When I started reading I was initially agreeing, but then it got weird fast.
Lack of common runtimes? that's pretty bad. Permissions not implemented yet? notgood.
But the whole argument of having explicit permission requests instead of having portals integrated with file picker is not very good. What exactly do you want gimp to do - request a permission to access whole home dir? then we are back to unsecure world. And if your permission request is for the specific path, you need a secure file picker. And that's the portal scheme that Flatpack is proposing.
But the biggest WTF is the desire for installshield-like programs: "You download and run the installer, hit Next->Next->Next and your game is installed." This is the most horrible idea anyone may have - there is no accounting, no way to preview, likely tons of random post-install scripts, and junk all over the system. I know that's what will happen because that is how current .run installers work, and there is no reason this will change.
Remember how windows had to be reinstalled every once in a while because it gets "gunked up"? This is because of the of the executable installers - while ostensibly there were guidlelines on how to make clean uninstall happen, it didn't happen in practice. Linux mostly escapes it because for .deb (and flatpak and snap) the installed files are recorded in the database, and it's not program's responsibility to remove them.
> What exactly do you want gimp to do - request a permission to access whole home dir? then we are back to unsecure world.
Author here. That wouldn't be so bad; it's kind of how it works on Android. An app can just request permission to access the entire external storage. It's not exactly the home dir (there's no potential for auto-starting scripts) but it's similar. The permission prompt is still useful because it's something you can decline; you're not forced to agree implicitly to install the app.
But anyway what I want is to install and run GIMP and Excel and Photoshop completely unsandboxed. I think it's silly to try to sandbox every app. The insecure world is still the world of Windows today and it's the dominant platform by far, in part because of the freedom it provides to software vendors.
I do actually prefer traditional installers, which is why I like GOG so much. Good installers will just put their app data into ~/.local/share/<app>, put an icon in ~/.local/icons and a desktop file in ~/.local/applications, and provide an uninstall mechanism to clean it up. There's no mess here, no root required, no accumulating gunk. Longer term, these installers could automatically write AppStream metadata so that the installed app appears and can be uninstalled through the distribution's Software app, like Add/Remove Programs in Windows.
Regardless of what I prefer, the fact is the biggest software vendors will never allow their software to be sandboxed. Look at how Adobe Creative Suite or Microsoft Office are installed on Windows and macOS. They aren't in the OS app stores. They have their own custom installers that handle login, keep the apps up to date, do DRM checks, etc. I'm sure this is not what you want, but it is what they want, and if they can't get it then they just won't port their software to Linux.
Lack of common runtimes? that's pretty bad. Permissions not implemented yet? notgood.
But the whole argument of having explicit permission requests instead of having portals integrated with file picker is not very good. What exactly do you want gimp to do - request a permission to access whole home dir? then we are back to unsecure world. And if your permission request is for the specific path, you need a secure file picker. And that's the portal scheme that Flatpack is proposing.
But the biggest WTF is the desire for installshield-like programs: "You download and run the installer, hit Next->Next->Next and your game is installed." This is the most horrible idea anyone may have - there is no accounting, no way to preview, likely tons of random post-install scripts, and junk all over the system. I know that's what will happen because that is how current .run installers work, and there is no reason this will change.
Remember how windows had to be reinstalled every once in a while because it gets "gunked up"? This is because of the of the executable installers - while ostensibly there were guidlelines on how to make clean uninstall happen, it didn't happen in practice. Linux mostly escapes it because for .deb (and flatpak and snap) the installed files are recorded in the database, and it's not program's responsibility to remove them.