Recent searches
Search options
Also, this dialogue really needs a redesign. Again, we should not be parroting the design decisions of trillion-dollar corporations like Apple.
Sideloading (or otherwise known as installing) apps from the web should not be demonised. We should be looking at webs of trust, etc.
In the case of an OS like elementary OS, with a tiny team, there is no reason to put Developer X’s review/trust above Developer Y’s review/trust.
Going to have a think about how this can be made less scary…
… I mean, when you think about it, right now what this dialogue effectively says is “the app hasn’t been reviewed by Danielle, only by Aral so it’s untrusted” – you should trust Danielle and not Aral.
Now I agree that you should Danielle (not least of all because she makes the OS and if she was malicious, well, you’re screwed anyway) but I don’t see how “you should not trust Aral” follows from that.
Instead, given the source is free and open (a difference to Apple), we should be linking to it…
… and maybe even thinking about building systems where other developers can review it and lend it their approval.
I feel there is a huge amount of potential in using the web to have decentralised app installations while also maintaining a high level of security. We don’t have to parrot what Apple does. Their system makes sense for a trillion-dollar corporation with thousands of reviewers and almost all closed-source apps.
@aral one might also mention that "has been review" usually means "it didn't say it contains malware in the changelog" and "it still seems to run on my machine with the new package".
Which is a very different kind of review than, I guess, most people expect/imagine by the word " review".
@aral Kind of like the peer review system then.