ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡@feddit.org to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · edit-210 months ago...message-squaremessage-square31fedilinkarrow-up172arrow-down17file-text
arrow-up165arrow-down1message-square...ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡@feddit.org to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · edit-210 months agomessage-square31fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarecorsicanguppy@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9arrow-down8·1 year agoAs someone formerly involved in security at the enterprise OS development scope, I consider one less Flatpak to be an improvement in security and consistency. Well done!
minus-squareᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡@feddit.orgOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·1 year agodeleted by creator
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·edit-21 year agopeople say this all the time but the reasons they give are always nonsense in my experience, sandboxing alone makes flatpak better
minus-squaresunzu2@thebrainbin.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 year agoIt would be nice if @[email protected] clarified
minus-squareItsapersonn@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoI would be interested in knowing why. Isn’t the sandboxing supposed to make security better?
As someone formerly involved in security at the enterprise OS development scope, I consider one less Flatpak to be an improvement in security and consistency.
Well done!
deleted by creator
people say this all the time but the reasons they give are always nonsense in my experience, sandboxing alone makes flatpak better
It would be nice if @[email protected] clarified
I would be interested in knowing why. Isn’t the sandboxing supposed to make security better?