Awesome use of that rant pic.
Next rant pic- When I RUN a F*ING EXE it should open a Window with the application in it you smelly nerds!!!!
Next rant pic- When I RUN a F*ING EXE it should open a Window with the application in it you smelly nerds!!!!
We can't be doing this "GIVE ME THE .EXE" anymore. Those days are gone.
Even building from source is questionable, but at least there it requires that the installer be part of (or at least adjacent to) a community of developers who can be expected to have the expertise to notice and recognize bad actors pushing code.
The problem isn't the technical hurdle, it's that sandboxed apps really aren't what we want in a lot of cases. There remain a lot of use cases for native apps the interact directly with the hardware in ways that are hard to abstract safely. Games need the whole GPU, backend middleware needs the raw network stack, you want to set up routing tables or a custom NAS, etc...
Those requirements don't go away even when "most" stuff can be done in a browser-equivalent sandbox. And... you need to rely on your Linux distro for those things still, or at least compile from an active github project. You can't just get raw binaries from whoever and expect to be safe.
Flatpack and snap and other systems that conflate packaging and permission management get it totally wrong. Permission management is an OS-issue, not a packaging issue. Thus, distributing a plain static executable or a python script should be just as safe as a "safely packaged" app.
But if you're just a "GIVE ME THE .EXE" person, how do you know the binary you're looking at is a legitimate network scanner or keyboard mapper or game cheat or whatever? You don't. You can't. You just followed a link from someone else who thought it was.
The basic point is that software in the modern world is too complicated to require regular users to validate. They can't do it. And so we need to have trusted authorities like distros and app stores to do it for them, even (especially) when they demand we JUST GIVE ME THE .EXE.
We can and should still do that for people who want it (i.e. most people). The security conscious can decline to use them, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have a worse experience.
Perhaps some barriers to use are good sometimes.
Nice victim blame.
Thought exercise: Am I being a "victim" of you, because you posted a comment disagreeing with me?
However this person that is unstable or at least very aggressive and is clearly trying to track someone. I really hope you don't mean that because someone is publicly available that it is ok to do what you want to them.
IE "asking for it" because a person was around to commit a crime against so its their fault for not staying behind locked doors with a shotgun their whole life.
You are very close to simply stating that having an online profile makes it ok to do things to someone because you have dictated they should not have one if they don't want to be a victim of a crime in the future. You are also sort of imposing your view on everyone in the world that social media is not a necessary part of life nowadays. (that is a different debate)
The next step is to repackage this inside an EXE that runs a Linux virtual machine.
> MacOS and Windows support (using QEMU)