9 ms·

It might be aggressive to suggest you put it immediately into the trash, but "... has not been signed by a recognized distributor and may damage your computer"

It might be aggressive to suggest you put it immediately into the trash, but "... has not been signed by a recognized distributor and may damage your computer" is totally accurate. The suggested "The app Adium hasn't been checked by Apple. It can't be trusted. Use the App Store to find trusted apps." is less scary, but more inaccurate. Apple doesn't check signed apps - they only issue the certificates. The app store is also not the only place to find trusted apps, which a major point behind the Gatekeeper system.

saulrh 15y ago
"May damage your computer" is accurate, but alarmist and misleading. It will dissuade more good software installations than it prevents bad installations, and it will raise distrust of computers and lower computer aptitude and overall understanding. Personally, I disagree with it because it continues Apple's strategy of intellectually hamstringing its users. This could instead be turned into a powerful educational tool: "We recommend that you find a computer user to explain this error to you" or "Follow this wikipedia link to the page about gatekeeper to learn more about this and to find links to explanatory material".
- Someone 15y ago
  I doubt that will work. Even ignoring "a computer user" ("That's me" would be the rightful reaction), the phrase "We recommend that you find a computer user to explain this error to you" more or less is synonymous with "We think you are too dumb to understand what is going on.". Some of them may be, but that is not a way to treat your customers. Also, let's say they call you. I expect that, most of the time, this will be more or less what the call will look like: You: "Hi." User: "There was some window on my screen." You: "What did it say?" User: "I don't know. I clicked it away." You: "What were you doing?" User: "Nothing." Also, that Wikipedia page is a bad idea. It should be a page that Apple controls.
- shinratdr 15y ago
  > "May damage your computer" is accurate, but alarmist and misleading. I disagree, it causes users to do exactly what they should be doing, being weary of installing a random App package. On top of that, it's very similar to the warnings most major browsers throw when they encounter a file they don't recognize. It's no more alarmist than IE telling you it doesn't recognize the file you just downloaded, so be careful. > Personally, I disagree with it because it continues Apple's strategy of intellectually hamstringing its users. That's one way to look at it. A significantly more accurate way to look at it would be to take any average user, sit them down at an XP desktop and get them to rattle off things they see as unnecessary or overly complicated. Call it whatever you want, in reality it's taking real user interaction to heart instead of assuming we can somehow educate our way out of problems that we have been struggling with since the dawn of computing. For example, I can't believe how many people seethed hatred over Versions in Mac OS X Lion. Months before that they were most likely cursing the document model and all the headaches it caused them. I love this assumption that one day, it will just click in everyone's heads. They will just save reflexively without considering, just like they will all fully understand code signing and will seek out additional information on the subject. Give me a break. Those models are broken, and we've had years and years to prove it. Re-thinking these basic computing concepts that average users have been screwing up for years isn't intellectually hamstringing anyone, on the contrary it's what will make computing comfortable for the masses instead of just bringing it to them and hoping for the best like we do now. What actually intellectually hamstrings people? The fear they have of their computer, of doing something wrong, of making an irreversible change they don't understand, or installing malware. Tackling that is extremely ambitious, and kudos to Apple for actually trying instead of making excuses like most others do. > "We recommend that you find a computer user to explain this error to you" Really condescending, as well as inaccurate. They're using the computer, correct? Then they are the "computer user", end of story. > "Follow this wikipedia link to the page about gatekeeper to learn more about this and to find links to explanatory material" So now we're adding complexity by requesting that they learn about the concept of signed and unsigned code, instead of simply being weary of unsigned apps? Everyone is quick to criticize the dialog, but their suggestions are more convoluted and inaccurate than the actual message.
  - saulrh 15y ago
    It's no more alarmist than IE telling you it doesn't recognize the file you just downloaded, so be careful. Except that IE still presents you with a "Run" button. This just... stops you. Condescending Sure. Poorly worded on my part. However, I have little sympathy for people that get offended when they're told that they're out of their depth. If someone tells you that you don't know what you're doing, you either have a refutation ready or you actually don't know what you're doing. Getting angry is counterproductive and will only let you wallow in your ignorance. Either acknowledge your ignorance and go on with life or prove them wrong. Everyone is quick to criticize the dialog, but their suggestions are more convoluted and inaccurate than the actual message. Because I tried to present an alternative other than "just get rid of it", which is really the right thing to do.
    - shinratdr 15y ago
      > Except that IE still presents you with a "Run" button. This just... stops you. IE 9 presents you with no such button if the file isn't trusted. You have to go and manually navigate to the Downloads folder to launch it. > However, I have little sympathy for people that get offended when they're told that they're out of their depth. So your solution is to change basic human nature and make it so people aren't embarrassed by their ignorance? Good luck with that one. > Because I tried to present an alternative other than "just get rid of it", which is really the right thing to do. You say so, but yet you haven't presented a compelling reason why. Getting rid of it is the right thing to do, it's an unsigned program downloaded by a user who hasn't changed the Gatekeeper settings. It looks a little odd not because of how few apps are signed, but it won't in time. Besides, your alternative suggestions do nothing but demonstrate why it's a bad idea to implement this any other way. They add complexity, insult users flippantly, and are poorly thought through.
  - whateverer 15y ago
    >What actually intellectually hamstrings people? The fear they have of their computer, of doing something wrong, of making an irreversible change they don't understand, or installing malware. Tackling that is extremely ambitious, and kudos to Apple for actually trying instead of making excuses like most others do. You... really believe that adding a wordy "this guy didn't ask for our approval, delete program now" dialog box is "extremely ambitious"? In the only direction in which this is ambitious, is in handing over even more control to Apple, something which iOS showed us that developers for the Apple ecosystems are more than willing to do, no matter how draconian the terms. Other than that, it's just a harsher version of what every OS does already. On Linux, the custom is to write downloaded files without the executable bit... if you decide to veer from trustworthy or at least publicly-signed channels of distribution; on Windows, you get a similar dialog, but not with an imperative to erase any application which lacks a certificate by Microsoft. I don't see much of re-thinking of anything here, nor a liberating whatever for the masses.
jfarmer 15y ago
It's accurate but overly technical and unnecessarily frightening. You shouldn't be using terms of art anywhere in your copy unless that's the language your audience speaks, too. The average user will think they're about to get a virus or do irreversible damage to their computer, both of which are very, very far from the truth. It's as bad as this type of error dialog: +---------------------+ | | | | | An error occurred | | | | [ OK ] | +---------------------+ What am I supposed to do with that? It provides no information and doesn't give me the opportunity to fix the (very mysterious) problem. In some ways this is worse because while the dialog is technically accurate, the presentation will alarm anyone who doesn't understand exactly what's happening. tl;dr: Imagine if your grandma saw this error message. How would she react?
- msbarnett 15y ago
  > The average user will think they're about to get a virus or do irreversible damage to their computer, both of which are very, very far from the truth. Very far from the truth, today, when this is a brand new beta that Devs are just getting their hands on. But 6 months from now? A year? It's not going to be long before an unsigned binary probably is a trojan or similarly untrustworthy. It's not like Adium isn't going to be signed by the time Mountain Lion ships. > tl;dr: Imagine if your grandma saw this error message. How would she react? She'd freak out and throw it in the trash -- which is exactly what I want her to do with unsigned binaries. There's really no analogy with the "An error occurred" dialog. We want to scare users away from blindly trusting binaries from the internet. "An error occurred" serves no similar purpose in training the user.
  - jfarmer 15y ago
    I'm commenting on this dialog, not some future hypothetical dialog that addresses Dustin's concerns. As it stands it's far too aggressive and unfriendly. Aesthetically, the copy sucks monkey nuts (to put it politely).
    - msbarnett 15y ago
Cloven 15y ago
apps that have been signed by a recognized distributor may also damage your computer; the signature isn't proof against errors or intentional maliciousness. So that wording is ridiculous. And 'It can't be trusted.' Really? That's ridiculous too. It's entirely possible it could be trusted. There's lots of software that Apple hasn't signed which is trusted and has been for decades. This dialog just confirms suspicions. The intent is clearly and explicitly to throw FUD on, wall off and eliminate non-Apple-approved software.
- shinratdr 15y ago
  > apps that have been signed by a recognized distributor may also damage your computer; the signature isn't proof against errors or intentional maliciousness. So that wording is ridiculous. Right, that's a way better wording. "Oh, and signed apps could harm your computer too and also can't be trusted. Guess you're fucked then!" I wonder why I leave with the impression that you are just looking for things to nitpick because you don't like Apple as opposed to offering a genuinely helpful suggestion? > This dialog just confirms suspicions. The intent is clearly and explicitly to throw FUD on, wall off and eliminate non-Apple-approved software. ...Well, duh. Did you encounter anyone with a different impression? Also, what suspicions? Is it surprising to you that Apple is on a path to disallow unsigned code? This is the way forward people. Assuming malware will stop being a problem or users will suddenly stop screwing things up are the complete pipe dreams here. With the addition of the signed but not reviewed category in Mountain Lion, I'm happy. It's the best of both worlds, and a much better solution than no centralized distribution at all like Windows, or a Wild West style distribution platform like the Android Market.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    The best of both worlds is having a centralized distribution of verified software but still be able to install unverified software, in my opinion. Which happens to be the GNU/Linux model for around two decades now.
    - shinratdr 15y ago
petercooper 15y ago
Sure, but it's like each time you meet a stranger telling your kids the stranger "may hurt you". It's not a path everyone wants to go down (though, sadly, there are parents destroying the fabric of society by fostering their kids' paranoia.)

