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 507503
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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:

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

Neolander Member since:

Well, I have a Fedora install right before my eyes, and I can download and install random RPMs from the internet just fine.

I can also build source packages and install them manually if I really want to. There is no attempt from the Fedora project to make this task difficult.

That's what Thom is talking about here. Signed repositories are not bad in themselves, they only become a problem when users are not able to install software from a third-party source without vendor-imposed hassle.

Edited 2012-02-16 20:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7