AppImageLauncher VS firejail

Every file that you want to execute has to be in your environment PATH. I would also advise to put symlinks and personal executables in ~/.local/bin and put that to your path. Since your user has ownership over that directory, you won't have any probs with permissions that may or may not occur at all. Since we're talking about AppImage files, you might also want to take a look at AppImageLauncher which does a pretty good job at creating entries for your Desktop Menu for the AppImage files that you install to your system.

I think it's safe to install it directly as it stores everything in a single directory. For AppImages there is also AppImagePool + AppImageLauncher (can be installed rootless, useful for better integration of appimages).

This reminds me of a prettier version of AppImageLauncher. Is there also an "Uninstall" option in the right-click menu of the app launcher?

I'm using AppImageLauncher on Fedora.

"... I recall that this was related to an issue with most Electron apps, wherein the AppImage cannot be integrated with the desktop or the favourites bar. So far we've found that the AppImageLauncher (https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher) helps with getting around this!

bubblewrap is designed as a low-level too. There is nothing quick and dirty about it. It disallows everything by default and you have to be explicit about what you want to share with the host. If your application needs complex permissions/resources, then you will need to have a complex bubblewrap command line.

Once you have figured out which permissions/resources you need for a given program, you can wrap the command line invocation in a shell script.

If you want other people to do the work of defining permissions/resources, then have a look at firejail: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail

Firejail is cool: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail

Linux namespaces/cgroups but nowhere near as heavy as Docker.

I use it when I want to limit the memory of a Python script:

```

Firejail can also be a useful option, though no good if you're on Mac https://firejail.wordpress.com/

Uses the same Linux primitives as docker etc, but can be a bit more ergonomic for this use case

Firejail, Flatpak (which uses Bubblewrap under the hood), and Snap (which uses AppArmor) all use the same underlying technology: Linux namespaces.

This question comes up a lot, and has been answered here: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/wiki/Frequently-Asked-...

TL;DR: Firejail has much more comprehensive features than Flatpak (Bubblewrap). Firejail also has more comprehensive network support, support for AppArmor and SELinux, and easier seccomp filtering.

Compared to Snap (which uses AppArmor), Firejail is compatible with AppArmor and again goes above and beyond with a lot of additional features.

Wonderful little tool, too bad you must chain various exec calling tools to get cgroups (a bit akin to `ionice ... nice ... cmd`) and Linux users namespaces can't allow UNIX sockets while preventing network access (I think?).

Migrated from Firejail when its complexity annoyed me too much and I hit https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/3001 (Firejail doesn't like parens or brackets in --put/--get parameters) to a badly NIH version using bwrap and bash to have "profiles":

Firejail does this. The profile database is the two "profile" directories in https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/tree/master/etc

What do you mean by a Firefox container? Do you mean FireJail?