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 507542
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by WorknMan on Thu 16th Feb 2012 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

They've taken away the ability for people to stray beyond what Apple approves. Do you really think regular users are going to mess with a scary security setting?


They won't, and that's the whole point. Look, we all know the real reason why Apple is doing this, just like when they said that Flash wasn't going to be on the iPhone. However, in the case of Flash, what ended up being good for Apple was also good for end users, since Flash is going away. This ultimately benefits end users, because the lack of Flash support on a device won't be a hindrance, and because Flash itself is a security nightmare, with more holes than Swiss cheese.

And I also think that limiting apps to the Mac app store will ultimately benefit your average Joe, especially where security is involved.

And how do you think regular users become knowledgeable users? Exactly - they become so by venturing beyond the regular capabilities of the software they're using.


See, that's the beauty of this setup - regular users don't NEED to become knowledgeable users; if they can use their computers to do what they need to get done without any voodoo involved, so much the better.

I would have never grown up to become a computer geek had I not had the ability to fcuk shit up. We're raising the digital equivalent of padded playground floor kids - you know those new playgrounds with bouncy floors so poor Timmy can't get an auwie when he tumbles off the jungle gym?


In the old days, when people fcuked up their computers, they figured out how to fix it. These days, when my friends and family fcuk up their computers, they call me and *I* have to deal with it. So anything that reduces my tech support calls is a win, as far as I'm concerned. I have little doubt that Apple is going to make it harder to turn this switch off, and to that I say GOOD. The harder it is for the computer-illiterate people that I have to provide tech support for to hurt themselves, the happier I am.

But hey, I understand the concern... what if Apple/MS make it impossible to turn this switch off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_argument

It's the same kind of bullshit logic that says we shouldn't allow gay marriage to happen because it will lead to people molesting small children and marrying their horses.

Look, I think this is a good idea overall, and I hate when good ideas are shot down because people are afraid that some other thing will eventually happen as a result. Well, if it does happen and they make it mandatory, we'll deal with it at that time. As it stands, I think this kind of thing will result in people actually being able to USE their computer productively without having to know how it works. For whatever reason, the very thought of this seems to offend most geeks, like we're making things too easy. 'Hey, we had to walk butt-naked in the snow when it was 40 degrees below zero just to make our computers work, so why shouldn't everybody else?'

Reply Parent Score: -1