Basically title.

I’m wondering if a package manager like flatpak comes with any drawback or negatives. Since it just works on basically any distro. Why isn’t this just the default? It seems very convenient.

  • TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    While what you say is true, the “portals” were an afterthought, an imposition to developers and a cumbersome and poorly documented solution. Just like the theming and most other things.

    Instead of bluntly blocking things why can’t Flatpak just simulate a full environment and just prompt the user whenever some application wants to read/write to file / unix socket at some path? A GUI capable of automatically enumerating those resources and a bunch of checkboxes like "app X and Y both have access to socket at /var/run/socketY would also solve most of the issues.

    • Zamundaaa@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Instead of bluntly blocking things why can’t Flatpak just simulate a full environment and just prompt the user whenever some application wants to read/write to file / unix socket at some path?

      Because the user getting a hundred popups on app start for various files the app needs isn’t exactly a usable experience. Also, blocking the app’s main thread (which is the only way you could do this) is likely to break it and cause tons of user complaints too.

      Aside from apps using the APIs meant for the purpose of permission systems, there’s no good way to make it work.

      • TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because the user getting a hundred popups on app start for various files the app needs isn’t exactly a usable experience

        It doesn’t but until apps can declare on a simple config file what paths they require that’s the way things should work. I guess that would motivate the developers who are packing into Flatpaks to properly list whatever files the application requires. If they don’t, then the application will still work fine but be a bit annoying.

        Also, blocking the app’s main thread (which is the only way you could do this) is likely to break it and cause tons of user complaints too. Aside from apps using the APIs meant for the purpose of permission systems, there’s no good way to make it work.

        Yet, macOS does and things don’t go that bad, on the example how do you think they do it for command line tools? The system intercepts the request, show the popup and wait for the user input. I’ve seen the same happening with older macOS applications that aren’t aware it could happen and yes, the main thread is blocked and the application seems to crash.

        I thinks it’s way better doing it this way and still have a somewhat productive container and isolation experience than just bluntly blocking everything - something that also breaks apps sometimes.

        • Zamundaaa@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          until apps can declare on a simple config file what paths they require

          They can, and always could. Apps aren’t doing it, most Flatpaks have just blanket “allow ~/Downloads” or “allow all of home” permissions by default - or no file permissions, and you have to go grant them manually yourself.

          Again, unless apps actually support it, no matter how good the security system is, it won’t work out.