I disagree. I want an updated system but without giving up security. Also comparing a phone with a computer isn't correct, they have different uses and features, and they're mean to accomplish different tasks. About placing Flatpak apps inside of /home.... The idea is keeping them in a sandbox separated from system. I don't see anything wrong in placing them there, but if you do, please explain. I'm curious to know. Kind regards, Silvia On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 17:32 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 09:44 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:Ick. I want to see the OS and apps updated on a regular basis, by default, no user intervention. Just do it. I've tacitly given permission for this by installing Fedora already. It should be one of its responsibilities. Like cleaning up /var/tmp. Especially flatpak applications - just update them. They can be rolled back if they break something. As for where to install, whether admin user or non-admin, I think the app needs to go outside of /home. Find another way to additionally embargo "user" apps behind the scenes, but storing them on /home I think is consuming the wrong resource. Android phone, I can install an application and not be asked to authenticate anything beyond the lock screen.Also: being able to install without authentication but not delete matches our behavior for system packages. I think it's silly to allow users to install stuff but not to remove it, but that's our status quo.I thought the intent was that you should need admin privileges to do either. The only thing regular users are supposed to be allowed to do without admin privileges is *update* the system, though since that now requires a system reboot, I'm not sure even that should be allowed without auth any more. |
_______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
