6 ms·

Because of the sandboxing browsers provide. The barrier to install native software should be very, very high. It is like having unprotected sex with someone. T

by TekMol 4y ago

Because of the sandboxing browsers provide. The barrier to install native software should be very, very high. It is like having unprotected sex with someone. There needs to be a high level of trust and a long term commitment. Using a website on the other hand is like exchanging a few nice words. You can do that with a stranger, without much risk. It is also easier to handle. A website can be bookmarked and usually loads in a second or so. Websites are also easy to customize. Usually you can bookmark individual pages directly. Often with the parameters you regularly need. You can zoom in and out of the interface. You can customize the HTML and CSS and even the functionality via bookmarklets. And you can link to websites and everybody - independent of their OS - can instantly use it.

bertman 4y ago
>Using a website on the other hand is like exchanging a few nice words This is absolutely not true if you're supposed to upload (possibly private) images to some random server for e.g. background removal.
- TekMol 4y ago
  Sure, the words you exchange are now known to the other party. But a native app can upload anything it wants anywhere. Not just the images you processed but anything it can access on your computer.
  - eitland 4y ago
    Good points on both sides. But I am absolutely still in the camp that trusts Gimp way more than uploading photos to a random website.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      > Good points on both sides. All the points are true, so we need to dig a little deeper and be more specific about what is at issue here. Online and Native are quite different trust and utility models. Web applications protect the execution environment owned and managed by the user. They do so at the cost of compromising some of the user's data, which must usually be processed remotely. The protection applies to most of the user's data. This trust tradeoff is iterated/ongoing, so that benefits and harms accrue over time. Native applications make a one-off trust transaction. "Is it safe to install on my device?". In the win situation the benefit is speedy and safe processing of all the user's data for all future time. If the user is tricked, then the loss is catastrophic, exposing potentially all of the user's data, perhaps silently/undetectably for considerable future time. That's a very simplified and perhaps naive distinction. Despite the pressures of surveillance capitalism, some web services are honest, TLS and GDPR work, and some users are sensible about what they share online. On the flip side we are seeing that devices come pwned from the factory, at the hardware or firmware level, which makes a nonsense of the whole "endpoint security" paradigm.
      - eitland 4y ago
        > If the user is tricked, then the loss is catastrophic, exposing potentially all of the user's data, perhaps silently/undetectably for considerable future time. For offline users we also have malware detection and firewalls. Stopping outgoing connections can be be really effective, bjt of course: if one has doubts one probably shouldn't install.
  - probably_wrong 4y ago
    > Sure, the words you exchange are now known to the other party ... and their business partners, and their business partners, and so on. That's a lot of ToS to go through just to check who gets a copy of my data. Gimp may have access to my computer, but I would be shocked if it were to upload a single file without my permission.
    - lupire 4y ago
      That's because GIMP has decades of reputation. But if you search for GIMP online and land on TotallyFreeGimp.com and click Download Now, all bets are off.
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    > But a native app can upload anything it wants anywhere. can you exhibit one single instance of this happening in for instance Debian or Arch official packages
xzjis 4y ago
> Using a website on the other hand is like exchanging a few nice words. You can do that with a stranger, without much risk. Considering surveillance capitalism and all the trackers these commercial websites have, it's more like dating a spy that tries to know you better. The risk you take is that the small amount of data you give to them will be linked to the huge amount of data they already have on you.
jcelerier 4y ago
yet in my life I need a lot more hands to count the number of times visiting some website caused problems, vs something bad happening due to installing $OPEN_SOURCE_SOFTWARE (exactly zero times to me)
whartung 4y ago
> The barrier to install native software should be very, very high. No, the barrier that the software must leap to do awful things to your computer should be very high. Folks complain about the secure enclave, the signing requirements, the notarization, sandboxes, etc. But those are all barriers on the producer side. App stores help mitigate this. Folks don't think twice about downloading an iOS app from the app store (I do, but I'm not normal -- I hate apps). Look at the hoops Apple had to, and continues to, go through to keep applications from unknowingly looting the user. The most criminal thing, historically, done by Windows over the ages was simply requiring EVERYTHING to be "admin". You couldn't install Minesweeper without typing in your password. So, everyone, naturally, automatically, does so without a second thought. They're conditioned that this is OK. It's not OK. It was never OK. The whole idea of having to do that, type in your password to install software, should have a big red, DO NOT DO THIS, bouncing and dancing bear around it. The Mac has always had less of this. Seems most of the exploits require users to download software and give it admin privileges. Yea, Don't Do That. Of course, the problem is the culture. It would be nice to not have to Caveat Emptor every darn thing under the assumption that it's horribly dangerous. It would be nice to grab a plum off a display and eat it without having to vet the vendor. But, bad actors, rampant bad actors, and rampant "good actors" behaving badly, have proven that we just don't live in that kind of world. Installing "safe" software, should be simple.
- solardev 4y ago
  We have an ecosystem where running nontrusted software can be relatively safe... it's just on the web. Legacy desktop OSes don't have the permissions models that make this easily achievable outside the browser. Even the mobile platforms are only slowly evolving (I want this app to access ONLY this folder or that picture, not all my user files). Frankly I would never trust users to be able to differentiate between sane and unnecessary permissions. If you make everything super granular or repetitive it's just going to lead to banner blindness (yes, damn it Google, I want this hiking app to know precisely where I am... I told you the last seven times you asked). Or on iOS, having to enter my longass Apple password just to download a free app whenever the fingerprint scanner doesn't work (which is usually). Even without security concerns, native apps are a pain in the ass. The web is nice in that most of the sandboxing is invisible unless you need special sensor permissions (location, mic, camera, etc.) and so the user never gets bugged about it. Or has to worry about platform idiosyncrasies, disk space, versions, etc. In many ways the web is a superior app delivery platform. Why bother installing "safe" software when you can just run it in a sandbox without any installation or prompts at all? What Java and .NET tried to do back in the day now just happens, sight unseen, in browser windows.
nayuki 4y ago
> having unprotected sex Ah yes, the Jargon File said things about that: http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/SEX.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/SEX.html > SEX: /seks/ 1. Software EXchange. A technique invented by the blue-green algae hundreds of millions of years ago to speed up their evolution, which had been terribly slow up until then. Today, SEX parties are popular among hackers and others (of course, these are no longer limited to exchanges of genetic software). In general, SEX parties are a Good Thing, but unprotected SEX can propagate a virus.

