Idea
#9591: Easy .sh, .bin, .run file installation
|
| |
88
|
|
|
Written by jctosu123 the 6 Jun 08 at 18:00.
Category: Installation.
Related to:
Nothing/Others.
Status: New
|
|
|
Description
There should be an easy way to install .sh, .pl, .bin and .run files without using the terminal.
An example of this would be for .sh files when the user double clicks on them the terminal automatically pops up and executes "sudo sh .sh".
This would allow users to easily install these types of files and make Ubuntu easier for new users.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
Hawke wrote on the 6 Jun 08 at 19:38
| |
Sounds like a security hole to me.
|
|
probono wrote on the 6 Jun 08 at 22:03
| |
If you double-click a file with a .sh extension that has no executable rights (yet), a window should pop up that asks you whether the file should be made executable (and explain what that means).
|
|
probono wrote on the 6 Jun 08 at 22:03
| |
If you double-click a file with a .sh extension that has no executable rights (yet), a window should pop up that asks you whether the file should be made executable (and explain what that means).
|
|
Warbo wrote on the 6 Jun 08 at 22:04
|
"There should be an easy way to install .sh, .pl, .bin and .run files without using the terminal."
Those files are scripts or programs, which by their very nature can be completely arbitrary and do whatever the heck they want to. The only way to simplify the installation of programs using such programs/scripts would be to standardise how they work and thus have some idea of what can be automated/given a GUI/etc., but the use of installation scripts and programs is itself completely non-standard!
The standard way of installing software is with packages, which is already possible to do without a terminal (software sources, add/remove, gdebi, etc.), and the standard way to distribute software (from upstreams) is in source archives (the automatic installation of which gets at least a couple of duplicate ideas here a day). However, the decision by the distributors of this software you describe to use scripts instead of packages means that they are choosing a non-standard, custom system. By its very nature this cannot be modified at the distro level because the operation of these things is, and will always be, completely unpredictable.
I think the thought is good, but completely unimplementable, thus a realistic way of achieving the same goal would be to address the obvious shortcomings of package management (a script may work on many distros, a package might have to be tailored for each release of each distro), which is being approached by projects like PackageKit and the Linux Standard Base. Once these obvious things have been dealt with, if the distributors of these scripts are still not using packages instead then we can ask them why, and make more improvements to package management until those scripts are no longer needed.
|
|
Ssdg wrote on the 7 Jun 08 at 00:28
| |
I agree with Hawke, It sounds, taste, looks like a security hole and I don't think new users should install everything they can download from the net (even if they like to do it before complain about the fact that their PC is slower than last month)
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 7 Jun 08 at 02:58
|
I don't agree with the sudo appended in front automatically, but we should be able to right click and "run as Sudo". That being said, such files should be able to be automatically run.
"and I don't think new users should install everything they can download from the net" Yeah... Great thinking, lets not let them install anything at all. In fact, lets set up a palladium like system where you need to personally. What a load of Bollocks. I cant believe that we have become so obsessed with believing the repo's are perfect, that there are actually people saying this?
+1, but the sudo thing should be implemented the way I have stated
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 7 Jun 08 at 02:59
| |
Oops, I mean a palladium system where they need to personally ask you SSDG for permission to install anything
|
|
Hawke wrote on the 9 Jun 08 at 16:31
| |
Auzy, gpg signatures on the repos are already a step in that direction, given the level of complaining that the package managers do if you have a *gasp* *horror* unsigned repository.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 9 Jun 08 at 16:39
| |
I was quoting ssdg Hawke. He reckons users shouldn't be able to install stuff off the net..
|
|
Hawke wrote on the 9 Jun 08 at 20:48
| |
Right, I recognized that you were quoting. You were saying it's a bad idea to prevent people from installing things from the net, and I was saying that the package managers already complain loudly if you try. Meaning that Ubuntu is already fairly hostile to the concept, so it wouldn't be a huge step to take that a little further.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 10 Jun 08 at 02:37
| |
no, I mean, I was saying, I think users SHOULD be able to easily.
|
|
Hawke wrote on the 10 Jun 08 at 15:32
| |
Yes, I know. Ubuntu apparently disagrees to some extent.
|
Post your comment
|
|
|
Bug #237945
