Opera 10.60 Released with WebM Included
Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 09:03 UTC
Opera Software Opera 10.60 has been released July 1 for Mac OS X and is available for download. The features highlighted on the changelogs page are: layout engine (codename 'Presto'), HTML5 with support for offline web applications, WebM, which has been available in Opera (in a special build) on the very day of the announcement at the Google I/O conference, web workers for running scripts in the background without impeding the browsing experience, and geolocation. Version 10.60 is also available for Windows and Linux/BSD.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 49 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/i55
Thread beginning with comment 432306
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
msundman
Member since:
2005-07-06

"You are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that there is nothing stopping opera software from placing glibc or openssh-server packages on their repo and then those opera's unofficial versions would be installed on all opera users' computers.


Indeed, they could. But why would they? "
So if I run a booth that copies keys, and you come there to get a copy of your house key, should I keep a copy of your key, without telling you about it, and even installing my own fancy monitoring system that notifies me of when you change your locks? After all, it would make it easier for you to get a second copy of your house key, and it would enable me to provide you with updated keys when you change locks. And why would I want to use my secretly copied copy of your key for anything bad?

The point is that opera software should not go mucking around in the most important system settings without the user explicitly telling them to do it. (Similarly, I should never make a copy of your house key without you explicitly telling me to do it.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So if I run a booth that copies keys, and you come there to get a copy of your house key, should I keep a copy of your key, without telling you about it, and even installing my own fancy monitoring system that notifies me of when you change your locks?

Err. How is that even remotely similar to a repository? They don't get your keys, they don't know what software you have installed, they don't monitor you. Do explain, I am all ears.

And why would I want to use my secretly copied copy of your key for anything bad?

Again, they don't have your key, you have their key. Quite different. And in your (rather stupid) example you'd have access to a single house, whereas Opera's repo is accessed by thousands. If something was screwy it'd be noticed whereas if you broke to a single house it'd be noticed by only a handful of people and they wouldn't know who it was.

Your analogy is terrible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

msundman Member since:
2005-07-06

"So if I run a booth that copies keys, and you come there to get a copy of your house key, should I keep a copy of your key, without telling you about it, and even installing my own fancy monitoring system that notifies me of when you change your locks?


Err. How is that even remotely similar to a repository? They don't get your keys, they don't know what software you have installed, they don't monitor you. Do explain, I am all ears. "
The fact that they don't know what software I have installed is irrelevant. They can make extremely educated guesses about it. They don't have to monitor me, since they have told my computer to monitor their repository where they (e.g. a disgruntled employee, or a cracker after a security breach) could place a bunch of popular packages that would reach well over 99% of their user base using those opera packages. (This kind of communication is quite similar to "phone home" viruses/malware.)

"And why would I want to use my secretly copied copy of your key for anything bad?


Again, they don't have your key, you have their key. "
They do get the keys to my system, since they have told my system that I trust their repository completely and utterly for any and all possible packages, although I don't. (And they did so behind my back.)

And in your [...] example you'd have access to a single house, whereas Opera's repo is accessed by thousands. If something was screwy it'd be noticed whereas if you broke to a single house it'd be noticed by only a handful of people and they wouldn't know who it was.

No different from me making copies of all house keys I copy, not just yours. It'd certainly be noticed if I broke into hundreds of houses whose owners have made key copies at my booth.

Still, you're missing the point. The point is not that opera adds itself to apt and tells the system that I trust their repo with all my packages, but that it does so without my explicit permission. If you really can't see this difference and the gravity of their actions I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion.

(Mac users are of course used to this kind of shenanigans, but some of us are still trying to hold on to the illusion of still having some control over one's own computers.)

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >