I disagree. I want an updated system but without giving up
security.Also comparing a phone with a computer isn't correct, they
have different uses and features, and they're mean to accomplish
different tasks.About placing Flatpak apps inside of /home.... The
idea is keeping them in a sandbox separated from system. I don't see
anything wrong in placing them there, but if you do, please
explain. I'm curious to know.
Kind regards,Silvia
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 17:32 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-04-02 at 09:44 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Also: being able to install without authentication but not delete
> > matches our behavior for system packages. I think it's silly to
> > allow
> > users to install stuff but not to remove it, but that's our
> > status quo.
>
> I thought the intent was that you should need admin privileges to
> do
> either. The only thing regular users are supposed to be allowed to
> do
> without admin privileges is *update* the system, though since that
> now
> requires a system reboot, I'm not sure even that should be allowed
> without auth any more.
Ick.
I want to see the OS and apps updated on a regular basis, by default,
no user intervention. Just do it. I've tacitly given permission for
this by installing Fedora already. It should be one of its
responsibilities. Like cleaning up /var/tmp.
Especially flatpak applications - just update them. They can be
rolled
back if they break something.
As for where to install, whether admin user or non-admin, I think the
app needs to go outside of /home. Find another way to additionally
embargo "user" apps behind the scenes, but storing them on /home I
think is consuming the wrong resource.
Android phone, I can install an application and not be asked to
authenticate anything beyond the lock screen.