4 ms·

I don't understand the responses in this thread. Does nobody want an OS with a permissions system where you can reliably control access to resources? Or strong

I don't understand the responses in this thread. Does nobody want an OS with a permissions system where you can reliably control access to resources? Or strong app sandboxing by default to keep chrome from sniffing your files (allegedly, this is virus scanning)? There isn't any loss of freedom with those as long as your super user can modify it all - its a gain of freedom in that you can have some control over what your random proprietary programs are doing

elric 5y ago
Agreed. Tools like Firejail and OpenSnitch go a long way towards this, but it could be better. There's also the matter of presenting this in a way that is useful to the average user .. by the time a user sees a third popup asking "Do you want to allow Firefox to access 23.12.99.8?" they will have been conditioned to always click [OK].
sureglymop 5y ago
I think that's what we need. An app with a "firewall" for every security or privacy critical operation that prompts the user when it has to. We can have that for the browser with e.g. uMatrix or uBlock origin and other extensions, or LittleSnitch on MacOS but it should be handled at the system (call) (kernel?) level I guess. The user can then set up the rules he wants to so he doesn't always get prompted. And for non technical users there have to be sensible defaults already in place. An example of not so sensible defaults are the default permissions of many flatpak apps. And for privacy we need granular control, like on Android with something like XPrivacyLua. But it does pose some challenges, for example it makes it easy to just spoof your location and so on for an app. Personally I do think that the user has the right to do that though.
dsr_ 5y ago
No, most people don't want that. The average HN reader does. If your business plan can thrive with 95% of your customers being developers, sysadmins, geeks, nerds, academics, people who remember what the first and second derivatives of space with regard to time mean, and the people who are associated with them... sure, go ahead. But we already are almost there with macos and chromeos and linux. We just need one more layer: root can allow and rescind privs to users who can allow and rescind privs to applications but the fact of the matter is, right now people not in the categories above do not like the tradeoff of thinking about permissions in exchange for more control. Microsoft and Apple could force it on them, but as soon as a convenience feature of "never think about this decision again" shows up, users will click on that and never think about it at all. Some people will click on things because they were promised a game, or porn, or wallpaper images of kittens.
username90 5y ago
Almost surely that will be coupled with an appstore and end the era of free computing for most people. It would be great if it didn't happen that way, but I don't see Apple or Microsoft doing it any other way.
roenxi 5y ago
Things that used to work will get broken. The fact that taking a screenshot on Wayland took something like a decade to sort out speaks volumes as to the downsides of this approach. It'll be worth it in the long term, but short term it'll probably hurt.
- idle_zealot 5y ago
  > screenshot on wayland Also note that the solution (at least in wlroots-based compositors) seems to allow any program running as the logged-in user to screenshot or record any portion of the screen; the same as on X. Though flatpack apps need to use special permission that grants them access to only parts of your screen.
363722636 5y ago
I want an os that's useful, streamlined, and can run games without adding an asterisk. That basically locks me into Windows. I've heard lots of great excuses for why things are this way and noted the progress Steam has made in pushing forward gaming on Linux but ultimately there's always a wall or a compromise in what mainstream programs I can use and I'm not the sort of person who can feel good because the worse experience has principles. I don't mind if a job wants me to work with Linux, that's fine, but when I come home I don't want to have to think about edge cases or software equivalents.
- fragileone 5y ago
  That's fair, except for utility in my usage Windows runs less of the programs I want. Linux users tend to prioritise software freedom, digital privacy, customisability, hackability and longevity, so will settle for it being a little less streamlined and being able to run 15k out of 18k Steam games, which is more than enough games for my enjoyment. Each to their own.
  - hyperman1 5y ago
    I wonder if less streamlined is still an issue. Yes, Linux has plenty of weird bugs and sharp corners, but since windows 8 or so, windows has at least as much of them. Wine gets at the point that it runs older windows software better than windows. Games is still hit or miss, though.
swiley 5y ago
No, we don't. Stuff you don't trust and can't be bothered to publish source and engage with the community belongs in the browser. Native code is a privilege reserved for people who are friendly. As you can see from iOS and Android all the sandboxing does is screw over people working in good faith (termux, ish) and doesn't stop malware.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Termux has a solution that they refuse to adopt, use Java APIs from Android. Android's use of Linux kernel is an implementation detail, trying to pretend otherwise only leads to pain.
  - swiley 5y ago
    >use Java APIs from Android. Considering termux is package mostly software written in c I'd love to hear how you expect them to do that.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      By doing like anyone else on Android does, by making use of JNI and NDK APIs, the actual Android ABIs. In regards to C, Android NDK supports ISO C11 and ISO C++17 as of today. Android is not Linux, just borrowed the kernel as implementation detail. Naturally some folks don't get it, thus keep trying the broken road to use POSIX in Android, and that road ends in failure.
tyingq 5y ago
I want it, but not bad enough to live with the various inconveniences.
grawprog 5y ago
Not really no, this would break just about every software workflow I use. My music production workflow relies on being able to arbitrarily send inputs and outputs between any other piece of software I want. There isn't really any software I use that can exist in its own sandboxed bubble separate from everything else. I've experienced this several times trying Android ports of Linux software I use, they're usually lacking features or configuration folders are inaccessible because of Android's sandboxing and permissions. The last thing I want is for my desktop to be that way too.
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
I really like alpine linux's goals i.e. Install only the things which are absolutely necessary on a hardened system. But as desktop you are seriously limited by its dependency on musl, Most common apps are dependent upon glibc and so you'll have to compile it against musl if that's even possible. So the point being, We have secure desktop OSes but how much productivity are we ready to give up for that?

