-
simple question really ...do we really need app confinement?? ...like i get it security purpose and the original idea and all ...but like everyone including myself is making unconfined apps because xyz does not work ....and this is actually a really big list of xyz ...so i guess i just dont understand why we are still trying for this thing that is very much in the way ...app confinement? ....im not even complaining its just a genuine question what is the future plans for this?? or is there any?? ....feels like limbo to me
-
take this guys really cool app https://forums.ubports.com/topic/12261/for-testing-radio-alarm-for-ubuntu-touch .....dude had to make a unconfined app for a alarm clock .....let that sink in for a minute with the security implication of app confinement .....the security is great but i think the execution needs for work ....also am i not understanding?? ....like i know content hub needs more completion ...so is this a task for content hub that just never came to be so im disgruntled not knowing thats where the doorway to capability lives?? or supposed to live?? but was never implemented??? maybe i need to learn more about the original history of design direction for UT
-
everyone including myself is making unconfined apps
I don't think that this is correct for apps on the store. Also, there is no strict separation between confined and unconfined apps, it's possible to make a confined app with some restrictions relaxed provided that it passes a manual review by the store. An exemple of this is the app for Bluetooth file sharing.
You can post unconfined apps outside of the store and people are free to install these apps at their risks. For me that's the whole point of running straight Linux and not Android.
When running the radio clock app, I quickly browsed the source code to see if there was not something obviously suspect in it, before posting on this forum that it was running. But that's not something I enjoy, so when trying an app from the store I skip it. That's called trust and I know that from a security POV it's bad however life is short and art is long.
-
C CiberSheep moved this topic from Design
-
@developerbayman said:
simple question really ...do we really need app confinement??Yes
@developerbayman said:
...but like everyone including myself is making unconfined apps because xyz does not workOnly a few developers are unconfining their apps because they don't want to follow the OS way of doing things. Last time I got a «ContentHub?, No!».
-
@developerbayman your point just suggests that we need better confinement, not to remove it. For example, the alarm app could have apis to run confined
-
@developerbayman your point just suggests that we need better confinement, not to remove it. For example, the alarm app could have apis to run confined
There is definitely an argument that current permissions are either too broad or too restrictive. Ideally, an app should not require review to use Bluetooth, for example. Because most uses of Bluetooth are not administrative. The reason review is required is because granting the permission allows full control of the BT stack.
But, like all things, someone needs to make it happen...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login