4 ms·

The drama! You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Seriously, this thread is making Stallman look like a reasonable majority cand

The drama! You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Seriously, this thread is making Stallman look like a reasonable majority candidate for president. It seems all it took for people to forget what caused PCs to blossom is a little bit of gold coating.

hueving 11y ago
>You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Windows makes you sign binaries with your own certificate before running them to bypass the signed code protection?
- swiley 11y ago
  They do with shell scripts (although there's a way to turn it off).
blazespin 11y ago
The problem is the world is now networked extensively and much more of our 'life' is online. Creating malware and the financial benefits of doing that are much more understood. State actors have invested billions (if not 100 of billions by now) in cyber attacks. I think it makes perfect sense for Apple to police anyone trying to provide unsigned binaries. They protect the security of their i devices in a way that no other ecosystem owner does.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Their devices? I thought people paid for those things.
coldtea 11y ago
>You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Considering how many viruses, lost work, malware and hair-tearing that model has induced, it makes sense to go beyond it, doesn't it?
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  The day I lose the ability to load my own binaries on to devices I own is the day I stop using them. If you don't have root, you don't really own the device.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    Does your motherboard's BIOS allow flashing custom firmware? How about the firmware for the flash controller on a USB stick? If that's your standard, virtually nobody has owned a device in the past 15 years.
    - mondoshawan 11y ago
      Mine does -- I have an X200 I freed myself using a beaglebone. But you are right: no-one has properly owned their own devices since the 80s because no-one can verify them using primary sources.
    - voltagex_ 11y ago
      I was more talking about kernels and userland binaries - if I couldn't disable UEFI SecureBoot or load my own keys I wouldn't use it. But yes, if you want to completely trust your hardware you're probably going to be using an old Thinkpad X200 with coreboot - shame about that Intel Microcode though, eh?
  - derefr 11y ago
    Why do you need to own devices? I'm perfectly happy with Apple being my phone's sysadmin, the way my company's IT department is the sysadmin of my workstation (or, more relevantly, the way Google is the sysadmin for ChromeOS devices.) Modern devices are basically converging toward being enhanced VT100 terminals connected to some multitenant mainframe somewhere (a.k.a. a "cloud.") Whether that's Apple's cloud, Google's cloud, Microsoft's cloud, Canonical's cloud, etc. You could get the same effect (if a little slower) by just having the device be a dumb framebuffer connected to a VM running in said cloud.
    - 11y ago
Daishiman 11y ago
Amen. As a person whose experience as an engineer and admin came almost entirely from Free Software, the fact that so many people who should know better defend Apple's model is pretty pathetic.

hueving 11y ago

>You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Windows makes you sign binaries with your own certificate before running them to bypass the signed code protection?

swiley 11y ago
They do with shell scripts (although there's a way to turn it off).

blazespin 11y ago

The problem is the world is now networked extensively and much more of our 'life' is online. Creating malware and the financial benefits of doing that are much more understood. State actors have invested billions (if not 100 of billions by now) in cyber attacks. I think it makes perfect sense for Apple to police anyone trying to provide unsigned binaries. They protect the security of their i devices in a way that no other ecosystem owner does.

jacquesm 11y ago
Their devices? I thought people paid for those things.

coldtea 11y ago

>You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Considering how many viruses, lost work, malware and hair-tearing that model has induced, it makes sense to go beyond it, doesn't it?

voltagex_ 11y ago
The day I lose the ability to load my own binaries on to devices I own is the day I stop using them. If you don't have root, you don't really own the device.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  Does your motherboard's BIOS allow flashing custom firmware? How about the firmware for the flash controller on a USB stick? If that's your standard, virtually nobody has owned a device in the past 15 years.
  - mondoshawan 11y ago
    Mine does -- I have an X200 I freed myself using a beaglebone. But you are right: no-one has properly owned their own devices since the 80s because no-one can verify them using primary sources.
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    I was more talking about kernels and userland binaries - if I couldn't disable UEFI SecureBoot or load my own keys I wouldn't use it. But yes, if you want to completely trust your hardware you're probably going to be using an old Thinkpad X200 with coreboot - shame about that Intel Microcode though, eh?
- derefr 11y ago
  Why do you need to own devices? I'm perfectly happy with Apple being my phone's sysadmin, the way my company's IT department is the sysadmin of my workstation (or, more relevantly, the way Google is the sysadmin for ChromeOS devices.) Modern devices are basically converging toward being enhanced VT100 terminals connected to some multitenant mainframe somewhere (a.k.a. a "cloud.") Whether that's Apple's cloud, Google's cloud, Microsoft's cloud, Canonical's cloud, etc. You could get the same effect (if a little slower) by just having the device be a dumb framebuffer connected to a VM running in said cloud.
  - 11y ago

Daishiman 11y ago

Amen. As a person whose experience as an engineer and admin came almost entirely from Free Software, the fact that so many people who should know better defend Apple's model is pretty pathetic.