Ubuntu Still Trying To Lock Down Third-Party Debs

[sjukfan]

The question is really what road they want to take. Either they can with the super secure way where everything is controlled, or they could learn their users to not add repositories they're not sure about. And certainly not run programs as root.

[schmidtbag]

Why is that an issue? An .rpm won't install, so it's not dangerous (and if you're smart enough to actually use alien to get the package installed, then you're smart enough to realize the risk involved).

Well yea, to us it isn't an issue, but its confusing and annoying to newbs. It isn't really a big deal anyway, but I'm just saying, if they're going to make a fuss about 3rd party packages, .rpms are more of an issue than rather being officially supported.

[DanL]

I think a more realistic problem to fix is preventing people from downloading packages such as .rpm when ubuntu (by default) doesn't support them.

Why is that an issue? An .rpm won't install, so it's not dangerous (and if you're smart enough to actually use alien to get the package installed, then you're smart enough to realize the risk involved).

[Djhg2000]

How about instead of forcing policies on the users to make it a hassle to install 3rd party software, we instead try to teach the users what to trust and what not to.

A few simple guidelines should be enough, things like Ubuntus own repo is considered trustable and should be used when possible. If not, use a signed repo that could be considered trustable. Only install .debs manually if you really really have to, and GDebi on Debian already advices you to install the repo version of a package if it's available.

In my opinion, this approach is far superior to automated policies. Remember, the bad guys could always lie. If you tell them the truth before they encounter the lies, they have a fair chance at detecting it.

[MonkeyPaw]

I like how Android shows what permissions an App requires to function on your device. I know a desktop OS is not the same, but it would be nice direction to head. That way when you decide to install, the deb tells you what level of access it requires. Unfortunately, you'll never get everyone to proceed with caution, but making things too difficult will push people away like UAC did in Vista.

[GreatEmerald]

With btrfs/LVM snapshots, this is actually surprisingly easy to implement, at least on a sequential basis, which is just as good as Windows Restore.

Just as good? It's a lot better, and it's already working. We call it Snapper, at least here on openSUSE.

[acrazyplayer]

Chewi:

With btrfs/LVM snapshots, this is actually surprisingly easy to implement, at least on a sequential basis, which is just as good as Windows Restore.

Ext4 could have the same features as well which would make things even easier.

[Vadi]

As if anything will change... I'll go out on a limb to say that when most users will want to get something, and USC doesn't provide it: they'll still want to get it.

[Chewi]

Why not integrate some sort of system restore feature where if the package does mess up the system or anything else then you can just "restore" back before you installed package xyz.

With btrfs/LVM snapshots, this is actually surprisingly easy to implement, at least on a sequential basis, which is just as good as Windows Restore.

[acrazyplayer]

System Restore

Why not integrate some sort of system restore feature where if the package does mess up the system or anything else then you can just "restore" back before you installed package xyz.

This should be included anyways by default and should be part of the recovery menu at boot, this would help sell ubuntu even more.

However this could in turn make people want to install untrusted software even more because they feel they will be safe in the event something goes wrong.