logoalt Hacker News

__floatyesterday at 10:16 PM4 repliesview on HN

> desktop Linux doesn't (and won't for UX reasons)

Can you elaborate?


Replies

mike_hearntoday at 8:22 AM

Locking down a desktop OS to modern standards really requires what Apple did with macOS, which requires a degree of central coordination that's beyond the Linux community. It mandates huge changes in almost every area of the OS stack, and all apps have to be sandboxed by default out of the box.

Developers don't like mandatory sandboxing. It has to be forced on them. So you can see the difficulty of doing it in the open source community, which has for decades now had the worst security of any desktop OS platform (even Windows is better).

akdev1lyesterday at 10:33 PM

A very comprehensive SELinux deployment for one.

SELinux will stop any process in android from loading kernel modules, that’s not allowed. The android permission model as a whole is ultimately backed by SELinux.

lunar_roveryesterday at 11:26 PM

To solve the issue from the source, you need to enforce security through means like mandatory access control. The problem is that existing desktop and server systems are too mature for that to be practical, you'll have to rework almost everything and users will certainly reject it violently due to the breakages.

show 1 reply
danudeyyesterday at 10:19 PM

Not sure what specifically they're referring to, but Android (and iOS) add a lot of sandboxing to ensure that each application can only access its own files, can't access hardware willy-nilly (bluetooth, scanning wifi, etc), can only link against certain libraries, etc.

Imagine if Linux only let you run stuff from Flatpak, and if stuff didn't work in Flatpak then too bad for you. Most Linux users would hate it and it would be a mess a lot of the time, so, for user experience (UX) reasons, they don't do it. Android can get away with it because that's been the app paradigm for decades now.