Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Krita 4.4.0

krita.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#51

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

qayxc wrote: post #42
selfhoster11 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.

> 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 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.

4) Application-level security should be applied by default and at the OS level. Mobile OSs got this (mostly) right.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#52

Post by flohofwoe »

qayxc wrote: post #42
selfhoster11 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone wants to use the Windows Store, for multiple reasons. There's no reason to scare users away from independent software distribution.

> 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…

Google Chrome has a malware scan for downloads that actually seems to work, unlike Microsoft's SmartScreen which seems to be completely broken. Integrated malware protection is a good thing, but it needs to work to be useful (e.g. not automatically flag properly code-signed non-malware as malware). If users see the SmartScreen popup for regular software too often, they are just trained to automatically find and click the "Run anyway" button.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#54

Post by hashkb »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #47
Complexicate wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There absolutely is a reason. Microsoft's reason. Scaring users away from independent software distribution means more people will use the Windows Store.

Code signing existed for a long time before the store arrived.

I think it's about money, not security.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#55

Post by qayxc »

Shared404 wrote: post #48
qayxc wrote: post #42

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…

> (Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager)

Why? Name a technical reason and not ideological BS, please. I've yet to hear a proper argument that isn't just "because Microsoft".

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#56

Post by IshKebab »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #47
Complexicate wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There absolutely is a reason. Microsoft's reason. Scaring users away from independent software distribution means more people will use the Windows Store.

Code signing existed for a long time before the store arrived.

Of course! If they made independent software distribution impossible at the same time as introducing the store there would be an enormous backlash.

The strategy is to introduce the store and slowly make independent distribution more and more onerous, using security as justification. When people complain you can say "just put your app in the store and you won't need to worry about signin/notarisation/etc."

Apple are doing exactly the same thing.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#57

Post by qayxc »

flohofwoe wrote: post #52
qayxc wrote: post #42

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…

Google Chrome has a malware scan for downloads that actually seems to work, unlike Microsoft's SmartScreen which seems to be completely broken. Integrated malware protection is a good thing, but it needs to work to be useful (e.g. not automatically flag properly code-signed non-malware as malware). If users see the SmartScreen popup for regular software too often, they are just trained to automatically find and click…

That's fair, but completely besides the point of the OP.

If the complaint is "because it doesn't work well enough", the proper solution is to just disable it, which is of course an option. Crying "foul!", however, is neither constructive nor helpful in way.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#58

Post by qayxc »

helb wrote: post #41
qayxc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you see that? I can find it anywhere in the release notes or the Downloads-page.

Release notes, under Download > Windows: https://i.vgy.me/aI1J9m.png

Ah thanks! Must have been a cache issue, since it wasn't there before.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#59

Post by Shared404 »

qayxc wrote: post #55
Shared404 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

> (Windows Store) is worse than (random.exe)||(wget -O some.stupid.site/something.sh | sudo bash) is worse than (Proper package manager) Why? Name a technical reason and not ideological BS, please. I've yet to hear a proper argument that isn't just "because Microsoft".

Technical reason: Microsoft's moderating is kinda garbage. I don't trust them to keep malware out of the store effectively.

Edit: I trust my capability to moderate the sites I download from more than I trust Microsoft to prevent malware on the store.

"Ideological BS": I don't think wanting to stop account proliferation is "ideological BS" I have a certain number of accounts, I want less. I see no reason to make more.

Ideological BS: I don't trust Microsoft to not do more tracking than I find ethical.

Re: Krita 4.4.0

#60

Post by zepto »

webmobdev wrote: post #45
flohofwoe wrote: post #10

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.

That’s not accurate.

Gatekeeper only warns about unsigned software. It has nothing to do with whether it is in the App Store or not.

Post reply on HN