3 ms·

> There is a very good reason desktops all use it. FSVO "all". Mine doesn't use it. If I have a task that needs elevated privileges, I run it from a terminal.

> There is a very good reason desktops all use it. FSVO "all". Mine doesn't use it. If I have a task that needs elevated privileges, I run it from a terminal. Seems to work for me.

throwawaysysd 5y ago
Sorry but if you keep falling back to the terminal to do things I would say you're not really using a desktop. What's the purpose of pointing this out? Yes, you can do whatever you want in Linux by opening the terminal and typing sudo. I understand the propensity of developers to like this because we spend all day in our xterm windows anyway but this is not the way anyone else expects a desktop to work. Just to follow this discussion a bit further: If you have a task that /really/ needs elevated privileges you could turn it into a kernel module. That's great for you if you want to do that, but will you tell everyone else to develop kernel modules for every little thing? I don't think I would. I'm happy to give the muggles a better interface.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I have no "desktop" tasks that need elevated privileges. I only use a GUI because I want to run things like a browser and a media player. If I need elevated privileges it's always a one-off job, which means I need a commandline anyway. There's a bunch of influential people that are bent on making "Linux desktop" be something that competes effectively with Windows and MacOS. Setting aside that I don't think those are particularly desirable objectives in the first place, I simply don't see it happening. Despite their deficiencies, Windows and MacOS work better than Linux desktops. A lot of the Linux desktop effort seems to really be "Linux laptop" - Linux support for machines that are constantly moving from one hotspot to another, and constantly having storage and other devices plugged in and unplugged. That isn't my use-case. Most of my Linux machines are servers with no GUI. The one with a GUI doesn't travel, and gets something plugged into it maybe once a month. I realise that my usage pattern isn't universal; I was just correcting the claim that "all desktops use it". You only need one counterexample to refute such a claim.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    > There's a bunch of influential people that are bent on making "Linux desktop" be something that competes effectively with Windows and MacOS. And not necessarily with the interests of Windows or MacOS end users, but more corporate interests. I think a lot of Windows users for example were and would still be fine with a system that is effectively a single-user desktop. A permission prompt to prevent random apps from spying on you using your microphone and camera is probably a Good Idea for the average user but all this user policy business is just pointless; users themselves should always have access to their own devices anyway, just as they would on old Windows installs where the user was typically the only user and always administrator. And yeah, I don't like that a few people get to define what exactly constitutes a desktop for everyone. Especially if under the guise of "this is what a modern desktop requires" they're free to turn the platform into a bloated, overcomplicated mess.. exactly the kind of thing I was happy to get away from when I left proprietary operating systems behind two decades ago.
    - throwawaysysd 5y ago
      I don't understand what you mean by a few people get to define it. This stuff is used by basically every desktop environment on Linux. You have to either use it or write something very similar to it if you want to have permission prompts that actually work. They all give the option to turn it off but they still have to support it for the average user you described. Unsurprisingly, the requirements for shipping a desktop are really not that different on Linux compared to other operating systems. The users all want the same things. From what I have seen, the amount of users that want to go back to the Windows 95 style of security are an even fewer people. You can find distros that still ship a desktop from that era but they don't seem to be for much beyond novelty.
      - foxfluff 5y ago
        > The users all want the same things. Please don't speak for everyone. It's exactly this patronizing we-know-better-than-you attitude that makes users hate their corporate software vendors. > From what I have seen, the amount of users that want to go back to the Windows 95 style of security are an even fewer people. I knew someone would immediately reply with this straw man as soon as they saw mention of old Windows. I said user policies are pointless for a single-user desktop. It's irrelevant whether dave and samantha can access the audio device in john's session because dave and samantha don't exist on john's personal computer and he sure ain't running an ssh daemon for them.

> There is a very good reason desktops all use it. FSVO "all". Mine doesn't use it. If I have a task that needs elevated privileges, I run it from a terminal. Seems to work for me.

throwawaysysd 5y ago

Sorry but if you keep falling back to the terminal to do things I would say you're not really using a desktop. What's the purpose of pointing this out? Yes, you can do whatever you want in Linux by opening the terminal and typing sudo. I understand the propensity of developers to like this because we spend all day in our xterm windows anyway but this is not the way anyone else expects a desktop to work. Just to follow this discussion a bit further: If you have a task that /really/ needs elevated privileges you could turn it into a kernel module. That's great for you if you want to do that, but will you tell everyone else to develop kernel modules for every little thing? I don't think I would. I'm happy to give the muggles a better interface.

denton-scratch 5y ago
I have no "desktop" tasks that need elevated privileges. I only use a GUI because I want to run things like a browser and a media player. If I need elevated privileges it's always a one-off job, which means I need a commandline anyway. There's a bunch of influential people that are bent on making "Linux desktop" be something that competes effectively with Windows and MacOS. Setting aside that I don't think those are particularly desirable objectives in the first place, I simply don't see it happening. Despite their deficiencies, Windows and MacOS work better than Linux desktops. A lot of the Linux desktop effort seems to really be "Linux laptop" - Linux support for machines that are constantly moving from one hotspot to another, and constantly having storage and other devices plugged in and unplugged. That isn't my use-case. Most of my Linux machines are servers with no GUI. The one with a GUI doesn't travel, and gets something plugged into it maybe once a month. I realise that my usage pattern isn't universal; I was just correcting the claim that "all desktops use it". You only need one counterexample to refute such a claim.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  > There's a bunch of influential people that are bent on making "Linux desktop" be something that competes effectively with Windows and MacOS. And not necessarily with the interests of Windows or MacOS end users, but more corporate interests. I think a lot of Windows users for example were and would still be fine with a system that is effectively a single-user desktop. A permission prompt to prevent random apps from spying on you using your microphone and camera is probably a Good Idea for the average user but all this user policy business is just pointless; users themselves should always have access to their own devices anyway, just as they would on old Windows installs where the user was typically the only user and always administrator. And yeah, I don't like that a few people get to define what exactly constitutes a desktop for everyone. Especially if under the guise of "this is what a modern desktop requires" they're free to turn the platform into a bloated, overcomplicated mess.. exactly the kind of thing I was happy to get away from when I left proprietary operating systems behind two decades ago.
  - throwawaysysd 5y ago
    I don't understand what you mean by a few people get to define it. This stuff is used by basically every desktop environment on Linux. You have to either use it or write something very similar to it if you want to have permission prompts that actually work. They all give the option to turn it off but they still have to support it for the average user you described. Unsurprisingly, the requirements for shipping a desktop are really not that different on Linux compared to other operating systems. The users all want the same things. From what I have seen, the amount of users that want to go back to the Windows 95 style of security are an even fewer people. You can find distros that still ship a desktop from that era but they don't seem to be for much beyond novelty.
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      > The users all want the same things. Please don't speak for everyone. It's exactly this patronizing we-know-better-than-you attitude that makes users hate their corporate software vendors. > From what I have seen, the amount of users that want to go back to the Windows 95 style of security are an even fewer people. I knew someone would immediately reply with this straw man as soon as they saw mention of old Windows. I said user policies are pointless for a single-user desktop. It's irrelevant whether dave and samantha can access the audio device in john's session because dave and samantha don't exist on john's personal computer and he sure ain't running an ssh daemon for them.