On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:07 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, > > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. > Definitely true for third party packages that currenly require > pip/npm/rubygems/(curl | sh :), but you seem to be saying that > Flatpack will be preferable even when there's an existing Fedora > package. I think this needs to be well justified: security is a mixed > bag (RPMs can have sandboxing via SELinux and otherwise, and > containers/flatpacks complicate security updates), and other aspects > also seem to have balancing pros and cons. You seems to think about a different "security" than what flatpak provides. Say you run a game, packaged by fedora. Its nicely packaged and reviewed, so you're not running unreviewed, unsigned scripts as root to install it. This is traditional "unix security". However, if the game talks to the network and has bug, it can still easily be attacked and the resulting powned process has full access to your ssh keys, your email containing private info, your gpg agent, etc, etc. A sandboxed app such as one using flatpak (and a game could be sandboxed already using flatpak, as it doesn't need portals) would never ever be able to access this, so even if powned it would not leak the users data. (Obviously not counting holes in the sandbox due to kernel bugs or whatever.) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