elric 5y ago

Agreed. Tools like Firejail and OpenSnitch go a long way towards this, but it could be better. There's also the matter of presenting this in a way that is useful to the average user .. by the time a user sees a third popup asking "Do you want to allow Firefox to access 23.12.99.8?" they will have been conditioned to always click [OK].

sureglymop 5y ago

I think that's what we need. An app with a "firewall" for every security or privacy critical operation that prompts the user when it has to. We can have that for the browser with e.g. uMatrix or uBlock origin and other extensions, or LittleSnitch on MacOS but it should be handled at the system (call) (kernel?) level I guess. The user can then set up the rules he wants to so he doesn't always get prompted. And for non technical users there have to be sensible defaults already in place. An example of not so sensible defaults are the default permissions of many flatpak apps. And for privacy we need granular control, like on Android with something like XPrivacyLua. But it does pose some challenges, for example it makes it easy to just spoof your location and so on for an app. Personally I do think that the user has the right to do that though.

dsr_ 5y ago

No, most people don't want that. The average HN reader does. If your business plan can thrive with 95% of your customers being developers, sysadmins, geeks, nerds, academics, people who remember what the first and second derivatives of space with regard to time mean, and the people who are associated with them... sure, go ahead. But we already are almost there with macos and chromeos and linux. We just need one more layer: root can allow and rescind privs to users who can allow and rescind privs to applications but the fact of the matter is, right now people not in the categories above do not like the tradeoff of thinking about permissions in exchange for more control. Microsoft and Apple could force it on them, but as soon as a convenience feature of "never think about this decision again" shows up, users will click on that and never think about it at all. Some people will click on things because they were promised a game, or porn, or wallpaper images of kittens.

username90 5y ago

Almost surely that will be coupled with an appstore and end the era of free computing for most people. It would be great if it didn't happen that way, but I don't see Apple or Microsoft doing it any other way.

roenxi 5y ago

Things that used to work will get broken. The fact that taking a screenshot on Wayland took something like a decade to sort out speaks volumes as to the downsides of this approach. It'll be worth it in the long term, but short term it'll probably hurt.

idle_zealot 5y ago
> screenshot on wayland Also note that the solution (at least in wlroots-based compositors) seems to allow any program running as the logged-in user to screenshot or record any portion of the screen; the same as on X. Though flatpack apps need to use special permission that grants them access to only parts of your screen.

363722636 5y ago

I want an os that's useful, streamlined, and can run games without adding an asterisk. That basically locks me into Windows. I've heard lots of great excuses for why things are this way and noted the progress Steam has made in pushing forward gaming on Linux but ultimately there's always a wall or a compromise in what mainstream programs I can use and I'm not the sort of person who can feel good because the worse experience has principles. I don't mind if a job wants me to work with Linux, that's fine, but when I come home I don't want to have to think about edge cases or software equivalents.

fragileone 5y ago
That's fair, except for utility in my usage Windows runs less of the programs I want. Linux users tend to prioritise software freedom, digital privacy, customisability, hackability and longevity, so will settle for it being a little less streamlined and being able to run 15k out of 18k Steam games, which is more than enough games for my enjoyment. Each to their own.
- hyperman1 5y ago
  I wonder if less streamlined is still an issue. Yes, Linux has plenty of weird bugs and sharp corners, but since windows 8 or so, windows has at least as much of them. Wine gets at the point that it runs older windows software better than windows. Games is still hit or miss, though.

swiley 5y ago

No, we don't. Stuff you don't trust and can't be bothered to publish source and engage with the community belongs in the browser. Native code is a privilege reserved for people who are friendly. As you can see from iOS and Android all the sandboxing does is screw over people working in good faith (termux, ish) and doesn't stop malware.

pjmlp 5y ago
Termux has a solution that they refuse to adopt, use Java APIs from Android. Android's use of Linux kernel is an implementation detail, trying to pretend otherwise only leads to pain.
- swiley 5y ago
  >use Java APIs from Android. Considering termux is package mostly software written in c I'd love to hear how you expect them to do that.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    By doing like anyone else on Android does, by making use of JNI and NDK APIs, the actual Android ABIs. In regards to C, Android NDK supports ISO C11 and ISO C++17 as of today. Android is not Linux, just borrowed the kernel as implementation detail. Naturally some folks don't get it, thus keep trying the broken road to use POSIX in Android, and that road ends in failure.

tyingq 5y ago

I want it, but not bad enough to live with the various inconveniences.

grawprog 5y ago

Not really no, this would break just about every software workflow I use. My music production workflow relies on being able to arbitrarily send inputs and outputs between any other piece of software I want. There isn't really any software I use that can exist in its own sandboxed bubble separate from everything else. I've experienced this several times trying Android ports of Linux software I use, they're usually lacking features or configuration folders are inaccessible because of Android's sandboxing and permissions. The last thing I want is for my desktop to be that way too.

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago

I really like alpine linux's goals i.e. Install only the things which are absolutely necessary on a hardened system. But as desktop you are seriously limited by its dependency on musl, Most common apps are dependent upon glibc and so you'll have to compile it against musl if that's even possible. So the point being, We have secure desktop OSes but how much productivity are we ready to give up for that?