Start Confirmations

[Derek Broughton]

Paul Lemmons wrote:

> 
>> I don't understand why so many has problems with this, it's a security
>> risk (not a big one but still...) and it's not the UNIX way to be able
>> to execute programs if not the execute-bit is set on the file.
>>   
> The reason is more philosophical than technical but let me see if I can
> explain.
> 
> I use Linux exclusively and I do so because of the control I have over
> the environment. I have trusted sources for software and I have the
> ability to customize my system in any way I want. I even have the
> ability to be stupid if I want to be; even incredibly so. Microsoft and
> Apple try to protect the user from themselves by placing restrictions on
> what a person can do on their own computer. They also leave the training
> wheels on by constantly asking the question "Are you sure?". The
> deliberate restricting of what I can do on my own computer is just plain
> wrong. To date, the Linux community and desktop developers do not do
> this and I am not really afraid of this changing.
> 
> The constant pop-up confirmation which in essence asks "Are you smart
> enough to be doing this?" is both irritating and insulting to a person

I'd say this is both philosophical and technical.  Technically, assuming the 
statement about execute bits is correct, and I think it must be as I've 
never actually seen this, the question is "why on earth are .desktop files 
being created without the execute bit set?"

> And for the record, the issue was not the execute bit, it was the fact
> that the .desktop files were not in a "standard" directory. They were
> shortcuts to the rdesktop command; a base system program.

No, that doesn't seem right either - I have created .desktop files that 
didn't prompt me to run.

In Ubuntu's defence, though, it seems these things ONLY prompt once (if you 
tell them not to do it again).  That's way better than Vista!
-- 
derek