3 ms·

> "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 inst

> "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.

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.