Fedora firestorm and thoughts

[Ed]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ryan Rix <phrkonaleash at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dazed_75 wrote:
>> There seems to be a firestorm going on with regard to a change in the
>> newly released Fedora 12.
>>
>> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/11/18/2039229/Fedora-12-Lets-Users-
> Install-Signed-Packages-Sans-Root-Privileges?art_pos=1
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047
>>
>> How much this has blown up from being "slashdotted" is not an issue IMHO.
>> And I agree that it was a horrible decision to make that change be the
>> default.  I do hope they revert it.  My belief is that if they wanted such
>> a change it is important enough they should have retained the old behavior
>> and made an option to implement the new only by someone having root
>> privileges and proving it.
>>
>> But the real reason for this post is that I have noticed what might be a
>> trend in recent releases.  It feels like a trend to me and I find that
>> bothersome.  The trend I am talking about is for new releases to change
>> defaults and content in ways that so many reviews and tips are focussed on
>> how to revert the "improvements" to the prior art.
>>
>> For example, there are many positive reviews for Karmic Koala (ubuntu
>> 9.10)
>> along with the usual problem reports.  But it seems that many of the
>> problem solutions and tips being published are how to "fix" Karmic back to
>> the way
>> ubuntu used to work.  Now this thing with Fedora 12.  I get concerned when
>> it seems like we risk our advantages of better security and stability.
>> I'm all for ease of use and innovation but I wonder if some changes are
>> going too far and too fast.
>>
>> I have also noted that many changes are made to make things easier for new
>> users (a good thing) but along the Microsoft model of assuming users must
>> be
>> stupid ... errr .... don't need/want to know.  Is that bothering anyone
>> else?
>>
>
> This was never a decision discussed by the Fedora project as a whole. It was
> never a decision that anyone besides Richard Hughes chose to implement[1],
> and refused to revert when all this exploded.
>
> This is not a security issue, or an issue of Fedora dumbing itself down for
> its users. It's a matter of communication, or lack thereof:
>
> 1) This should have been discussed beforehand, either in a Fedora Release
> Engineering meeting, or in the fedora-devel mailing list.
> 2) if it was chosen to be implemented by default it should have been in the
> release notes along with explicit details on how to disable this.
>
> Neither of these things happened, and we (Fedora's developers and
> contributors) are already working to revert this and make sure things like
> this don't happen in the future.
>
> [1] Hughes felt that PackageKit was something to be used by Desktop systems
> only not server/multiuser systems, and 99% of desktop systems run only one
> or two users, all trusted with root access already. It was a convenience
> addition for Desktop users.
> Also, this policy was only enabled for LOCAL users running on a LOCAL
> terminal installing packages from the trusted Fedora repos. If you look at
> it this way, you have physical access to the box, you basically own it
> already.
>
> --
> Ryan Rix
> Fedora KDE SIG Member, Phoenix AZ Ambassador, News KDE Beat Writer
>
> Please refrain from mailing me directly in replies, I am subsribing
> via GMane NNTP. Thank you.
>
> http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://identi.ca/phrkonaleash
> XMPP: phrkonaleash at gmail.com          | MSN: phrkonaleash at yahoo.com
> AIM:  phrkonaleash                    | Yahoo: phrkonaleash
> IRC:  PhrkOnLsh at irc.freenode.net/#srcedit,#plugaz,#fedora-kde and
>      countless other FOSS channels.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>

Ryan/All

I could see this if there were the guarantee that code in the signed
repo had been audited for security - even then cross impacts would
need to be checked for security issues. I think Richard is overly
trusting of the software Fedora is willing to keep under key - but he
may know more about the review process than I. I did follow the
Blueman entry into the Fedora repos and the review process was
extensive.

As a take-away, do you think this points to a need to have "spins"
show up in the early stages of Anaconda's install process. I could see
Richards point as a useful change for a "Netbook/Atom" spin, but for
anything that has an Admin component, it is a problem. Fedora seams to
be touching its "Target Audience" in a couple different places* and
displaying the different spins early in the install (of th LiveCD?)
would add clarity. And really give the Spins great exposure.

Right now there appears to be only one Fedora, and I think Fedora has
become multiplexed..

Ed
*do not visualize - my bad