3 ms·

There's elevated risk because the downloadable scripts use `sudo`. I think the concept is great, but asking users to allow `sudo` permissions to a foreign scrip

There's elevated risk because the downloadable scripts use `sudo`. I think the concept is great, but asking users to allow `sudo` permissions to a foreign script site unseen is naturally bound to raise suspicisons. That said, I am thrilled that the site is protected by HTTPS, especially the install scripts themselves. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this product, and I see several ways to monetize it. The only problem for me is that I'm currently using a (cheap) webhost with restricted accounts and I cannot use `sudo`, but in the future I'll come back to see how your site performs.

lnguyen 14y ago
"sudo" is unavoidable since the installs are designed to go into /usr/local. The other option would be to require you to run as root/privileged which leads to the same issue of running an unseen script and just adds an extra step to the process. It's possible to design the process to allow installs into other locations but that would require a fair bit of extra configuration (picking up the libraries, etc.) and testing. And you'd lose the service startups. It's something to think about if there's enough demand (and probably required for supporting Macs)
- fruchtose 14y ago
  Perhaps custom installs could be a premium feature?