61–70 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution. Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! So which is it? And more importantly, how is this…
I can't speak for others, but for me there is no need to make up my mind: 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop yourself-- is not only perfectly fine, it's what makes personal computing great. 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves. 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly…
I do like this. The only thing that concerns me is disk space (which isn't really that big a deal at this point) and things like crypto libraries. With the crypto libraries, what happens when the statically compiled package has an out of date library/how do you recover without having to upgrade every program individually? (This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm sorry if I come off that way.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution. Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! So which is it? And more importantly, how is this…
> "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Yes. > Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! Yes, but ONLY because they require you to create a Microsoft account. If you could use it without the account, then it would be fine. Edit: I also tend to trust package maintainers for…
You don't need an account to use the Microsoft Store, they nag you about login in, but you can click cancel and the app will still install.
Note the red message about how to run the installer on Windows despite the SmartScreen popup. Microsoft really needs to do something about the whole SmartScreen mess if even properly signed, popular and trusted open source tools like Krita require such a "how to get around the SmartScreen popup" note in their installation instructions.
They are just imitating Apple's macOS - their GateKeeper also irritates you similarly when you install stuff not available in the app store (which I specifically avoid). Nobody wants their mac to turn into an iPad / iPhone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for others, but for me there is no need to make up my mind: 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop yourself-- is not only perfectly fine, it's what makes personal computing great. 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves. 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly…
> 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works. I do like this. The only thing that concerns me is disk space (which isn't really that big a deal at this point) and things like c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution. Can you please for the love of Zeus make up your mind already? "Installing random software from the Internet - bad! Linux good because package manager!" Microsoft offering a "store" (most software on it is free anyway) and allowing signed installers that won't trigger warnings - also bad! So which is it? And more importantly, how is this…
I can't speak for others, but for me there is no need to make up my mind: 1) Installing software directly from the developer --along with being able to develop yourself-- is not only perfectly fine, it's what makes personal computing great. 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves. 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly…
Nobody's stopping you from that, not even SmartScreen. The issue is that close to 100% of all malware is installed by users and the critique has been that Microsoft is offering neither sufficient protection nor a safe(r) alternative. SmartScreen and Windows Store - whatever your personal opinion about those might be - are completely optional ways to address this critique.
> 2) Package management is an over-engineered and inflexible solution that creates more problems than it solves.
All major *nix-based operating systems and their distributions seem to disagree with you on that; Most programming languages included.
> 3) Installers aren't as bad as package managers but are still overly complex and cause problems. Applications should be single files or directories that can be moved or copied anywhere you want. Numerous OSs had applications work this way by convention and it is also how AppImage works.
And that solves the security and trust issues how?
> 4) Application-level security should be applied by default and at the OS level. Mobile OSs got this (mostly) right.
Oh yeah, especially mobile OSes where every app wants full access to everything or just won't install/run. Pop-ups are just as bad because now you just train users to simply ignore them.
There is no silver bullet here, and SmartScreen isn't some "evil gatekeeper" that just exists to thwart independent software development. It's just an imperfect tool to address security and trust issues with random software packages downloaded from the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how. Arch still heavily relies on a repo and volunteer package maintainers.
Arch's Krita was updated to 4.4.0-4 at 2020-10-13 18:23 UTC, approximately 18 hours and 52 minutes ago. While I can't see when the original blog post was submitted, I know this forum post was posted 2 hours ago. Are you sure you would benefit from updating even faster? EDIT: In any case, you could use the AUR package that points directly to the git repo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, so I'll just go ahead and learn a new language just to install software, that's totally reasonable.
Sounds like perhaps Mac or Windows would be a better fit for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a painting program not an image editing program. they dont compete.
If there's something that GIMP can do that Krita can't, I never encountered it in over two years of using it for front end development and graphic design work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you never had a relative (usually your mom) install malware because they didn't know any better? Most people are not so tech savvy as those of us who frequent Hacker News.
There's nothing wrong about a malware scan on download (Chrome does this automatically too), but this scan should be smarter about detecting actual malware (it's called Smart Screen after all).