by TekMol 4y ago

bertman 4y ago

>Using a website on the other hand is like exchanging a few nice words This is absolutely not true if you're supposed to upload (possibly private) images to some random server for e.g. background removal.

TekMol 4y ago
Sure, the words you exchange are now known to the other party. But a native app can upload anything it wants anywhere. Not just the images you processed but anything it can access on your computer.
- eitland 4y ago
  Good points on both sides. But I am absolutely still in the camp that trusts Gimp way more than uploading photos to a random website.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > Good points on both sides. All the points are true, so we need to dig a little deeper and be more specific about what is at issue here. Online and Native are quite different trust and utility models. Web applications protect the execution environment owned and managed by the user. They do so at the cost of compromising some of the user's data, which must usually be processed remotely. The protection applies to most of the user's data. This trust tradeoff is iterated/ongoing, so that benefits and harms accrue over time. Native applications make a one-off trust transaction. "Is it safe to install on my device?". In the win situation the benefit is speedy and safe processing of all the user's data for all future time. If the user is tricked, then the loss is catastrophic, exposing potentially all of the user's data, perhaps silently/undetectably for considerable future time. That's a very simplified and perhaps naive distinction. Despite the pressures of surveillance capitalism, some web services are honest, TLS and GDPR work, and some users are sensible about what they share online. On the flip side we are seeing that devices come pwned from the factory, at the hardware or firmware level, which makes a nonsense of the whole "endpoint security" paradigm.
    - eitland 4y ago
      > If the user is tricked, then the loss is catastrophic, exposing potentially all of the user's data, perhaps silently/undetectably for considerable future time. For offline users we also have malware detection and firewalls. Stopping outgoing connections can be be really effective, bjt of course: if one has doubts one probably shouldn't install.
- probably_wrong 4y ago
  > Sure, the words you exchange are now known to the other party ... and their business partners, and their business partners, and so on. That's a lot of ToS to go through just to check who gets a copy of my data. Gimp may have access to my computer, but I would be shocked if it were to upload a single file without my permission.
  - lupire 4y ago
    That's because GIMP has decades of reputation. But if you search for GIMP online and land on TotallyFreeGimp.com and click Download Now, all bets are off.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  > But a native app can upload anything it wants anywhere. can you exhibit one single instance of this happening in for instance Debian or Arch official packages

