5 ms·

I can't speak for others, but for me there is no need to make up my mind: 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop

I can't speak for others, but for me there is no need to make up my mind: 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop yourself-- is not only perfectly fine, it's what makes personal computing great. 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves. 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works. 4) Application-level security should be applied by default and at the OS level. Mobile OSs got this (mostly) right.

Shared404 6y ago
> 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works. I do like this. The only thing that concerns me is disk space (which isn't really that big a deal at this point) and things like crypto libraries. With the crypto libraries, what happens when the statically compiled package has an out of date library/how do you recover without having to upgrade every program individually? (This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm sorry if I come off that way.)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  In most systems, but notably not Linux, there is a separation between the "system" and "applications". Things that are part of the "system" are meant to be a reliable platform that anything can use. The platform provides UI, networking, crypto, compression, etc. libraries that are used by basically everything and the self-contained application need only supply its various libfoos that aren't part of the platform.
qayxc 6y ago
> 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop yourself-- is not only perfectly fine, it's what makes personal computing great. Nobody's stopping you from that, not even SmartScreen. The issue is that close to 100% of all malware is installed by users and the critique has been that Microsoft is offering neither sufficient protection nor a safe(r) alternative. SmartScreen and Windows Store - whatever your personal opinion about those might be - are completely optional ways to address this critique. > 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves. All major *nix-based operating systems and their distributions seem to disagree with you on that; Most programming languages included. > 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works. And that solves the security and trust issues how? > 4) Application-level security should be applied by default and at the OS level. Mobile OSs got this (mostly) right. Oh yeah, especially mobile OSes where every app wants full access to everything or just won't install/run. Pop-ups are just as bad because now you just train users to simply ignore them. There is no silver bullet here, and SmartScreen isn't some "evil gatekeeper" that just exists to thwart independent software development. It's just an imperfect tool to address security and trust issues with random software packages downloaded from the internet.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > All major nix-based operating systems and their distributions seem to disagree with you on that; Most programming languages included. Yes, and I still think I'm right and they are wrong. You're welcome to disagree, but I personally wouldn't hold up the distant 3rd place in desktop computing as evidence against my argument. > Oh yeah, especially mobile OSes where every app wants full access to everything or just won't install/run. Like I said, only mostly correct. > Pop-ups are just as bad because now you just train users to simply ignore them. Agreed, so don't do popups. > There is no silver bullet here, and SmartScreen isn't some "evil gatekeeper" that just exists to thwart independent software development. It's just an imperfect tool to address security and trust issues with random software packages downloaded from the internet. I never said otherwise. I just think we can do better than SmartScreen.

Shared404 6y ago

> 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works. I do like this. The only thing that concerns me is disk space (which isn't really that big a deal at this point) and things like crypto libraries. With the crypto libraries, what happens when the statically compiled package has an out of date library/how do you recover without having to upgrade every program individually? (This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm sorry if I come off that way.)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
In most systems, but notably not Linux, there is a separation between the "system" and "applications". Things that are part of the "system" are meant to be a reliable platform that anything can use. The platform provides UI, networking, crypto, compression, etc. libraries that are used by basically everything and the self-contained application need only supply its various libfoos that aren't part of the platform.

qayxc 6y ago

> 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop yourself-- is not only perfectly fine, it's what makes personal computing great. Nobody's stopping you from that, not even SmartScreen. The issue is that close to 100% of all malware is installed by users and the critique has been that Microsoft is offering neither sufficient protection nor a safe(r) alternative. SmartScreen and Windows Store - whatever your personal opinion about those might be - are completely optional ways to address this critique. > 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves. All major *nix-based operating systems and their distributions seem to disagree with you on that; Most programming languages included. > 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works. And that solves the security and trust issues how? > 4) Application-level security should be applied by default and at the OS level. Mobile OSs got this (mostly) right. Oh yeah, especially mobile OSes where every app wants full access to everything or just won't install/run. Pop-ups are just as bad because now you just train users to simply ignore them. There is no silver bullet here, and SmartScreen isn't some "evil gatekeeper" that just exists to thwart independent software development. It's just an imperfect tool to address security and trust issues with random software packages downloaded from the internet.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> All major nix-based operating systems and their distributions seem to disagree with you on that; Most programming languages included. Yes, and I still think I'm right and they are wrong. You're welcome to disagree, but I personally wouldn't hold up the distant 3rd place in desktop computing as evidence against my argument. > Oh yeah, especially mobile OSes where every app wants full access to everything or just won't install/run. Like I said, only mostly correct. > Pop-ups are just as bad because now you just train users to simply ignore them. Agreed, so don't do popups. > There is no silver bullet here, and SmartScreen isn't some "evil gatekeeper" that just exists to thwart independent software development. It's just an imperfect tool to address security and trust issues with random software packages downloaded from the internet. I never said otherwise. I just think we can do better than SmartScreen.