Imagine your friend that does not know anything about linux, don’t you think this would make them not install the firefox flatpak and potentially think that linux is unsafe?

I ask this because I believe we must be careful and make small changes to welcome new users in the future, we have to make them as much comfortable as possible when experimenting with a new O.S

I believe this warning could have a less alarming design, saying something like “This app can use elevated permissions. What does this mean?” with the “What does this mean?” text as a clickable URL that shows the user that this may cause security risks. I mean, is kind of a contradiction to have “verified” on the app and a red warning saying “Potentially unsafe”, the user will think “well, should I trust this or not??”

  • Litanys
    link
    fedilink
    English
    115 months ago

    Yes, but also… It’s true. Browsers are the number one way folks get viruses.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      185 months ago

      Which is hilarious because desktop apps have always had the capability to spy on all other apps and steal all your data.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          45 months ago

          Windows has implemented quite a few tricks to make this very difficult without setting off antivirus engines

          That’s funny because we have been shipping a commercial Windows app since XP that is keylogger-based using SetWindowsHookEx, and it has only tripped users’ antivirus maybe 1 or 2 times in 20 years.

          I wonder if there’s a desktop distro out there that enforces sandboxed applications by default.

          EasyOS is the first distro I’ve seen that at least runs every app as its own user by default, similar to Android.

      • Bilb!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -165 months ago

        On bad operating systems like Linux, yes. ;)

        • @pivot_root
          link
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You’re thinking of operating systems that give unrestricted access to all parts of a computer that aren’t memory or the camera. That would everything1, actually.

          1 There’s also Linux with properly-configured SELinux, but good luck with that on a distro that isn’t focused on opsec.

          • Para_lyzed
            link
            65 months ago

            Fedora has pretty good SELinux configured out of the box, and isn’t focused on opsec. It’s just sane defaults and proper limitations to access. It also switched to Walyand-by-default this release, completely removing X11 from the default packages, which mitigates many of the “app spying on other app” scenarios that a previous user in the thread was talking about. That’s not to say that Fedora is the pinnacle of Linux security or anything, but it comes with pretty good defaults for the average user. You’d have to get into kernel hardening and deep into SELinux to do better as an end user, which is not something that most users are inclined to spend time or energy on.

          • Bilb!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -65 months ago

            So in other words, I’m thinking of Linux

            • @pivot_root
              link
              85 months ago

              If you’re willing to admit that you’re denigrating an operating system for having the same flaws as the one you prefer and are being a massive hypocrite in doing so, sure.

              • Bilb!
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -45 months ago

                You’ve lost me on this one. No idea what you mean. But either way, I think you should take my comment just a bit less seriously.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s not specific to browsers, but to every flatpak that is verified and has the potentially unsafe warning.