I like flatpaks and flathub, but this is just something they do badly. I think as well they also have “probably safe” which is just as unhelpful… And what does “access certain files and folders” even mean!?
I think they should just follow the example of every other app store; list the permissions in an easily understandable list and let the user decide whether or not they are comfortable with it.
I think they should just follow the example of every other app store; list the permissions in an easily understandable list and let the user decide whether or not they are comfortable with it.
Totally agree. The “verified” label will give new users enough comfort, and the ones who wish to know more will read the permissions.
When I look at Firefox in Discover, it only shows the list of permissions the flatpak will be given out of the box, with no warning of it being “potentially unsafe.” This certainly does seem like the better way to handle it.
Also, the warning on the Flathub website is clickable - it expands into the full permissions list. Why it defaults to “no information except maybe dangerous” is beyond me.
Also conscientious objectors exist, even when conscripted through the draft they were relegated to non-combat roles, the same exists for the American military now, it takes all types of people to keep a war machine running.
Not sure about the down arrow in particular but I have seen objects (e.g. a corner of a book) accidentally lie on a key at the edge of a keyboard before.
It’s at least a well done tattoo. It has good concise line work and good shading and color. The question is, did they draw it or did the person getting it? It’s a pop art interpretation and not a portrait but a portrait and an intentional joke tattoo don’t always mix.
In my opinion, those warnings are not used to help users but to shame developpers for not trully sandboxing and verifying their apps. Developpers know that having this warning will decrease the number of users downloading it. The goal in the long run is to improve app sandboxing and security.
By not letting the user import/export addon settings, bookmarks?
Btw, i hate the opinion that the dev must babysit his users. It makes software worse, not better, look at Firefox’s profille folder for an example. If you have to, make an intro to train them.
You could but where is fails is when you open one html file that then needs to loads the other files that are needed by the first.
You can not allow chain loading like this, it would bypass the sandbox.
One way of working around this would to allow the option of passing a whole folder and sub folders to the program.
The other and much harder option would be a per program portal filter that can read the html file. then workout what files that html file needs and offer that list of files to the user.
The lazy work around is allow read access to $HOME and deny access to some files and folders like .ssh
Makes sense, but at least this would generally be out of a normal users usage case (multi-file documents), and so the power user could probably just open flatseal.
For things like bookmarks it’d work fine, and by extension make the sandbox more secure
Makes sense, but at least this would generally be out of a normal users usage case (multi-file documents), and so the power user could probably just open flatseal.
I would not be so sure. Firefox has a “save web page as…” option which saves the html page and all other files needed into a sub folder.
Without better handling of reading and writing files the sandbox will break that builtin function. another way of working around this. would be to change firefox to save the web page into one file. Maybe something a .html+zip file that firefox would know how to open. However that would lock other browsers out without manualy unziping it first.
Getting sandboxing right with powerful programs is very hard and I feel the tooling is still not here yet.
Even more accurate is to say that he paid the salaries of a large number of animal “house workers” hence their catchphrase “It’s a living!” They all earned their living off of that one guy’s income
Actually I kinda agree, that’s kind of awesome in a terrible, ironic way (and making fun of Twilight is timeless). Flashy disco Zoolander is a killer, y’all!
Sure, but irony kind of dies when you permanently affix it to your skin. So it’s terrible, but great because the sparkly dead fish face along with the awful line and sparkle emphasis, but then loops back around to “oh my God why” because it’s a goddamn tattoo.
The only viable possibilities I see are that this is a twilight fan that thinks it goes hard unironically, or a twilight hater that really needs a different hobby.
I mean, it’s not r/terriblelifedecisions (even if that really should be). In any case, I’ve seen worse tattoos as jokes. Not everyone has good judgement when it comes to permanent things.
It does go hard unironically. It’s clean, the sparkles come across immediately, even the text is surprisingly consistent given the font choice. Honestly, the only big gripe I have is some inconsistent line width in the hair, but I had to look for it.
If it was done to be funny, they nailed it. If it was done in earnest by a fan, fucken equally cool. It’s genuinely not a bad tattoo IMO.
The tattoo is excellent, but to permanently have it on your skin is a level of irony poisoning I aspire to have one day.
An upside of apocalyptic environmental collapse due by the end of the century is The Elders™ trying to explain their very specific joke tattoos to the younglings.
If the person finds it funny and it’s done well, why not?
I personally find the “eat pant” Bart cake to be so goddamn funny I can’t breathe basically any time I see it, so getting a well done tattoo of that for me would be great forever
programming.dev
Top