> Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? This is generally known as hubr

> Am I understanding this correctly: the devs who downloaded Xcode from an unknown source disabled gatekeeper to get it to run? This is generally known as hubris. We think we're smart and that the rules don't apply to us, because we know better than the other people. Turns out they can protect us too. Who knew? In this instance, I'd give the Chinese developers the benefit of the doubt, having recently had first hand experience myself of just how obstructive and irritating the great firewall can be (I was struggling to download small files my entire visit, like a 10MB pdf; I can't imagine trying to download a multi-gigabyte file). So perhaps this was the only way they could get work done–in which case it's on Apple to improve their CDN within China. More broadly, it seems like though there's a careful line to be walked between locking down a computer (e.g. gatekeeper, system integrity protection) and keeping it 'open', I'm personally much more in favour of the former by default provided that the end user can disable it if necessary. It seems like the only realistic option going forward. Perhaps Xcode should be included under the SIP umbrella too?