Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 14:46 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 507492
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: This article is factually wrong
by lucas_maximus on Thu 16th Feb 2012 19:22
in reply to "This article is factually wrong"
RE[2]: This article is factually wrong
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Feb 2012 19:27
in reply to "RE: This article is factually wrong"
Why is this getting modded down? He is talking facts here.
Because his facts are wrong.
1. They're signed by developers using Apple's signature, i.e., Apple-signed.
2. His second "fact" was actually mentioned quite clearly in both the teaser and the article, despite him claiming it isn't.
Edited 2012-02-16 19:28 UTC





Member since:
2005-07-06
This is factually incorrect in two ways.
1. By default OS X 10.8 will run App Store apps and developer signed applications. Developers will be able to purchase a signing certificate from Apple but they do the signing.
2. Nothing stops you from running unsigned applications or applications that didn't come from the App Store. If you right click on an app and choose open it will pop up a dialog box asking if you want to proceed. If you say yes the app will launch and you are never prompted again.
The way this functionality is implemented should make it obvious that Apple isn't going to stop people from running applications from outside the App Store. If they were they wouldn't have made it transparently easy to avoid the restrictions of Gatekeeper. It is clear that they are going to provide tools to the end users to ensure they are not getting modified apps (the current favorite vector for getting trojan's onto the Mac).
Feel free to read actual facts about the way Gatekeeper works instead of Thom's paranoid fantasies at Macworld: http://www.macworld.com/article/165408/2012/02/mountain_lion_hands_...