saulrh 15y ago

"May damage your computer" is accurate, but alarmist and misleading. It will dissuade more good software installations than it prevents bad installations, and it will raise distrust of computers and lower computer aptitude and overall understanding. Personally, I disagree with it because it continues Apple's strategy of intellectually hamstringing its users. This could instead be turned into a powerful educational tool: "We recommend that you find a computer user to explain this error to you" or "Follow this wikipedia link to the page about gatekeeper to learn more about this and to find links to explanatory material".

Someone 15y ago
I doubt that will work. Even ignoring "a computer user" ("That's me" would be the rightful reaction), the phrase "We recommend that you find a computer user to explain this error to you" more or less is synonymous with "We think you are too dumb to understand what is going on.". Some of them may be, but that is not a way to treat your customers. Also, let's say they call you. I expect that, most of the time, this will be more or less what the call will look like: You: "Hi." User: "There was some window on my screen." You: "What did it say?" User: "I don't know. I clicked it away." You: "What were you doing?" User: "Nothing." Also, that Wikipedia page is a bad idea. It should be a page that Apple controls.
shinratdr 15y ago
> "May damage your computer" is accurate, but alarmist and misleading. I disagree, it causes users to do exactly what they should be doing, being weary of installing a random App package. On top of that, it's very similar to the warnings most major browsers throw when they encounter a file they don't recognize. It's no more alarmist than IE telling you it doesn't recognize the file you just downloaded, so be careful. > Personally, I disagree with it because it continues Apple's strategy of intellectually hamstringing its users. That's one way to look at it. A significantly more accurate way to look at it would be to take any average user, sit them down at an XP desktop and get them to rattle off things they see as unnecessary or overly complicated. Call it whatever you want, in reality it's taking real user interaction to heart instead of assuming we can somehow educate our way out of problems that we have been struggling with since the dawn of computing. For example, I can't believe how many people seethed hatred over Versions in Mac OS X Lion. Months before that they were most likely cursing the document model and all the headaches it caused them. I love this assumption that one day, it will just click in everyone's heads. They will just save reflexively without considering, just like they will all fully understand code signing and will seek out additional information on the subject. Give me a break. Those models are broken, and we've had years and years to prove it. Re-thinking these basic computing concepts that average users have been screwing up for years isn't intellectually hamstringing anyone, on the contrary it's what will make computing comfortable for the masses instead of just bringing it to them and hoping for the best like we do now. What actually intellectually hamstrings people? The fear they have of their computer, of doing something wrong, of making an irreversible change they don't understand, or installing malware. Tackling that is extremely ambitious, and kudos to Apple for actually trying instead of making excuses like most others do. > "We recommend that you find a computer user to explain this error to you" Really condescending, as well as inaccurate. They're using the computer, correct? Then they are the "computer user", end of story. > "Follow this wikipedia link to the page about gatekeeper to learn more about this and to find links to explanatory material" So now we're adding complexity by requesting that they learn about the concept of signed and unsigned code, instead of simply being weary of unsigned apps? Everyone is quick to criticize the dialog, but their suggestions are more convoluted and inaccurate than the actual message.
- saulrh 15y ago
  It's no more alarmist than IE telling you it doesn't recognize the file you just downloaded, so be careful. Except that IE still presents you with a "Run" button. This just... stops you. Condescending Sure. Poorly worded on my part. However, I have little sympathy for people that get offended when they're told that they're out of their depth. If someone tells you that you don't know what you're doing, you either have a refutation ready or you actually don't know what you're doing. Getting angry is counterproductive and will only let you wallow in your ignorance. Either acknowledge your ignorance and go on with life or prove them wrong. Everyone is quick to criticize the dialog, but their suggestions are more convoluted and inaccurate than the actual message. Because I tried to present an alternative other than "just get rid of it", which is really the right thing to do.
  - shinratdr 15y ago
    > Except that IE still presents you with a "Run" button. This just... stops you. IE 9 presents you with no such button if the file isn't trusted. You have to go and manually navigate to the Downloads folder to launch it. > However, I have little sympathy for people that get offended when they're told that they're out of their depth. So your solution is to change basic human nature and make it so people aren't embarrassed by their ignorance? Good luck with that one. > Because I tried to present an alternative other than "just get rid of it", which is really the right thing to do. You say so, but yet you haven't presented a compelling reason why. Getting rid of it is the right thing to do, it's an unsigned program downloaded by a user who hasn't changed the Gatekeeper settings. It looks a little odd not because of how few apps are signed, but it won't in time. Besides, your alternative suggestions do nothing but demonstrate why it's a bad idea to implement this any other way. They add complexity, insult users flippantly, and are poorly thought through.
- whateverer 15y ago
  >What actually intellectually hamstrings people? The fear they have of their computer, of doing something wrong, of making an irreversible change they don't understand, or installing malware. Tackling that is extremely ambitious, and kudos to Apple for actually trying instead of making excuses like most others do. You... really believe that adding a wordy "this guy didn't ask for our approval, delete program now" dialog box is "extremely ambitious"? In the only direction in which this is ambitious, is in handing over even more control to Apple, something which iOS showed us that developers for the Apple ecosystems are more than willing to do, no matter how draconian the terms. Other than that, it's just a harsher version of what every OS does already. On Linux, the custom is to write downloaded files without the executable bit... if you decide to veer from trustworthy or at least publicly-signed channels of distribution; on Windows, you get a similar dialog, but not with an imperative to erase any application which lacks a certificate by Microsoft. I don't see much of re-thinking of anything here, nor a liberating whatever for the masses.

