Linux absolutely has a plethora of software one can use to improve security - AppArmor, Flatpak, Snap, and whatnot; the "all or nothing" approach the author mentioned is also not inherent to Linux, just a common setup people use. You can absolutely limit user access to a subset of superuser commands.
The problem is nobody cares. Linux users don't care, and even the users of sandboxed OSes don't care. I'm more irritated by macOS constantly popping up with "iTerm2 wants to access your Documents folder" than comforted. Some distros implemented e.g. AppArmor to generally positive reviews, but Ubuntu's transition to Snaps has been seen very very negatively.
Wayland "features" some protections too - apps can't access the global clipboard, or move themselves, screen-record, whatever. And nobody likes it! Because the inconvenience far outweighs the benefits.
Overwhelmingly I think the "problem" is that Linux users don't really want, or need, this protection macOS/ChromeOS offers.
An aside: Windows has sandboxing? Where?
The problem is nobody cares. Linux users don't care, and even the users of sandboxed OSes don't care. I'm more irritated by macOS constantly popping up with "iTerm2 wants to access your Documents folder" than comforted. Some distros implemented e.g. AppArmor to generally positive reviews, but Ubuntu's transition to Snaps has been seen very very negatively.
Wayland "features" some protections too - apps can't access the global clipboard, or move themselves, screen-record, whatever. And nobody likes it! Because the inconvenience far outweighs the benefits.
Overwhelmingly I think the "problem" is that Linux users don't really want, or need, this protection macOS/ChromeOS offers.
An aside: Windows has sandboxing? Where?