Re: Bug#405997: should executables be permitted to update themselves?
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 06:17:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
Moreover, I think having applications intrusively popping up reminders every
time I start them, when the answer is always going to be no, is a 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.
Nope, it's a nag every time you start the app. Totally indefensible from
the standpoint of distro integration.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: