Mac OS X 10.8 restricted to App Store, signed apps by default
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 14:46 UTC
Mac OS X Well, this is a surprise. Several websites have a preview up of Apple's next Mac OS X release - it's called Mountain Lion, and continues the trend of bringing over functionality from iOS to Mac OS X. Lots of cool stuff in here we've all seen before on iPhones and iPads, including one very, very controversial feature: Gatekeeper. Starting with Mac OS X 10.8, Apple's desktop operating system will be restricted to Mac App Store and Apple-signed applications by default (with an opt-out switch), following in Windows 8's footsteps.
E-mail Print r 10   · Read More · 204 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jrn
Permalink for comment 507490
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
howitzer86
Member since:
2008-02-27

It's not about a free desktop environment. It's about being able to do whatever you want with hardware and software you already paid for and own. There's no valid reason I shouldn't be able to install something on a general purpose operating system if I want to.


Then don't buy it. Believe it or not we are large enough in number to support a market. If Macs and Windows PCs turn into locked-in boxes that are illegal to tinker with, we simply won't buy them. No one can force us to buy a specific brand of computer, and our demand will shift to a vendor who will cater to our needs.

if machines are locked down like this, then the barrier to entry for anyone to get to the point where they would be "fine with installing Linux" would be severely increased. This is especially true on Macs because of the non-conforming UEFI implementation that they use.


Again, if it's not the product for you, don't buy it. Buy the right product that will fit your needs. If one doesn't exist, make it! There is a market!

System 76 for instance, appears to be doing just fine even before this scenario has completed. There will be more like it, likely supported by the Linux vendors.

At that point, the activity will probably be a DMCA violation and declared illegal on the grounds that it could 'enable teh dirty pirates' or some other such nonsense.


I'll agree to you on that. Every year the government has to pass an exemption on the DMCA clause that would make jail breaking cell-phones a crime. To bring the DMCA to the computer, all a vendor has to do is declare that the purpose of their lock-down is to prevent piracy. Automatically, the act of breaking the lock allows piracy. The act it self won't be policed, but the information showing a user how to commit it will be. People could go to prison for showing a user how to circumvent a locked down EFI implementation.

It may be more trouble then it's worth to jail break a locked down PC (I assume by this point it may not even be called a PC, but something else, and resemble an Apple TV in form and function).

This will promote the creation of a 'new' market dominated by vendors like System 76, catering to geeks and tinkerers such as ourselves.

The thing is, it might need to get to that point before there's any meaningful resistance. I hope not, but most people don't care and won't care until it's too late. I believe that this is the point the article makes.


Meaningful resistance in this case is the act of 'voting with your feet'. But instead of moving your feet, you'll be moving your money to another vendor that produces the product that you want to have.

Reply Parent Score: 1