2 ms·

Do you think app permissions in Android and iOS apps are not helpful? There isn't really a reason that the permission models make sense on mobile but not deskto

Do you think app permissions in Android and iOS apps are not helpful? There isn't really a reason that the permission models make sense on mobile but not desktop. Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy. The fact the security features gets in your way is more of a product finesse problem which generally plagues open source projects in general. The technology is not conceptually flawed.

jeroenhd 2y ago
> Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy Why? If 30 years of Windows being the most internet connected OS has proven anything, it's that 99% of desktop executable should be deleted before they make it through the disk write cache. Mobile platforms show that mandatory sandboxes are a massive bonus to preventing malware. Desktop operating systems refuse to go that route because of the risk of breaking existing tools, which is why nobody bothers to actually use sandboxing APIs, which is why many third party sandboxing attempts keep breaking. There's no reason why desktops can't exchange files through virtual file systems or dedicated sharing APIs like on mobile. My calculator doesn't need camera access and my music player can do without biometrics. The desktop is stuck in the 1990's permission model (or 1970s, for Unix-likes) because that's what people have gotten used to. My experience with the Steam Deck is that Flatpak sandboxing on a read-only system image works absolutely fine. Things would work better if desktop applications would bother standardising and following existing standards, but the technology works. Sure, it's not good enough if you're a Linux kernel developer, but the 0.01% of users who are affected by those limitations shouldn't limit everyone else. Some desktop users may think themselves to be too smart to get hacked, especially on Linux, but their desktops are not that different from smartphones.
- surajrmal 2y ago
  I had a typo, it should have been aren't. I agree with you.

jeroenhd 2y ago

> Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy Why? If 30 years of Windows being the most internet connected OS has proven anything, it's that 99% of desktop executable should be deleted before they make it through the disk write cache. Mobile platforms show that mandatory sandboxes are a massive bonus to preventing malware. Desktop operating systems refuse to go that route because of the risk of breaking existing tools, which is why nobody bothers to actually use sandboxing APIs, which is why many third party sandboxing attempts keep breaking. There's no reason why desktops can't exchange files through virtual file systems or dedicated sharing APIs like on mobile. My calculator doesn't need camera access and my music player can do without biometrics. The desktop is stuck in the 1990's permission model (or 1970s, for Unix-likes) because that's what people have gotten used to. My experience with the Steam Deck is that Flatpak sandboxing on a read-only system image works absolutely fine. Things would work better if desktop applications would bother standardising and following existing standards, but the technology works. Sure, it's not good enough if you're a Linux kernel developer, but the 0.01% of users who are affected by those limitations shouldn't limit everyone else. Some desktop users may think themselves to be too smart to get hacked, especially on Linux, but their desktops are not that different from smartphones.

surajrmal 2y ago
I had a typo, it should have been aren't. I agree with you.