Re: [PMH] Re: [Nautilus-list] Idea for Nautilus and GMC.

On 23 May 2001 10:01:27 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > 
> > Currently when people download executables from the network, say for
> > installing software, they can not execute them because the execute bit
> > is not set.
> > 
> > So typical installation instructions for a Unix application look like
> > this:
> > 
> >         1. Click on this link to download.
> >         2. Run a shell
> >         3. type chmod +x file
> >         4. Run
> > 
> > Ideally, we want to avoid this problem in GNOME, and we just want
> > executables to just work.  As they do in Windows.
> Do we? Really?

A problem comes to mind:

	There are several IRC clients that can do auto-dcc, and some 	default
the dcc-save directory to your homedir. This is stupid. 
	And I am sure there are users who dont understand DCC and what
	it is once we get more novice users to GNOME. So DCC send a 	.desktop
file and some nasty binary to the user, using some of 	the funny icons
from /usr/share/pixmaps, and it is pretty likely
	people will click it. Or just send binaries as email.

This is hypothetical, but seriously we should think hard about this
first, and try to think about the possible consequences. I am not an
expert on this, but this sounds scary.

Also, like Vlad said, is this so likely really? Most applications are
shipped as RPMS or .debs these days, you dont really see plain binaries
much. If someone gives you one, the person can also explain how to run
it. And if you dont know the person, you probably should not run it
anyway. How many of the binaries you encounter really are ones you
should run? I know it is the same issue if you install any binary
packages, but still. Most "real" software comes in a package these days.


|  Tuomas Kuosmanen  |  Ximian  |  Art Director  |
|  tigert ximian com |           |

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]