5 ms·

I mean. The issue at hand was that they purposely left the webserver behind to auto reinstall if a zoom link was clicked. This was an intended feature, and the

by Operyl 7y ago

I mean. The issue at hand was that they purposely left the webserver behind to auto reinstall if a zoom link was clicked. This was an intended feature, and the same could have been done on Linux or Windows. Package management or containers are irrelevant to this conversation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 7y ago
A package manager would typically have removed the web server, too.
- vbsteven 7y ago
  As far as I know most traditional package managers only remove files and folders declared in the package. Not files installed somewhere else during the install script or created by the binary when it runs.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Files installed elsewhere during the install script are treated as config files and can be purged, no?
- Operyl 7y ago
  Sure, the "package managers" on Linux, Windows, and macOS all behavior in pretty similar fashions. A manifest of files that the installer knew at time of install. That doesn't stop a program from installing anything else at run time, or even in the installer (since they can define what to remove in a lot of cases). This wasn't an "accident," it was purposely left behind with the intention of being used to onboard users easily even after they removed the client. This would have pretty much been an issue on every platform (had it been implemented on other platforms). And please, don't tell me "but Docker!" Docker, at present, isn't really usable with GUI applications yet.
  - danieldk 7y ago
    And please, don't tell me "but Docker!" Docker, at present, isn't really usable with GUI applications yet. But Flatpak! Flatpak applications can be sandboxed and you can install/remove applications as one unit.
    - Operyl 7y ago
      Is Flatpak still open to the issues outlined at http://flatkill.org/ http://flatkill.org/? If so, it doesn’t seem much better.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  A package manager would be designed to remove any non user hostile features. Intentionally hostile behavior would be unaffected. One might hope that the packager, the person that is, might have refused to include software from incompetent or hostile developers. Something an app store due to volume and default allow pending mostly automated checks has a problem with.

by Operyl 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nitrogen 7y ago

A package manager would typically have removed the web server, too.

vbsteven 7y ago
As far as I know most traditional package managers only remove files and folders declared in the package. Not files installed somewhere else during the install script or created by the binary when it runs.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Files installed elsewhere during the install script are treated as config files and can be purged, no?
Operyl 7y ago
Sure, the "package managers" on Linux, Windows, and macOS all behavior in pretty similar fashions. A manifest of files that the installer knew at time of install. That doesn't stop a program from installing anything else at run time, or even in the installer (since they can define what to remove in a lot of cases). This wasn't an "accident," it was purposely left behind with the intention of being used to onboard users easily even after they removed the client. This would have pretty much been an issue on every platform (had it been implemented on other platforms). And please, don't tell me "but Docker!" Docker, at present, isn't really usable with GUI applications yet.
- danieldk 7y ago
  And please, don't tell me "but Docker!" Docker, at present, isn't really usable with GUI applications yet. But Flatpak! Flatpak applications can be sandboxed and you can install/remove applications as one unit.
  - Operyl 7y ago
    Is Flatpak still open to the issues outlined at http://flatkill.org/ http://flatkill.org/? If so, it doesn’t seem much better.
michaelmrose 7y ago
A package manager would be designed to remove any non user hostile features. Intentionally hostile behavior would be unaffected. One might hope that the packager, the person that is, might have refused to include software from incompetent or hostile developers. Something an app store due to volume and default allow pending mostly automated checks has a problem with.