A lot of flatkill.org’s statements are made to incite fear in the Linux community. Given that all Flatpak packages and application build scripts are available and able to be edited by anyone, the appropriate response is to educate on why this is a problem, and then fix it. The way that flatkill.org approached this issue says a lot.

Hi,

This is a direct response to flatkill.org 2020.

I’ve heard a lot of misinformation about Flatpak spread by the community and by a website called flatkill.org. I took the time to write my own response with the help of Flatpak contributors and developers to debunk the claims of flatkill.org to stop the spread of false information.

  • SeerLite@lemmy.ml
    3·
    3 years ago

    Another thing is that three of their examples, VSCodium, PyCharm, and Octave, are IDEs. It is crucial for an IDE to have access to home or host filesystems, for Git repositories, and for other external uses, otherwise it is not very useful.

    I wish Linux had a modern and easy to use permission system like Android. Not just in Flatpak but in general, maybe built in to the package manager.

    Something intuitive and user friendly just like Android though. In DEs it could be configured through their GUI and the hardcore CLI users could use the package manager to change the permissions of the package. Just like how currently programs can complain that there’s “no sufficient permission” when trying to access anything outside of /home, they could do the same for other permissions

    • poVoq@lemmy.ml
      21·
      3 years ago

      There is App-Armor and Ubuntu Touch has implemented it in a way that nearly all apps are confined by it and data-exchange only happens mediated through a software called media-hub.

      I think this could be used as a basis for a general system on GNU/Linux as otherwise UT is pretty close to a “normal” Linux (except that they are still on upstart with Ubuntu16.04 and use read-only system images).

      But the problem is that normally this kind of app confinement is the first thing regular Linux users complain about when using UT as it restricts the freedom of what apps (and the user) can do. This is IMHO largely why UT adoption on the PinePhone has failed, despite it being the first usable OS on it when the community editions where launched initially.