3 ms·
> I'd still like to know what the author suggests the alternative should be? I think MacOS handles app security right.
by nuker 5y ago
> I'd still like to know what the author suggests the alternative should be?
I think MacOS handles app security right.
- BossingAround 5y agoNot allowing users to run any unsigned binaries by default, such as a Go binary from your coworker, is somewhat against the Linux philosophy.
- nuker 5y ago$ spctl --add myFancyBinary Yes, defaults matter, 99% users don’t have friends that ask them to run their binaries :)
- BossingAround 5y agoA matter of philosophy. This would not fly in Linux distributions.
- kaba0 5y agoYou can run it, but it should not be by default allowed and a warning for its questionable origin is very handy.
- BossingAround 5y agoYou can delete your whole Linux installation with a single dd command. As I said, this is a matter of philosophy.
- lokedhs 5y agoDoesn't macos give full access to a trusted application? In order words, if I decide to trust a binary I downloaded from the Internet, it will be able to touch all my files? What I want to see if that the files an application can use be limited to some subset of all the files on the machine. One can spend a lot of time discussing the level of separation that is appropriate, but just because I trust an application doesn't mean I want it to be able to have full control of my system.
- kaba0 5y agoMacOS does have proper sandboxing but I’m not sure about the granularity of it (I’m not a Mac user). But ios pretty much does what you want and more, with “select photos you want to be accessible”, etc.
- lokedhs 5y agoIt's been easier to achieve this on mobile platforms due to the fact that it's not dependent on old API's that doesn't take compartmentalisation into consideration. I guess it also helps that mobile users are not generally expecting to be able to use the devices as general purpose computers.