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.
Thread beginning with comment 507481
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by macUser on Thu 16th Feb 2012 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

This isn't about how it is today. It's about the path we've headed into.

People called me crazy when I said Apple would eventually include a switch like this. Now people are calling me crazy again? We all know where this is heading: full curation, similar to iOS. If you STILL want to insist there's no sign of this happening... Well, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

Like I said - as long as their freedom is taken away in small bits and pieces, people don't give a shit.


I'm not particularly fond of the direction Apple has taken with its OS, but most people I know are still terrified of their computers. This is exactly what they want, and while I agree with you that companies like Apple, and Microsoft (and even Google) are seizing too much control, it is something the masses will willingly give up so they don't have to deal with their machines. Most people just aren't interested in the innards of their computers to care. Just like they all drive, but can't explain the difference between a 4 stroke and a 2 stroke engine, or the difference between composite or component video cables, etc.. etc... etc...
Fortunately for those of you who base their bravado on their technical knowledge, there will always be a *nix out there you can do whatever you want with.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 18:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The car analogy doesn't apply. A car does only one thing: go from a to b. That's it. No amount of fiddling is going to change that.

A computer is more than that. It can do a bazillion things, and a computer bought yesterday can be made more useful today just by changing the software.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Alfman on Thu 16th Feb 2012 18:31 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

macUser,

"I agree with you that companies like Apple, and Microsoft (and even Google) are seizing too much control, it is something the masses will willingly give up so they don't have to deal with their machines. Most people just aren't interested in the innards of their computers to care."

Yes, I can agree with that. However there is a very big difference between designing an OS where users don't need to deal with the guts of the machine to use it (obviously good), and designing an OS where users cannot deal with the guts of the machine should they want to (obviously bad).

Keep in mind, even a technophobe has legitimate reasons to install third party software, and should not have to jump around walled garden hoops to do it.

I would much rather see apple & ms develop better application sandboxes which serve to protect the users from nefarious apps than to see them develop walled gardens which are difficult (and even against terms of use) to circumvent.


"Fortunately for those of you who base their bravado on their technical knowledge, there will always be a *nix out there you can do whatever you want with."

So far, for x86 this still seems to be the case. However I'm not sure there will be any commodity consumer-ready ARM hardware with explicit support for *nix. (Anyone?) ARM hardware with a bundled MS OS on them will be explicitly locked down. Ideally, one shouldn't have to break into one's own machine to program it.

Reply Parent Score: 4