i think one of the biggest things that annoys me about Linux is that there's no real widely-supported way to say "*this* application is allowed to do this thing" because there's no stable notion of application identity, unlike in windows/macOS land where you can sign an application or whatever

basically I think the mobile permissions model is the right way to build a desktop OS and I want flatpak/snap/whatever to be more widespread

@hierarchon isn't flatpak or snap or something meant to address that or am i mistaken?

@bossposs I think so yeah but I dunno if they're widely supported, if you get what I mean

@hierarchon oh yeah no, i see a few bigger projects occasionally offering one or the other as an alternative, but appimage is much more popular for binary distribution. and i kind of actively avoid them myself because i came to linux to get away from that shit lol

@hierarchon app sandboxing is something i wish was more built in rather than tacked on

flatpak isn't perfect, but i'd rather have most apps in it (say firefox and such) and only a few not (like the file browser, what use is a sandboxed file browser, it'd just require all permissions anyway. maybe if "allow all permissions" was like an easy button, default, and able to be viewed and edited at a per-permission level in system settings, wouldn't that be nice.)

@hierarchon also rejecting permissions needs to be easy, i recently uninstalled telegram flatpak because it started requiring "read only:/" and i wasn't about to give it read permission to my whole disk, fuck that, use xdg portal

but i couldn't figure out how to disallow it while in the update screen so we just uninstalled it and then forgot about it

@hierarchon that's really good if this is what annoys you the most

@uint8_t well it's not what annoys me the most, that's hyperbole, but it annoys me a lot

Sign in to participate in the conversation
inherently digital

a very robotic single-user instance