Screenshot doesn’t even show half.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kind of? Maybe?

      It has similar goals to something like docker, but goes about it very differently, and it’s obviously meant for user-facing applications.

      You wouldn’t use docker to install steam, but you can use flatpak.

      • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I asked the question because of the label “half-assed” that the commenter above me put on Flatpak. I do not know much about snap, Flatpak and how they differ (other than the fact that both are used as containerisation technologies for desktop apps and the former is by Canonical), and why Flatpak is necessarily worse that snap (by what metric? System performance? Storage?)

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are referring to flatpaks level of security. It’s sandboxing leaves a lot to be desired, as I’ve understood it.

          • Johanno@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well probably because you usually don’t want it so secure that it doesn’t function correctly anymore.

            On snap I often need the --classic option to get sth running because it won’t run properly in a full ssndbox

    • Emperor Palpapeen@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @MigratingtoLemmy @I_like_cats I wondered about that, but to me it just feels like an isolated file system based app structure, kinda like the .app folders in Macs. Does that sound right?

      And with permissions, you can stop the app from accessing anything outside of its specific little file system.