3 ms·
Agreed. It's ok to find the extras useful, but it's not automatically right to include them let alone arm them by default. It may not be automatically wrong ei
by Brian_K_White 2y ago
Agreed. It's ok to find the extras useful, but it's not automatically right to include them let alone arm them by default.
It may not be automatically wrong either because there are a few imo weak arguments that some of the extensions outweigh their own increased attack surface by increasing usage of better passwords genetally and decreasing usage of the copy-paste buffer, so I won't go as far as to say that.
But what is wrong is acting like the opposite is also automatically wrong.
KeePassXC tooted something like "warning: debian removed all functions" obviously ridiculous unless they removed the function of encrypting and storing passwords. I replied "warning: KeePassXC has confused KeePass users with Lastpass users"
If you want convenience over all else, then why are you even using keepass? Google and MS will happily store all your passwords for free and in the cloud and automatically fill them into forms. So convenient! Let alone onepass/lastpass etc.
Security is not incidental to this particular apps purpose, it's the central and indeed only purpose.
"This is why no one should use debian"? What a ridiculous statement.
- timw4mail 2y agoIt's not about convenience above all else, it's about that practical balance that allows for the best practical security.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoIt's merely the slightest of inconvenience that the default case is safe and you have to click like 2 extra clicks to install and activate more attack surface.
- josephcsible 2y ago> it's not automatically right to include them let alone arm them by default. That's an entirely reasonable position when deciding which features to enable when adding a new package to Debian. But it's not reasonable to rip existing features out from under people.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoIt's entirely reasonable to say that a bug was fixed. People were accustomed to the bug? Oh well. That tiny inconvenience from having to react to the change is granted. Correcting the bug simply outweighs that.
- josephcsible 2y agoThere is no interpretation under which the features that were removed could be considered bugs.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoI did not say the features were bugs. I said it could be considered a bug (in the distribution) to have included those features by default.