xzjis 4y ago

> Using a website on the other hand is like exchanging a few nice words. You can do that with a stranger, without much risk. Considering surveillance capitalism and all the trackers these commercial websites have, it's more like dating a spy that tries to know you better. The risk you take is that the small amount of data you give to them will be linked to the huge amount of data they already have on you.

jcelerier 4y ago

yet in my life I need a lot more hands to count the number of times visiting some website caused problems, vs something bad happening due to installing $OPEN_SOURCE_SOFTWARE (exactly zero times to me)

whartung 4y ago

> The barrier to install native software should be very, very high. No, the barrier that the software must leap to do awful things to your computer should be very high. Folks complain about the secure enclave, the signing requirements, the notarization, sandboxes, etc. But those are all barriers on the producer side. App stores help mitigate this. Folks don't think twice about downloading an iOS app from the app store (I do, but I'm not normal -- I hate apps). Look at the hoops Apple had to, and continues to, go through to keep applications from unknowingly looting the user. The most criminal thing, historically, done by Windows over the ages was simply requiring EVERYTHING to be "admin". You couldn't install Minesweeper without typing in your password. So, everyone, naturally, automatically, does so without a second thought. They're conditioned that this is OK. It's not OK. It was never OK. The whole idea of having to do that, type in your password to install software, should have a big red, DO NOT DO THIS, bouncing and dancing bear around it. The Mac has always had less of this. Seems most of the exploits require users to download software and give it admin privileges. Yea, Don't Do That. Of course, the problem is the culture. It would be nice to not have to Caveat Emptor every darn thing under the assumption that it's horribly dangerous. It would be nice to grab a plum off a display and eat it without having to vet the vendor. But, bad actors, rampant bad actors, and rampant "good actors" behaving badly, have proven that we just don't live in that kind of world. Installing "safe" software, should be simple.

solardev 4y ago
We have an ecosystem where running nontrusted software can be relatively safe... it's just on the web. Legacy desktop OSes don't have the permissions models that make this easily achievable outside the browser. Even the mobile platforms are only slowly evolving (I want this app to access ONLY this folder or that picture, not all my user files). Frankly I would never trust users to be able to differentiate between sane and unnecessary permissions. If you make everything super granular or repetitive it's just going to lead to banner blindness (yes, damn it Google, I want this hiking app to know precisely where I am... I told you the last seven times you asked). Or on iOS, having to enter my longass Apple password just to download a free app whenever the fingerprint scanner doesn't work (which is usually). Even without security concerns, native apps are a pain in the ass. The web is nice in that most of the sandboxing is invisible unless you need special sensor permissions (location, mic, camera, etc.) and so the user never gets bugged about it. Or has to worry about platform idiosyncrasies, disk space, versions, etc. In many ways the web is a superior app delivery platform. Why bother installing "safe" software when you can just run it in a sandbox without any installation or prompts at all? What Java and .NET tried to do back in the day now just happens, sight unseen, in browser windows.

nayuki 4y ago

> having unprotected sex Ah yes, the Jargon File said things about that: http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/SEX.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/SEX.html > SEX: /seks/ 1. Software EXchange. A technique invented by the blue-green algae hundreds of millions of years ago to speed up their evolution, which had been terribly slow up until then. Today, SEX parties are popular among hackers and others (of course, these are no longer limited to exchanges of genetic software). In general, SEX parties are a Good Thing, but unprotected SEX can propagate a virus.