ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡@feddit.org to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · edit-28 hours ago...message-squaremessage-square32fedilinkarrow-up171arrow-down17file-text
arrow-up164arrow-down1message-square...ᥫ᭡ 𐑖ミꪜᴵ𝔦 ᥫ᭡@feddit.org to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · edit-28 hours agomessage-square32fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarecorsicanguppy@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down8·3 months 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-down2·3 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squareCommunist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·edit-23 months 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-up6·3 months agoIt would be nice if @[email protected] clarified
minus-squareItsapersonn@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 months 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?