And thanks for the clarification. I understand what you mean with App Centric confident which is a nice thing and I am very pro that. but I my case all though it might look like a shortcut it is not and it doesn’t open the user to any vulnerabilities the path to the folder is hardcoded the user can’t exploit this by any way. The suggested QT solution is not a solution for me. Our toolkit is build in house, and a base for multiple application. Something can’t just be replaced or changed which doesn’t even need to be.
To further in this subject as I mentioned I have already achieved that on Windows( which provides a c++ toolkit that I could use for that operation) and macOS(which all though has stricter confidents it still gives you a way to achieve that). My point is that I would expect snap to follow in those steps. Either provide a toolkit that solves the severed tight cause by sandboxing or provide a way.
Because for example in my case, Its to expensive to try and figure out how to ship an explorer or any workaround for an operating system with the smallest margin, and for something so simple. Which for me it drives me away from snap and not to close, and its a shame, because I really like the idea.
Unfortunately, I have to park it for now. But please include me in the conversation, I want stay up to date on the subject.