jfarmer 15y ago

It's accurate but overly technical and unnecessarily frightening. You shouldn't be using terms of art anywhere in your copy unless that's the language your audience speaks, too. The average user will think they're about to get a virus or do irreversible damage to their computer, both of which are very, very far from the truth. It's as bad as this type of error dialog: +---------------------+ | | | | | An error occurred | | | | [ OK ] | +---------------------+ What am I supposed to do with that? It provides no information and doesn't give me the opportunity to fix the (very mysterious) problem. In some ways this is worse because while the dialog is technically accurate, the presentation will alarm anyone who doesn't understand exactly what's happening. tl;dr: Imagine if your grandma saw this error message. How would she react?

msbarnett 15y ago
> The average user will think they're about to get a virus or do irreversible damage to their computer, both of which are very, very far from the truth. Very far from the truth, today, when this is a brand new beta that Devs are just getting their hands on. But 6 months from now? A year? It's not going to be long before an unsigned binary probably is a trojan or similarly untrustworthy. It's not like Adium isn't going to be signed by the time Mountain Lion ships. > tl;dr: Imagine if your grandma saw this error message. How would she react? She'd freak out and throw it in the trash -- which is exactly what I want her to do with unsigned binaries. There's really no analogy with the "An error occurred" dialog. We want to scare users away from blindly trusting binaries from the internet. "An error occurred" serves no similar purpose in training the user.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  I'm commenting on this dialog, not some future hypothetical dialog that addresses Dustin's concerns. As it stands it's far too aggressive and unfriendly. Aesthetically, the copy sucks monkey nuts (to put it politely).
  - msbarnett 15y ago

Cloven 15y ago

apps that have been signed by a recognized distributor may also damage your computer; the signature isn't proof against errors or intentional maliciousness. So that wording is ridiculous. And 'It can't be trusted.' Really? That's ridiculous too. It's entirely possible it could be trusted. There's lots of software that Apple hasn't signed which is trusted and has been for decades. This dialog just confirms suspicions. The intent is clearly and explicitly to throw FUD on, wall off and eliminate non-Apple-approved software.

shinratdr 15y ago
> apps that have been signed by a recognized distributor may also damage your computer; the signature isn't proof against errors or intentional maliciousness. So that wording is ridiculous. Right, that's a way better wording. "Oh, and signed apps could harm your computer too and also can't be trusted. Guess you're fucked then!" I wonder why I leave with the impression that you are just looking for things to nitpick because you don't like Apple as opposed to offering a genuinely helpful suggestion? > This dialog just confirms suspicions. The intent is clearly and explicitly to throw FUD on, wall off and eliminate non-Apple-approved software. ...Well, duh. Did you encounter anyone with a different impression? Also, what suspicions? Is it surprising to you that Apple is on a path to disallow unsigned code? This is the way forward people. Assuming malware will stop being a problem or users will suddenly stop screwing things up are the complete pipe dreams here. With the addition of the signed but not reviewed category in Mountain Lion, I'm happy. It's the best of both worlds, and a much better solution than no centralized distribution at all like Windows, or a Wild West style distribution platform like the Android Market.
- icebraining 15y ago
  The best of both worlds is having a centralized distribution of verified software but still be able to install unverified software, in my opinion. Which happens to be the GNU/Linux model for around two decades now.
  - shinratdr 15y ago

petercooper 15y ago

Sure, but it's like each time you meet a stranger telling your kids the stranger "may hurt you". It's not a path everyone wants to go down (though, sadly, there are parents destroying the fabric of society by fostering their kids' paranoia.)