Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Feb 2013 12:29 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
Gnome "Some GNOME developers are planning to implement an app format that allows developers to provide their Linux programs in distribution-independent files that can be installed as easily as smartphone apps. A sandbox model is supposed to isolate the apps from each other, and from the rest of the system, in a way that goes further than the isolation in current Linux distributions. Various developers worked to conceptualise such "Linux apps" at the GNOME Developer Experience Hackfest, which was held in the run-up to FOSDEM 2013 in Brussels. At the hackfest, the GNOME developers also declared JavaScript as the de-facto standard for GNOME programming." Right, because they haven't alienated enough of their users.
Thread beginning with comment 551622
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Good in principal
by Nelson on Wed 6th Feb 2013 13:16 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

The idea of sandboxing apps is a novel idea. I just don't think they'll pull it off correctly.

I'd have more faith in their ideas were they not trying to use JavaScript for apps. The amount of concentrated stupid in that idea is appalling.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good in principal
by ssokolow on Wed 6th Feb 2013 13:26 in reply to "Good in principal"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

The idea of sandboxing apps is a novel idea. I just don't think they'll pull it off correctly.

I'd have more faith in their ideas were they not trying to use JavaScript for apps. The amount of concentrated stupid in that idea is appalling.


I wouldn't say novel but I would say nice to have. Honestly, I hope they use Google's Native Client as the basis for it.

That way, they get a tested codebase for the runtime and compiler toolchain, both capable of working with any language that'll compile under NaCl's patched GCC, and they only need to focus their security work on the stuff they modify (eg. the non-Google APIs they expose to apps to allow a native experience)

Of course, given their focus on Javascript, I suspect they'll consider it overkill to sandbox the native code rather than redoing all the security work to squash bugs in the JS runtime's sandbox.

Edited 2013-02-06 13:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Good in principal
by moondevil on Wed 6th Feb 2013 13:53 in reply to "Good in principal"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

The idea of sandboxing apps is a novel idea.


Micro-kernel operating system?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Good in principal
by Nelson on Wed 6th Feb 2013 14:35 in reply to "RE: Good in principal"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Probably overkill.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Good in principal
by Soulbender on Thu 7th Feb 2013 09:21 in reply to "Good in principal"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'd have more faith in their ideas were they not trying to use JavaScript for apps.


Come on, all the "cool kids" use JavaScript. GNOME is always hot for the latest fad (remember Corba?).

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Good in principal
by Nelson on Thu 7th Feb 2013 21:33 in reply to "RE: Good in principal"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Don't worry, MSFT has shiny object syndrome too. This fad needs to go. JavaScript is the exact opposite of what we should be aiming for.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Good in principal
by _xmv on Thu 7th Feb 2013 18:14 in reply to "Good in principal"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

The idea of sandboxing apps is a novel idea.

sorry.. what?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Good in principal
by Nelson on Thu 7th Feb 2013 21:32 in reply to "RE: Good in principal"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think Google Translator can help if you're hard at English, I don't understand how else you could question that statement.

Reply Parent Score: 3