▲ | JustExAWS 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
Yes and they are only as far as I know enforced for Mac App Store apps. But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly. But what do sandboxes have to do with greed? | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | robenkleene 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I comment on the Mac App Store part here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44952088 > But once an app has free reign to read and write anywhere on a shared folder, it defeats the purpose as opposed to being able to read and write to the apps own folder and the user can choose a file from another folder explicitly. Not sure I'm following this statement, isn't just being able to read/write to a shared folder a large improvement over an app being able to write to the entire file system (user-permissions allowing, granted)? I.e., "it defeats the purpose" seems like an odd phrase to use there? (For the record, I wish all this sandboxing/entitlement-based security stuff didn't exist on desktop computers [my priorities are clearer from my linked to comment], so I'm probably wrong person to ask anyway, but I was missing what you meant there.) | |||||||||||||||||
|