Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, package formats compared

Re:Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, package formats compared by Natela on Monday October 15, 2018 @05:21AM (#18218405)

There was already a post on this. Basically the argument about home is true but this is because 1) apps should not use filesystem access but rather portals (if they can) 2) nothing should be executable in the home folder (nobashrc, no script, etc...)

If I remember well the second argument was about update not being frequent enough.

So nothing fundamentally about Flatpak but more about the infrastructure (lack of updates) and the use of it (we should not allow home access and use Portals or we should disable bashrc).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, package formats compared by jake_the_third on Monday October 15, 2018 @12:55PM (#18221400)

> nothing should be executable in the home folder

Says who? The purpose of a home directory to contain user-specific files including executables. Developers compile their software and write their scripts in their home directory. Even if we made the absurd decision that no file may be executed from the directory, there are many ways to cause harm by simply editing user-specific configuration files (e.g. in ~/.config).

Arguing that the problem is with executables in $HOME rather than Flatpak is incredibly delusional.

[ Parent | on HN ]