't make a request unless it has the internet permission, what's your point? What in the world is "the internet permission"? I've never had an operating system ask me if I'd like to grant an app "the internet permission". Have you operated a computer before? > Do you know anything about sandboxing, or are you throwing that there for the sake of the argument? > Oh right, I guess you don't really know about sandboxing then. So it won't be a super constructive debate given that your position is apparently fundamentally based on your intuition about sandboxing. As someone who's written both web apps and desktop apps, I do in fact know a considerable amount about sandboxing. Do you know anything about sandboxing? You're questioning my knowledge to deflect from your lack of a coherent rebuttal. What exactly have you written during this conversation to demonstrate your comprehensive knowledge of sandboxing? You're concluding that I lack knowledge on sandboxing because I admitted to not having single-handedly written an operating system or web browser? Really? Are you writing an OS in your free time when you're not writing about the mysterious "internet permission"? > My point is that webapps move everything into the browser, going towards a world where something like ChromeOS is the only valid way to use a computer. I want to choose my OS, I don't want to rent an OS provided by BigTech You've got it backwards. If I want to add support for users running a free open-source operating system like Linux, as a web app developer I don't have to do anything special. Linux can run web browsers, and therefore it can run web apps. Case in point is Photoshop. Neither Photoshop nor the rest of the Adobe Creative Suite runs on Linux, but the Photoshop web app does, because web apps are universal. There's a reason why Apple took years to finally add push notification support to iOS web apps, because web apps threaten the mobile operating system duopoly.

palata 3y ago

> but in practice browsers are much better sandboxes than desktop operating systems. Do you know anything about sandboxing, or are you throwing that there for the sake of the argument? > I would imagine writing a new desktop os would be even more complex than writing a browser app that runs on top of it. Oh right, I guess you don't really know about sandboxing then. So it won't be a super constructive debate given that your position is apparently fundamentally based on your intuition about sandboxing. > As a user I [...] I don't know who invented that "As a user" thing, but I find it completely stupid. In my view it is just used as a justification for anything one wants when they don't have a better argument. In this case users are perfectly fine running standalone apps on their smartphone, let's not pretend they would really not want the same model on their desktop. > which to me feels like an implicit concession that desktop operating systems are indeed bad at sandboxing applications. Not at all, I was just giving a real-world example of sandboxing of apps at scale. > even mobile operating systems pale in comparison to a web browser when it comes to sandboxing If your baseline is sending a full web browser with every app you make, on desktop you could run each app in a VM and it would obviously be better. > A website can't even make a request to a third party domain unless the website has cors enabled. An app can't make a request unless it has the internet permission, what's your point? My point is that webapps move everything into the browser, going towards a world where something like ChromeOS is the only valid way to use a computer. I want to choose my OS, I don't want to rent an OS provided by BigTech, whether it is ChromeOS, Windows or anything else. The model where users pay for a product but don't own it is good for companies, not for users. "As a user", I want to own the product I pay for. And I want to pay for the product I want to own.

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> I don't know who invented that "As a user" thing, but I find it completely stupid. In my view it is just used as a justification for anything one wants when they don't have a better argument. > "As a user", I want to own the product I pay for. Ironically, you're the one who lacks a concrete argument, which is why you're attacking the wording of my statement, rather than the substance of it. You're honing in on the first three words of my sentence, because you can't debate the argument on its merits. You then use the exact same wording in your final sentence, but encase it in quotes as if that somehow absolves you of your hypocrisy. Given that this website is frequented by software developers, I think there's a useful distinction to be made between thinking about problems in terms of their development, versus thinking about them in terms of their utility to end users. > Not at all, I was just giving a real-world example of sandboxing of apps at scale. It would be charitable of me to call it a "real-word example". You simply said "Android does that sandboxing by default", without a single supporting statement or example, despite your so-called extensive knowledge of sandboxing. > If your baseline is sending a full web browser with every app you make, on desktop you could run each app in a VM and it would obviously be better. No one is "sending a full web browser with every app you make". Browsers come preinstalled on every popular operating system. > An app can't make a request unless it has the internet permission, what's your point? What in the world is "the internet permission"? I've never had an operating system ask me if I'd like to grant an app "the internet permission". Have you operated a computer before? > Do you know anything about sandboxing, or are you throwing that there for the sake of the argument? > Oh right, I guess you don't really know about sandboxing then. So it won't be a super constructive debate given that your position is apparently fundamentally based on your intuition about sandboxing. As someone who's written both web apps and desktop apps, I do in fact know a considerable amount about sandboxing. Do you know anything about sandboxing? You're questioning my knowledge to deflect from your lack of a coherent rebuttal. What exactly have you written during this conversation to demonstrate your comprehensive knowledge of sandboxing? You're concluding that I lack knowledge on sandboxing because I admitted to not having single-handedly written an operating system or web browser? Really? Are you writing an OS in your free time when you're not writing about the mysterious "internet permission"? > My point is that webapps move everything into the browser, going towards a world where something like ChromeOS is the only valid way to use a computer. I want to choose my OS, I don't want to rent an OS provided by BigTech You've got it backwards. If I want to add support for users running a free open-source operating system like Linux, as a web app developer I don't have to do anything special. Linux can run web browsers, and therefore it can run web apps. Case in point is Photoshop. Neither Photoshop nor the rest of the Adobe Creative Suite runs on Linux, but the Photoshop web app does, because web apps are universal. There's a reason why Apple took years to finally add push notification support to iOS web apps, because web apps threaten the mobile operating system duopoly.