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 507516
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Whether you are anti-apple or not it is largely irrelevant.

There is a safe default for people for the majority of users, if you want to run non-signed applications you can turn it off and it informs you of the risks.

Apple is in the business in making their computers easy to use by their customers, and keep the "techy stuff outta the way unless you need it".

Unfortunately nonsense like you wrote here is just you panicking.

Edited 2012-02-20 14:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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 think you need to deal with the fact that is business. If you don't like how capitalist companies behave there are other models (such as cooperative) ... that might be more to your liking.

Not only that, you can hardly take the moral high ground after buying many of their products ... apparently you are telling us that talk is cheap and you are quite happy to support said company as long as they make gadgets you like.

Reply Parent Score: 2