Apps need to warn the user if they need updating,
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Jan 03, 2011 6:25 PM EDT |
This is a backward step, I have to use windows and I have half a dozen applications that tell me when they need updating, usually at the most inconvenient time. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 04, 2011 1:50 AM EDT |
The entire appstore concept is a step backwards on Linux. The complete system-wide integration of package managers is far superior to an app store, despite lacking a few features than some people would like to see (per-user installation of packages for example). |
| tracyanne Jan 04, 2011 4:17 AM EDT |
It makes much more sense to add per user installs than the appstore concept as described. I don't see a issue with fragmentation as described by the auther. It seems to me that every now and again this sort of thing rears it's ugly head, Some sort of call to remove the major differentiator between the proprietary operating Systems and Linux, and a major contributor to Linux Security. |
| r_a_trip Jan 04, 2011 5:39 AM EDT |
What Mr. Mobily is proposing is worse than an "Appstore concept". Every user on the system must be able to have their own apps installed, independently from other users, and needs to be able to copy it “as is” so that it works on a removable media, or on another users’ computer. AND Every app needs to work on every complying GNU/Linux distribution. AND It needs to be possible to rate apps in a central database and it needs to be possible to forward one to all of your friends. This would make it possible to have “viral” apps, and it would help create something that is missing in GNU/Linux now: an app culture. This to me says that Mr. Mobily wants to do away with basic security measures. Just copy over executable blobs willy nilly and be happy. If we lived in a perfect world, with flawless programs and 100% decent people, this wouldn't be a problem. Alas, we don't. Malware authors would have a field day with a system like this. No differences in system architecture. Completely unknowledgeable people just swapping unsafe bits around and never thinking any harm from it. If this were to be implemented, Windows would become the most secure system instantly. I don't know about you. but I wouldn't want a user with a thumbdrive and the ability " to copy [apps] “as is” so that it works on a removable media, or on another users’ computer" near my computers. I like my virus resistant status, thank you very much. This would make it possible to have “viral” apps [snip] I think Mr. Mobily can do away with the quotation marks on viral. I don't think GNU/Linux is a system that should try to cater to the lowest level of computer users. Nothing good will come from targeting the ignorant group of people who a priori refuse to learn anything about the world around them. With apps that run everywhere, no questions asked, these people will wreak havoc on themselves and others, all the while blaming everything and anybody, except their own ignorance. There is nothing difficult about current day graphical frontends to package managers. They have the wanted rating systems. A "viral" app is as easy as just telling your friends the name of the applicaton and they can fire up their own package manager frontend and install it. Also GUI's don't decide what app to use for a file type. A user does. Just change the default to the one you want in the context menu of the file. There is nothing wrong with package managers handling the installation and dependencies and blocking users who don't have administration rights. If you don't have root or sudo rights, you are probably using a system administered (and owned?) by someone else and you haven't reached a position where you are trusted enough with administration privileges. This protects the system (and the users) from harm. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!