On 29 October 2012 22:05, Alan Bell <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Alan,
I don't have any particular comment on the implementation of the "privacy" as I haven't been involved in that - but there's a technical tidbit I do have something to attach to: SNIP This leads on to the thought that an evil genius could write a > lens/scope that is invisible, and presents no results, but listens to the > global search query change event and sends every keystroke out to the > internet, regardless of the privacy preference setting. This is bad. I > don't see any valid use-case for a lens to set the visible property to > false. > Firstly - if you can run a process under a given user, that user is basically screwed for all intents and purposes. That is - at least until Ubuntu implements a rigorous apparmor sandboxing of *all* processes. Which is a huge task, that I don't know the state of (if it even has a "state" :-)). IOW - hiding a lens in order to log global search keystrokes is the *least* of your worries. Secondly - hiding a lens does certainly have very good practical use. It's fx. being utilized in the apps lens to back the queries for the Alt-F2 run dialog iirc. The unity-lens-applications process actually houses two lenses, one hidden for alt-f2, another the normal apps lens. This saves considerable amounts of memory because they can share caches and indexes. Cheers, Mikkel
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
