16 ms·
If "automatic updates" were optional and off-by-default then users would not be vulnerable to something like SimpleMobileTools Why not let the user decide Let
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
If "automatic updates" were optional and off-by-default then users would not be vulnerable to something like SimpleMobileTools
Why not let the user decide
Letting someone else decide has potential consequences
Using F-Droid app ("automatic updates") is optional, as it should be
"Automatic updates" is another way of saying "allow somone else to remotely install software on this computer"
Some computer owners might not want that. It's their decision to make
I disable internet access to all apps by default, including system apps
When source code is provided I can remove internet access before compilation
Anyway, the entire OS is "user-hostile" requiring constant vigilance
It's controlled by an online ad services company
Surveillance as a business
- binkHN 1y ago> If "automatic updates" were optional and off-by-default then users would not be vulnerable to something like SimpleMobileTools The problem is the vast majority of users want this on by default; they don't want to be bothered with looking at every update and deciding if they should update or not.
- CodeMage 1y agoThe vast majority of users want their apps to work. They don't care whether that happens through automatic updates or not. It's the developers who don't want the headache of not having automatic updates.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago"Automatic updates" is "remote code execution (RCE)" by permission Given the frequent complaints about the former, the notion of "permission" is dubious