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 507501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it is correct

So what’s an “identified developer?” Basically, it’s any developer who registers as a developer with Apple and receives a personalized certificate. The developer can then use that certificate to cryptographically sign their apps. Any such app has two important characteristics


What he said in number 1 was clear.

When you try to launch an app using this system, your Mac will check with Apple’s servers to see if the developer’s signature is current. But what it doesn’t seem to mean is that previously-installed malware will be wiped clean, because once an app passes File Quarantine and launches successfully for the first time, it’s basically escaped Apple’s screening system.


That seems to support number 2.

Edited 2012-02-16 20:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Also from you won sources

Apple's introducing Gatekeeper, which can only be described as a bold new middle ground for app distribution: an optional setting in OS X 10.8 allows users to restrict their systems to run only apps that have been signed by trusted developers using a free certificate provided by Apple.


Which supports both of his assertions (except for the purchase of signing key) ... apparently you might want to take reading comprehension classes.

EDIT: I would like to point out that a signing of packages for a developer is very much like the signing of packages from a particular repository with Linux.

So apparently it is Evil if Apple make you do it, but alright if Fedora suggest it.

Double Standard all the time.

Edited 2012-02-16 20:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"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.
"

My facts aren't wrong you anti-Apple troll.

1. You have no clue what you're talking about. They are signed using a certificate provided by Apple. The certificate is in the developer's name, not Apple's. Apple has no way of knowing what applications are being signed using that certificate or what those applications do. The only thing that may be wrong about my statement is I said a certificate needs to be purchased, turns out it may be available for free. There is conflicting information about that.

2. First you claim my facts are wrong, then you claim it's already in the article. It isn't. You said:

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.


Which is wrong, there is no restriction, even if you don't switch to the "Allow anything" setting.

Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion can only run Mac App Store or Apple-signed applications by default. There is a master switch to switch between App Store-only, App Store+signed, and unrestricted (the current behaviour). In addition, you can force-install an application even if it violates the master switch.


Which is wrong, there is nothing to "force" to install an unsigned application and you are prompted a grand total of one time if you're sure you want to run an unsigned application.

However, this is all temporary, something to smooth us over. In Mac OS X 10.9, the master switch and force-install will be ever harder to find or relegated to CLI commands - after which it is removed completely.


This would be a paranoid fantasy and there is no evidence to indicate this is Apple's intention. As a matter of fact, if they were trying to slowly lock things down it seems they would start, you know, locking things down. On the contrary, they are making it easier for developers to get some of the good features of the App Store without having to use the App Store. You know, the exact opposite of your premise.

Unfortunately, OSNews has become so virulently anti-Apple, posting verifiable facts (with an entire article from someone who actually used the feature describing in detail how it works) is basically a waste of time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Which is wrong, there is no restriction, even if you don't switch to the "Allow anything" setting.


With an opt-out switch. I said, with an opt-out switch. Opt-out. Like I said, it's in the article.

Which is wrong, there is nothing to "force" to install an unsigned application and you are prompted a grand total of one time if you're sure you want to run an unsigned application.


Exactly... You have to right-click and FORCE an install. Like I said, it's in the article.

Look, the article's fact are 100% correct, because they're copied almost verbatim from Engadget and The Verge. You may not like the opinions and/or predictions in the article, but that's no reason to claim I'm lying or being an anti-Apple troll - especially since the article clearly targets Microsoft as well.

This utter bullshit about me being anti-Apple has to stop. I'm not anti-Apple - I'm anti-anyone who employs the kind of business tactics Apple and Microsoft employ. Apple makes some great products (every review I've ever written makes that very clear) but the company's practices are rotten.

I'm free to think that and explain why I think that without being labelled an anti-Apple troll every time. Not everyone approves of your pet company's tactics. Deal with it.

Edited 2012-02-16 21:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5