Re: Bug#405997: should executables be permitted to update themselves?
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Bug#405997: should executables be permitted to update themselves?"):
> If azereus is going out and adding things to the users home
> dir without the users knowledge, that would be one thing. But in this
> case the users has initiated the action -- and trying to save the
> user from themselves is not only a lost cause, it is wrong headed:
> we do not remove the -rf options from rm; and nor should we dumb down
> application so users may not do dangerous things if they so desire.
Oh, absolutely. But, we also shouldn't have applications (by default)
make offers to the user that we think are a very bad idea.
I don't know what azareus's UI for this is like but depending on the
situation it might be best to make a configuration option, set by
default, which suppresses it. For example, if the current
code presents dialogues nagging to be allowed to update from upstream,
then we should definitely disable that by default. OTOH if it's an
obscure menu option then just adding `(not recommended!)' in an
appropriate string might be sufficient.
It's particularly important that GUI applications don't suggest bad
choices to the user, since GUI users have come often to say `yes' to
what the computer `wants' to do.
Ian.
Reply to: