Live data from Hacker News

Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

news.ycombinator.com

81–82 of 82 posts

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#81

I agree with the sentiment; I also want to control where things are installed. But the framing of the technical problem here is totally backwards. The operating system or application manager within the operating system (what does flatpak consider itself?) should decide where all application state goes. The application shouldn't ever prompt the user for this, it should just assume a path inside a sandbox. That path in…

Spoken like a Linux software developer, I suppose. As a Windows user of generic software (image editing, video players, games, etc.), I want to be able to control such crap. I have a media player that can easily fill a small HD with its mindlessly huge DB, for instance. Rather than manually cleaning periodically, or upgrading my $y$tem, it's easiest to say "Software, store your data here ".

> Spoken like a Linux software developer

These techniques are pretty general purpose. They aren't merely a cultural artifact of Linux or FOSS. Anyone trying to sanely deal with authorization is going to stumble upon sandboxing, and capabilities, and the principal of least authority, etc. if they look hard enough.

Re: Can we talk about the rude installers not asking for installation locations?

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not approved by IT in advance, by definition it is random, and quite possibly crap.

Where did I write that it was not approved in advance...? The post is about requiring admin to install to Program Files. Even if it is an approved piece of software, you're still going to need admin to install it.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN