Linux

9940 readers

443 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

451

5 reasons you should ditch Windows for Linux today (www.zdnet.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Sunshine@piefed.social to c/linux@programming.dev

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] toothpaste_sandwich@thebrainbin.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The way Windows handles it is that if updates are coming in through "secure" channels (official OS updates, Store application updates, updates to applications that do not touch any protected areas), administrator permissions are just never required.

As far as I know, that works the same in Linux. Updates come in through the official repository, and you can easily set it up so that no password prompt is needed to have the update install. I imagine many user-friendly distributions do that. Of course, you will need to really get it into the head of new users that they only install things through the package manager and never through the command line.

The UAC prompt has a very specific design and will warn you with an orange colour band if the application is not signed with appropriate certificates. If it's a suspected dangerous application, the band will be red.

Well, that sounds like something that shouldn't be too hard to set up on Linux. Something like "you're installing something that's not from our official repo... You sure bro?"

in Linux everything is dropped, based on type, to just a couple of "centralised" folders, right?

I'm not so sure if that is true, actually! Sandboxed applications are very much a thing in Linux, and immutable distributions are an extra protection against unwanted tampering.

(I'm not sure if sandboxed is the term here, I'll be honest. But you know the concept I mean.)

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As far as I know, that works the same in Linux (...) I imagine many user-friendly distributions do that

None that I have used. Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Tuxedo OS and now Garuda Linux all require root permissions to apply any sort of updates.

you can easily set it up so that no password prompt is needed to have the update install

Yeah, that's part of the problem right there. I think it should be the default setting and you should be able to set it up so that root is needed, not the other way around. But, I don't know, maybe there are distros that do this.

Sandboxed applications are very much a thing in Linux

Yeah, but they're few and far between. What is there? The generally hated Snap, Flatpak, and AppImage. Three solutions to the same problem, each doing it differently, each having it's own issues... One of which is that a lot of applications still don't support them.

(I’m not sure if sandboxed is the term here, I’ll be honest. But you know the concept I mean.)

I know what you mean, yeah. And, at least in the case of Flatpak, that's very much the correct term.

[–] toothpaste_sandwich@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 week ago

All right, so thinking in solutions here—sandboxed applications, no password prompt for updates, and a more alert-y warning when a password prompt is shown. Surely there's a distro that does the first two things, already?

And also, if no password is needed for updates, the average user will never see a password prompt. Which would make a clandestine .sh file with a password pop-up inherently more worrying.

I'll have a look-see at some modern distros, I'm pretty sure the no-password-updates is quite normal these days. Also, that does seem to remove some of the necessity of sandboxed applications, if all applications are installed though the official repositories.