3 ms·

Regarding your second link, I'm curious about your thoughts of wide implementation in case I'm misunderstanding: For a general user, this may just turn into th

by bumby 5y ago

Regarding your second link, I'm curious about your thoughts of wide implementation in case I'm misunderstanding: For a general user, this may just turn into the equivalent of "Terms and Conditions" acceptance. Most just blindly accept them because we're focused on the end-action. The same seems to go for allowing apps access to much of our phone data. In that sense, it doesn't really mitigate user risk (but does give legal cover). Is there any evidence that general users will "see something fishy was going on" enough to actually change behavior?

mikewarot 5y ago
Wallets, the kind that fit in your pocket, containing cash, the folding kind of money, are an example of capabilities that are widely used. People don't just hand over their wallet, they chose the amount to tender in a transaction, which is the most they could lose. If someone asks me to hand over my wallet, I know I'm being robbed. In a capabilities based system, you pick what files to give to an application, instead of the application showing you a dialog and then getting them itself. As far as the user is concerned, the UI doesn't even need to change. It is my long held belief (2005!) that capability based systems are the only way out of this nightmare.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  The big thing I think that needs to happen for this to stick is for the UI to make sense. There has to be some obvious and convenient way for me to provide the things the application needs, without it being a pester-box with an OK button. Some of that already exists on desktop OSs but seems to have been abandoned. Drag and drop file loading is commonly available but applications still seem to insist on file dialog workflows. Drag and drop saving even exists in RiscOS and ROX-Filer. But how do we abstract other resources like cameras, keys, contacts, network ports, or money? Is it as simple as having drag-and-drop-able representations of those things? Do I drag $5 out of my virtual wallet into Steam? My bank password from a virtual keyring? Connect a virtual cable to the application window from an icon representing my camera? Sadly, the desktop metaphor itself is out of fashion as everyone went insane when the iPhone came out, so I expect it will be a lot longer than 5 years before any of this is explored in any depth.
  - cesarb 5y ago
    > But how do we abstract other resources like cameras, keys, contacts, network ports, or money? Android has some of that figured out. For instance, instead of getting a permission to use the camera directly, an application can use a camera intent, which will pop up the camera application (which does have that permission); when the user takes the picture, the original application will receive something somewhat similar to a capability which can be used to access that picture (and only that picture). The same idea can easily be extended to contacts (use an intent which pops up the contacts application, which then return something somewhat similar to a capability to access the contact chosen by the user), and so on.
- bumby 5y ago
  >People don't just hand over their wallet, they chose the amount to tender in a transaction, which is the most they could lose. This is a good analogy for the tech-minded, but I think it may not be as applicable to the non-tech-savvy. To many general users software is an abstract black box unlike a tangible wallet which they intuitively have an understanding of the contents. When most people take their car to an auto mechanic they aren't prepared to say, "When you plug in your computer, only access the wheel speed sensor data and anti-lock braking software. Don't touch the fuel-mapping, car speed, infotainment, or GPS data." All they want is their car to drive again. They may not know enough of what's going on under the hood and, I suspect, would be more likely to blindly sign over whatever data the mechanic says they "need".
  - mikewarot 5y ago
    The Car is a great analogy for Windows, MacOS and Linux. You can't limit what a person will do once you hand them the keys. We need wallets, not cars.

by bumby 5y ago

mikewarot 5y ago

Wallets, the kind that fit in your pocket, containing cash, the folding kind of money, are an example of capabilities that are widely used. People don't just hand over their wallet, they chose the amount to tender in a transaction, which is the most they could lose. If someone asks me to hand over my wallet, I know I'm being robbed. In a capabilities based system, you pick what files to give to an application, instead of the application showing you a dialog and then getting them itself. As far as the user is concerned, the UI doesn't even need to change. It is my long held belief (2005!) that capability based systems are the only way out of this nightmare.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
The big thing I think that needs to happen for this to stick is for the UI to make sense. There has to be some obvious and convenient way for me to provide the things the application needs, without it being a pester-box with an OK button. Some of that already exists on desktop OSs but seems to have been abandoned. Drag and drop file loading is commonly available but applications still seem to insist on file dialog workflows. Drag and drop saving even exists in RiscOS and ROX-Filer. But how do we abstract other resources like cameras, keys, contacts, network ports, or money? Is it as simple as having drag-and-drop-able representations of those things? Do I drag $5 out of my virtual wallet into Steam? My bank password from a virtual keyring? Connect a virtual cable to the application window from an icon representing my camera? Sadly, the desktop metaphor itself is out of fashion as everyone went insane when the iPhone came out, so I expect it will be a lot longer than 5 years before any of this is explored in any depth.
- cesarb 5y ago
  > But how do we abstract other resources like cameras, keys, contacts, network ports, or money? Android has some of that figured out. For instance, instead of getting a permission to use the camera directly, an application can use a camera intent, which will pop up the camera application (which does have that permission); when the user takes the picture, the original application will receive something somewhat similar to a capability which can be used to access that picture (and only that picture). The same idea can easily be extended to contacts (use an intent which pops up the contacts application, which then return something somewhat similar to a capability to access the contact chosen by the user), and so on.
bumby 5y ago
>People don't just hand over their wallet, they chose the amount to tender in a transaction, which is the most they could lose. This is a good analogy for the tech-minded, but I think it may not be as applicable to the non-tech-savvy. To many general users software is an abstract black box unlike a tangible wallet which they intuitively have an understanding of the contents. When most people take their car to an auto mechanic they aren't prepared to say, "When you plug in your computer, only access the wheel speed sensor data and anti-lock braking software. Don't touch the fuel-mapping, car speed, infotainment, or GPS data." All they want is their car to drive again. They may not know enough of what's going on under the hood and, I suspect, would be more likely to blindly sign over whatever data the mechanic says they "need".
- mikewarot 5y ago
  The Car is a great analogy for Windows, MacOS and Linux. You can't limit what a person will do once you hand them the keys. We need wallets, not cars.