Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:54 UTC
Mac OS X And so the iOS-ification of Mac OS X continues. Apple has just announced that all applications submitted to the Mac App Store have to use sandboxing by March 2012. While this has obvious security advantages, the concerns are numerous - especially since Apple's current sandboxing implementation and associated rules makes a whole lot of applications impossible.
Permalink for comment 496190
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by frderi
by frderi on Sun 6th Nov 2011 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by frderi"
Member since:

I agree that software protections which are good enough against everyday desktop and mobile threats will be insufficient against targeted attacks with colossal financial and human means like Stuxnet. When you're facing this sort of attacks, you need NASA-like permanent code auditing and warfare-like financial and human means to achieve good security.

However, I also believe that that the average desktop/mobile user is not likely to have to worry about this anytime soon.

I'm not sure if you aware of how the black hat industry works. Make no mistake, this is a multi million dollar industry. There are people out there that make a living out of it. There are people who do nothing all day but to find these zero-day bugs. And when they find them, they sell them on the black market, for hundreds or thousands of dollars. These aren't the kinds of bugs that come to light by patches. The black hat industry has moved beyond that. These are bugs that aren't known by their respective vendors and aren't patched in any of their products. This information is then bought by malware writers, who exploit them in their malicious code for keylogging, botnets, whatever. There's not a hair on my head that thinks black hats are not capable of writing Stuxnet-like functionality. Don't underestimate these guys, they're way smarter than you think.

Hmmm... Which version of OS X are we talking about here ? I think that on the (admittedly a little old) 10.5 machines which I'm used to, Safari automatically mounts and opens dmgs but does not do anything else.

Opening safe files is an option you can turn off and on in the options; it also works with zip files.

I really, really do not like Windows-like installers, but I see the value in standard packages whose installation goes a bit beyond copying a folder at a standard location. File associations, applications which start on system boot, security permissions... All that benefits from being managed at once during "installation" time.

True. On a Mac, .pkg/.mpkg packages do that. They actually are little more than a bundle of an archive files and some xml data to describe its contents. it supports scripting, resources, …

You are right that cross-device portability, if possible, would be about much more than basic UI fixes. I've not started full work on that yet, but an interesting path to study, in my opinion, would be to start with a relatively abstract theory of human-computer interactions, then gradually specialize it towards the kind of devices and users which the OS or application wants to target.

Its an interesting train of thought, but I still think there would be a lot of human design based decisions to be made for the different devices, and I don't know if the net gain of letting the computer do this would be greater than just redesigning the UI yourself, especially on iOS devices, where its trivial to set up an UI.

And when you do too little, people just say "meh" and move along ;) I guess that defining reasonable goals for a product must be one of the hardest tasks of engineering !

It has to have the functionality to support the use cases for the device. Everything else is just clutter. After defining the goals of your app, you need to design the practical implementation of the functionality. As a user, I really appreciate it when a lot of thought has gone into this process. Some UI's which are basically displays of underlying functionality. These tend to be very tedious and time consuming to work with. There are others which actually take the effort to make the translation between a simple user interaction and the underlying technology. A lot of thought can go into the process of trying to come to grips with how these interactions should present itself to the user, and in some cases, it takes an order of a magnitude more effort than it takes to actually write the code behind it.

Well, they do have windows, in the sense of a private display which the application may put its UI into without other software interfering. It just happens that these windows are not resizable, full screen, and as a consequence are hard to close and can only be switched using the operating system's task switcher. Which makes multi-windows interfaces impractical. But those ought to disappear anyway ;)

You're looking at it from a developer perspective, I'm looking at it from a user perspective. As a user I don't care if there's a windowing technology behind it or not. I don't see it, I don't use it, so it doesn't exist. Desktop computers have windowing functionality (The classic Mac OS even had way too many of it) There are more differences than that. Some popups, like authorizations, are modal, some others, like notifications, are non-modal. They way they display these things is different as well. But these are just individual elements, and in the grand scheme of things, trivialities.

Although they do not have a mouse, they still have pointer-based UIs. Only this time, the pointer is a huge greasy finger instead of being a pixel-precise mouse, so hovering actions must not be a vital part of the UI, and controls must be made bigger to be usable. Since controls are bigger and screens are smaller, less controls can be displayed at once, and some controls must either go of be only accessible through scrolling. But this does not have to be fully done by hand, UI toolkits could do a part of the job if the widget set was designed with cross-device portability in mind...

Try to think a little bit further than the practicalities of the UI elements and think about the overall user experience instead of the engineering challenges. Good tablet apps are layed out differently than good desktop apps. This is not a coincidence. Some of those differences are based on the different platform characteristics, as you mentioned. But other reasons have to do with the fact that the use cases for these apps differ greatly. I'm convinced that when you are designing UI's, you have to start from the user experience and define these use cases properly to be able to come to an application design thats truly empowering your users.

Reply Parent Score: 0