4 ms·
It’s not perfect but I think there is sound logic to to the way it works. My wife is a fairly average computer user, and she has not added any files outside tho
by jaredklewis 7y ago
It’s not perfect but I think there is sound logic to to the way it works. My wife is a fairly average computer user, and she has not added any files outside those folders that are in the user directory by default (Downloads, Desktop, Documents, Pictures, etc...). I think it seems pretty logical that Documents or Pictures for most users will include more personal data that needs protecting than ~/.config or whatever.
- shakna 7y ago~/.local on the other hand will frequently include information that under a tighter permission system should not be accessed without approval. Things like my complete shell history can be found there.
- dylan604 7y agoThe fact that you are worried about your shell history proves you are not one of the average users.
- shakna 7y agoAnd? How is that relevant to the permission system? The average person doesn't need to care whether a file is executable or not.
- comex 7y agoYep. But authorizing things on a file-by-file basis would be a terrible UX, while granting programs blanket access to all of ~/.local wouldn't be very secure, since lots of programs need something from there. It's the same situation as ~/Library for macOS-specific code. App Sandbox avoids this problem by giving each app its own virtualized home directory, so that data sharing between apps becomes opt-in instead of opt-out. It still exists... too bad nobody wants to adopt it.