On Sun Aug 02 09:26, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > All I ask for is that you understand that you are about the change the > > relavant semantics of something security relevant, and act accordingly. > > What? all I'm trying to do is say "hey man, if you need to open a url, > do it with x-o as you've done with x-b". I think that most of these issues could be fixed with the addition of an xdg-browser, which only opens a web browser and nothing else. More integration between desktop environments and other parts of the system is always a good idea, so I'd encourage some integration between the two, whether it's replacing s-b with xdg-something or having s-b call xdg-something in a non-recursive fashion. > - you say x-o is dangerous but then you say it's not that a problem > (no bug report, for example) It's not a bug per-se, it's just that the security model between the two is different, and that's fine. However, to directly use x-o in the place of s-b would be to change the security model under the hood. This is bad because you get a disconnect between what people _expect_ can happen and what can _actually_ happen. Hence why I like the xdg-browser suggestion, which keeps the same semantics. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature