On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 23:20 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 05/15/2010 10:05 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
[...]
> > "Click here to install a virus?"
[...]
> I don't think viruses will be a problem in practice if we host a
> user-moderated plug-in registry on www.gimp.org for example. We could
> a
On 05/15/2010 10:05 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 20:35 +0200, peter sikking wrote:
>
>> one click _really_ means one click.
>
> "Click here to install a virus?"
So we should have an "Are you sure you want to install this
plug-in?"-popup or what? :)
I don't think viruses will
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 20:35 +0200, peter sikking wrote:
> one click _really_ means one click.
"Click here to install a virus?"
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogat
Rob Antonishen wrote:
> I was reading the gimp vision again, and two things jumped out:
>
> - GIMP is easily user-extendable, by easy installation of plug-ins
> - GIMP should be easily extensible by the average user: one
> click-installation of plug-ins
>
> and was wondering if this could be imple
On 05/15/2010 07:16 PM, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> The biggest first step would be to define the package xml syntax.
> After that, resource types could be added. I agree that only scripts,
> binaries, and python plugins would make sense to package this way.
> Anything needing compiling would be out of
The biggest first step would be to define the package xml syntax.
After that, resource types could be added. I agree that only scripts,
binaries, and python plugins would make sense to package this way.
Anything needing compiling would be out of scope.
-Rob A>
On 5/14/10, Alexia Death wrote:
> O
