AppImageUpdate VS firejail

There's an updater for appimages https://github.com/AppImageCommunity/AppImageUpdate

AppImages can contain update information (and even support partial updates using zsync), check out https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageUpdate.

https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageUpdate this only works if the application has information regarding where to fetch the update from...

It would be very nice and handy if we could easily update Tutanota Linux desktop app. Luckily, since it is packaged as an AppImage, there's an easy-to-integrate utility available just for that.

It's not centralised, not like Snap with SnapCraft, not even like Flatpak with it's 'not technically but kinda is in practice' Flathub repository. Anyone can make an AppImage, anyone can host an AppImage, anyone can download and run an AppImage, anyone can implement AppImage integration in a distro, and there's even a nice system for automatic updates for AppImage which again is nicely decentralised.

Some have built-in. some not. Btw I considered AppImageUpdate , but it would become re-install a full new app

The fact is that the delta update system via Zsync and appimageupdatetool are real solutions to the problem, but too many developers do not implement it in their AppImage, myself included.

Btw, regarding Flatpak, I've had multiple issues related to mouse cursor, fonts, and local folder access - all related to the sandboxing of apps, all resolvable, but potentially a problem for a non-technical user. I've had much better experiences with AppImages, but I don't know if they have a graphical app store like interface; even the AppImageUpdate idea is still catching on.

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?