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??”

  • bloodfart
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m double checking this myself now, but there are plenty of tools (debsum) they’re just not part of the default implementation as of last time I looked.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Right, I’m talking about like periodic or real-time scanning and alerting, which DISM/SFC on windows does.

      • bloodfart
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        i’m almost 100% that debsums on apt stuff and the --verify flag in rpm distros do what sfc did. (kinda, debsums and --verify check against a list of checksums from the repo, i’m pretty sure sfc cracks open an actual known version of the files and compares em with whats on disk)

        idk what dism does.