On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:15 +0000, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/12/15 mac_v <
drkvi-a@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Why ask the admin password?
> > - Update manager is designed to be shown only for admin accounts and
> > doesnt show up for non-admins.
>
If someone other than the user is having access to a user account ,
there are bigger concerns than the guest updating the system.
The guest[in this case the child] could delete important work files and
do more damage.
Why is updating harmful? Aernt the Stable release updates supposed to be
pain-free?
Hi, all!
Wow, this is similar to the recent Fedora issue about installing packages without a password. I realise it all sounds logical theoretically when you put it like that but in the real world I can think of a lot of reasons where I would like to have something like the update of my system be locked down a bit. Think schools, leaving your computer unlocked for a second ie. I realise there are a lot of arguments like "well, you shouldn't do that anyway" but in the real world it doesn't work like that.
Saying nothing in the trusted repos should break stuff in an update is all well and good, but I think we all know the world isn't perfect. Personally, I'd like to keep this control myself and not relinquish it to Ubuntu in general for a reason such as "oh, that password box bothers me".
Security is all about shades of gray and discussions like this really worry me. At least implement a policy kit settings wizard or something for stuff like this that lets the user easily make this choice before just ripping out another protective barrier, as insignificant and inconvenient as it might seem.
Just my five cents, feel free to prove me wrong. :)