Users are Choosing Security over Flexibility
-
I like the Linux model... provide an app store interface but unlimited flexibility outside of it. Best of both worlds.
-
Yeah, that is what I really want as well.
Though - for end users - perhaps the only way to really make the web a safer place is the limit their options. Of course this requires a HIGHLY curated store.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yeah, that is what I really want as well.
Though - for end users - perhaps the only way to really make the web a safer place is the limit their options. Of course this requires a HIGHLY curated store.
Most Linux does that too. You can expose one store to the users and more options to the admins.
-
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
-
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
-
Although if they were really choosing simplicity, they would have all moved to Linux desktops long ago.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Although if they were really choosing simplicity, they would have all moved to Linux desktops long ago.
Which is what the second part of my question is... I don't think anyone is really making a choice toward security, simplicity, or flexibility. I think people don't know their options and just use what is presented to them.
By anyone I mean most people. I'm sure there are quite a few maybe 3-5% of people who actively make a choice everyone else just kind of falls into it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
Didn't you just agree with me?
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Although if they were really choosing simplicity, they would have all moved to Linux desktops long ago.
Which is what the second part of my question is... I don't think anyone is really making a choice toward security, simplicity, or flexibility. I think people don't know their options and just use what is presented to them.
By anyone I mean most people. I'm sure there are quite a few maybe 3-5% of people who actively make a choice everyone else just kind of falls into it.
I completely agree with this. Just look at the myriad of requirements that apps have today, access to address book, GPS, your SMS, etc, etc, etc. Most people never even pause to ask why those things are needed. Personally I really dislike the fact that on Android you can't pick and choose (though I think that is now coming). Apple has kinda given you the chance to pick and choose - upon first launch of an app, it says hey this apps want access to SMS, is that ok? Yes/No
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
Didn't you just agree with me?
My wording might be funky.. yes I'm agreeing with you completely!
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
Didn't you just agree with me?
My wording might be funky.. yes I'm agreeing with you completely!
Funky wording in "I don't agree" meaning "I agree?" LMAO
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
OH I see where all of ya'lls confusion is.
I agree it's a worthy question, I don't agree that choosing simplicity is related to security in any way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
Didn't you just agree with me?
My wording might be funky.. yes I'm agreeing with you completely!
Funky wording in "I don't agree" meaning "I agree?" LMAO
Nope, see above.
lol -
@Dashrender said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Are people really choosing security? Or are they just working within the model that is presented them?
Worthy question. But I think that they are choosing simplicity, which is related.
I don't agree. If simplicity in this case was the more dangerous route, but easier, they would still go this way.
OH I see where all of ya'lls confusion is.
I agree it's a worthy question, I don't agree that choosing simplicity is related to security in any way.
Complexity, by its nature, is an enemy of security. Simplicity doesn't guarantee security, but complexity effectively prevents it.
-
It's like how building a foundation doesn't mean you get a house. But failing to build a foundation pretty much guarantees you will not get a house.
-
But I'd agree that your previous step was claiming causality. Which now we appear to be agreeing it's there.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's like how building a foundation doesn't mean you get a house. But failing to build a foundation pretty much guarantees you will not get a house.
Not necessarily... It does mean that if there's a mudslide, tornado, earthquake or hurricane, then you are much, much more likely to not have a house afterwards, lol.
-
@dafyre said:
Not necessarily... It does mean that if there's a mudslide, tornado, earthquake or hurricane, then you are much, much more likely to not have a house afterwards, lol.
No, that would be the quality of the foundation. You have to have a foundation. even if it is a very simple set of loose stones or a set of boards.
