4 ms·
For one thing, it was open. You could install your own software on it.
by ktRolster 10y ago
For one thing, it was open. You could install your own software on it.
- Gracana 10y agoFor a while at the beginning, you needed a Lisa to program one. Maybe things will change with iDevices and we won't need the mac anymore?
- ktRolster 10y agoI don't mind needing a Mac, it's the required signing that bothers me.
- chillaxtian 10y agoyou can run software on macOS that isn't signed by apple.
- ktRolster 10y agoNot on the iPhone, and you know it.
- mercutio2 10y agoYou can, for zero cost, run arbitrary code, without a paid Apple signature, on your own personal iPhone. You just need a Mac. What you can't do is distribute a binary for general use without paying Apple ($100/year) to sign your code.
- WayneBro 10y agoSeriously? Explain that to the 500 person company that I'm writing an app for. We have to pay $299/year to Apple just for the privilege of putting software on our own fucking devices. That's some bullshit right there. The free option is worth exactly shit for such a large organization. The $100/year is to get in the public app store where your app must obey every arbitrary rule that Apple invents. They actually have a clause that says they can kick you out of the store for any reason they want without justification. Why does anyone defend that sort of behavior?
- msane 10y agoIt's the cleanest mass market app store in existence. Highest quality apps, least malware.
- WayneBro 10y agoGood for Apple. None of that would change if there was a simple free option for sideloading though.
- msane 10y agoPeople wouldn't sideload malware?
- WayneBro 10y agoApple having a safe store wouldn't change.
- msane 10y agoBut would they still have a safe platform?
- WayneBro 10y agoYou moved the goal posts. But yes, it could still absolutely be safe. Why do you think otherwise? Does Apple hold a patent on publishing malware-free apps? No. They do not.
- msane 10y agoThe intent is keeping the entire platform free from malware and junk. Your app may be malware free, but it's pretty obvious there are many others which would not be.
- 10y ago
- ktRolster 10y agoWhat you can't do is distribute a binary for general use without paying Apple ($100/year) to sign your code. Exactly. It's a locked down platform.
- chillacy 10y agoIt was so open that your software which could write all over the memory space of other programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_memory_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_memory_management Then OSX introduced virtual memory. Programs became a little bit safer. Then in later versions, Application Sandboxing, code signing, etc. Every step of the way programs can do less but are safer for the OS.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> Every step of the way programs can do less but are safer for the OS. The important thing here is that it's a tradeoff, not an universal good. And a tradeoff that I personally don't like very much. Doing fun and interesting things keeps getting harder and harder because you have to jump through increasing amount of security hoops. For instance, reading and writing memory of other programs enabled you to do tweaks that are now almost impossible to perform. I understand the need for change, now that a computer is expected to be connected and running untrusted third-party code by default. But we've lost something with that change, and I wish for a way to get it back.