• federico3
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    You are missing the point. A process-independent file opener that is used by all applications to access files provides user-friendly security. This would be a core component of an OS so the description is correct.

    • Ferk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      You are missing the point. A process-independent file opener that is used by all applications to access files provides user-friendly security.

      But that was essentially what I said… I’m the one who proposed something like that 2 comments ago.

      This would be a core component of an OS so the description is correct.

      Again, I disagree that “this would be a core component of an OS”. You did not address any of my points, so I don’t see how it follows that “the description is correct”. The term “core OS component” is subjective to begin with.

      But even if you wanted to label it that way, it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s just a label you are putting on it, it would not make Flatpak any less of an app distribution / management system with focus on cross-distro compatibility and containerization. Flatpak would still be Flatpak. Whether or not you want to consider it a core part of the OS is not important.

      And Flatpak already uses independent processes to manage the whole container & runtime that the app uses for access to the system resources, which already closely matches what you defined as “a core component of an OS”.