3 ms·

Users opening anything and everything is only a problem because Windows doesn't (or rather didn't, for a long time) have a package manager and "opening anything

by ta8903 4y ago

Users opening anything and everything is only a problem because Windows doesn't (or rather didn't, for a long time) have a package manager and "opening anything and everything" is the primary way to install applications.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
Notice how I used an example that’s not remotely related to installing and using application? I highly doubt that having a built in package manager starting in Windows 98 would have in any way shape or form affected how people interact with email attachments. They’re two completely different tasks and nothing about package management would really carry over. People are still going to want to read that super important attachment without a second thought even if they can install a package using Apt. In fact, macOS has pretty much the exact same protections in the form of Gatekeeper, so it’s clearly not a Windows-only thing.
- account42 4y ago
  > Notice how I used an example that’s not remotely related to installing and using application? GPs point was that users are trained by having to run random executables in order to install anything. That they are now conditioned into casually running other programs that are not installers is the result. > I highly doubt that having a built in package manager starting in Windows 98 would have in any way shape or form affected how people interact with email attachments. They’re two completely different tasks and nothing about package management would really carry over. People are still going to want to read that super important attachment without a second thought even if they can install a package using Apt. This is an argument for making opening something and running something distinct actions in GUI programs (including your mail reader, browser downloads and file explorer) so that a user trying to open something does not execute it by accident, not for the current AV industry. It just so happens that that's how things work in many Linux desktop environments. > In fact, macOS has pretty much the exact same protections in the form of Gatekeeper, so it’s clearly not a Windows-only thing. Apple, like Microsoft, also profits from making developers codesign their applications. They also both want to profit even more by making developers sell their applications through the OS app store where they can take a cut. Both of them engaging in this "security" bs is hardly an argument that they are doing it to protect their users.

by ta8903 4y ago

mynameisvlad 4y ago

Notice how I used an example that’s not remotely related to installing and using application? I highly doubt that having a built in package manager starting in Windows 98 would have in any way shape or form affected how people interact with email attachments. They’re two completely different tasks and nothing about package management would really carry over. People are still going to want to read that super important attachment without a second thought even if they can install a package using Apt. In fact, macOS has pretty much the exact same protections in the form of Gatekeeper, so it’s clearly not a Windows-only thing.

account42 4y ago
> Notice how I used an example that’s not remotely related to installing and using application? GPs point was that users are trained by having to run random executables in order to install anything. That they are now conditioned into casually running other programs that are not installers is the result. > I highly doubt that having a built in package manager starting in Windows 98 would have in any way shape or form affected how people interact with email attachments. They’re two completely different tasks and nothing about package management would really carry over. People are still going to want to read that super important attachment without a second thought even if they can install a package using Apt. This is an argument for making opening something and running something distinct actions in GUI programs (including your mail reader, browser downloads and file explorer) so that a user trying to open something does not execute it by accident, not for the current AV industry. It just so happens that that's how things work in many Linux desktop environments. > In fact, macOS has pretty much the exact same protections in the form of Gatekeeper, so it’s clearly not a Windows-only thing. Apple, like Microsoft, also profits from making developers codesign their applications. They also both want to profit even more by making developers sell their applications through the OS app store where they can take a cut. Both of them engaging in this "security" bs is hardly an argument that they are doing it to protect their users.