Put a lot of flammable liquid in a bin, dyed as Coca-Cola in 2 liter bottles (better yet, glass bottles, gotta love shrapnel) with a twin stage explosive in each bottle. This of course requires that the bottles are discarded before the xrays though
Crap now I'll probably be added to the shit-list as well.
Since they were using Adobe, it's not likely that they were using LaTeX.
Except the
Acrobat was probably only used to convert the ps to pdf.
To allow a non root user to in essence do root commands without prompting for a password just begs to be exploited.
I don't agree. First, we are talking about a desktop distro, and not a server: on a desktop the admin=the user. Second, if a user with physical access to the machine wants to exploit it, installing a package and searching for something to exploit would be the hard way. Just reboot, enter grub and start with runnlevel 1. There. root.
I don't agree. First, you're doing it wrong. You should be the admin and the user. Those accounts should not be the same (as implied by the = )
Second, if a user is good enough know how to install stuff, does that mean he groks GRUB and runlevels? My brother does the first, not the last. I trust him with my computer and account any day, because he doesn't know my password, thus can only damage my (backed-up) $HOME.
It makes sense if you want to be able to install trusted apps without having to enter or know the root password.
You mean like sudo and gksudo? No surely you can't mean them, they've been used for a gazillion years now and work splendidly. And as far as I know no distro has been *ahem* "brave" enough to ship them set to execute apt-get without a password yet.
(gotta say I love your sig though)
Does it somehow harm you if someone else thinks that this is a good feature? I'll repeat what I told someone else: if you aren't comfortable with this, don't use it.
Of course someone thinking this is a good feature doesn't harm me. Someone deciding for me to change the way my computer looks on software installation might though.
Installing software is a system-level change affecting all users of a system. Those changes commonly require consent of the administrator of the system to apply. That has been the default for ages. Neither you or anyone else has so far made a good case for why it is a good idea to change that default. It's not about if I can disable it, I know I can, but should I have to? Someone (perhaps that someone you are talking about) out there has made a decision for me that I should be using it. That person is not making his case very clear and neither are you.
You are of course correct about setuid etc, and although I could argue about expectations a bit more, the rest of my post still stands.
From a desktop standpoint (Fedora is a desktop OS, not an enterprise one), it makes perfect sense to allow a user to install software that's already been verified as clean of malware without having to escalate their privileges.
I think you can find plenty of posts here describing software a person might not want his friend, colleague or brother installing on his computer. But some: GDM, anything with suid root, any networking daemon (yeah yeah, they're disabled on boot, but can still be run)... All users are not *NIX literate enough to root you by borrowing your laptop, but they can still be good enough in a terminal to install a bunch of crap I don't want.
And besides, if you don't like it, it's superd00per easy to disable. If you can't figure out how to disable it, you probably should be administering a server with anything remotely important on it.
Nice ad-hominem there. This issue doesn't apply to servers by the way. And i got out of the admin-business a while ago, so no worries. But: It used to be "easy": pklalockdown –lockdown org.freedesktop.packagekit.package-install but that command is deprecated. In the oh so nice future I'll have to go edit
Everybody just keeps repeating "It makes perfekt sense". I have not seen a single good argument for in what way it does.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.