On 4/7/21, Dan Ritter <d...@randomstring.org> wrote: > riveravaldez wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021, Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: >> > On Tue 06 Apr 2021 at 11:20:58 +0200, Yoann LE BARS wrote: >> > >> > I had occasion to install Zoom a few weeks ago;'snap install >> > zoom-client'. >> > Everything went smoothly and I quite like having this proprietary >> > package >> > strictly confined. >> >> Hi, I was under the impression that (besides being fully open) Flatpak >> had >> better confinement method that Canonical's Snap, anybody knows if this is >> correct? > > > "Two years ago I wrote about then heavily-pushed Flatpak, > self-proclaimed "Future of Apps on Linux". The article > criticized the following three major flows in Flatpak: > > Most of the apps have full access to the host system but > users are misled to believe the apps are sandboxed > The flatpak runtimes and apps do not get security updates > Flatpak breaks many aspects of desktop integration" > > -- https://flatkill.org/2020/ > > (the article then says that they fixed some desktop integration > issues)
Thanks a lot for the link and info, Dan, very informative. I'm still with the doubt. Even considering all this: which has better (or less-worse) confinement, Flatpak or Snap (or AppImage)? Trying to decide which is less-worse in a scenario of unavoidable use of some of these. Thanks again!