7 ms·

>What actually intellectually hamstrings people? The fear they have of their computer, of doing something wrong, of making an irreversible change they don't u

>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.

shinratdr 15y ago
> You... really believe that adding a wordy "this guy didn't ask for our approval, delete program now" dialog box is "extremely ambitious"? Is that what I said? Because I think I said that attempting to tackle the fear people have with their computers is extremely ambitious. This dialogue box is one part of a clear effort on Apple's part to do that, so I applaud it. > 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. Or that not all developers are as overly dramatic and full of shit as you are, but whatever. > Other than that, it's just a harsher version of what every OS does already. You mean those "other OSes" that are constantly under threat of malware? Yeah, I wonder where the idea came from that a harsher strategy would be better? > 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 Right. So in other words, on the default setting a user can easily install compromised software via a social engineering attack, or with a compromised USB key or other removable media? Great job, you've improved nothing and solved nothing. > I don't see much of re-thinking of anything here, nor a liberating whatever for the masses. Go figure. I doubt the Hacker News community could identify improved user interaction/reduced user anxiety if it bit them in the ass. We'll make a deal then. Apple will do this, and sell more Macs than ever before. You'll insist they'll should do otherwise, throw a fit when they don't, insist users are idiots when it works perfectly and sells like gangbusters, and then act like it didn't change anything and was no big deal when eventually this is how all desktop operating systems work. Sounds good? Ok, break!
- whateverer 15y ago
  > Or that not all developers are as overly dramatic and full of shit as you are, but whatever. I'm redeemed in that I don't hoard all of the shit, it seems. > Right. So in other words, on the default setting a user can easily install compromised software via a social engineering attack, or with a compromised USB key or other removable media? Great job, you've improved nothing and solved nothing. I disagree. Signed repositories, warnings and disabling downloaded binaries are good measures for protecting against trojans and worms, while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers. I'm not sure about the removable media, but you may have a point there. Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering. It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs. > Go figure. I doubt the Hacker News community could identify improved user interaction/reduced user anxiety if it bit them in the ass. You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'? > We'll make a deal then. Apple will do this, and sell more Macs than ever before. You'll insist they'll should do otherwise, throw a fit when they don't, insist users are idiots when it works perfectly and sells like gangbusters, and then act like it didn't change anything and was no big deal when eventually this is how all desktop operating systems work. Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine?
  - shinratdr 15y ago
    > while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers. Warning against unsigned apps being potentially harmful is not scaremongering, it's the entire purpose behind code signing. I couldn't care less about "sullying the image of developers" and I bet Apple agrees. > Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering. No, I speak as if this system were MORE resistant to social engineering than all other desktop operating systems, which it is. It's also a step in the right direction, towards a system that is immune. > It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs. I imagine this is how it will end up in the future, the 3rd option will be removed from Gatekeeper. Frankly that doesn't bother me. As long as Gatekeeper retains the "signed, but independently distributed and not reviewed" option and Apple doesn't abuse it, I'll continue using OS X. > You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'? Right, because all benefits and downsides of code signing are fully represented in this one dialogue box. Give me a break. I'm not even going to bother to rebut this, I just hope you'll think it through for two seconds before responding again. > Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine? Not familiar with the publication. I just call them like I see them. Every effort Apple has made towards simplifying user interaction has met with that response, and every time Apple has been proven right and played out exactly like that. I don't know why people can't just give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

shinratdr 15y ago

> You... really believe that adding a wordy "this guy didn't ask for our approval, delete program now" dialog box is "extremely ambitious"? Is that what I said? Because I think I said that attempting to tackle the fear people have with their computers is extremely ambitious. This dialogue box is one part of a clear effort on Apple's part to do that, so I applaud it. > 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. Or that not all developers are as overly dramatic and full of shit as you are, but whatever. > Other than that, it's just a harsher version of what every OS does already. You mean those "other OSes" that are constantly under threat of malware? Yeah, I wonder where the idea came from that a harsher strategy would be better? > 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 Right. So in other words, on the default setting a user can easily install compromised software via a social engineering attack, or with a compromised USB key or other removable media? Great job, you've improved nothing and solved nothing. > I don't see much of re-thinking of anything here, nor a liberating whatever for the masses. Go figure. I doubt the Hacker News community could identify improved user interaction/reduced user anxiety if it bit them in the ass. We'll make a deal then. Apple will do this, and sell more Macs than ever before. You'll insist they'll should do otherwise, throw a fit when they don't, insist users are idiots when it works perfectly and sells like gangbusters, and then act like it didn't change anything and was no big deal when eventually this is how all desktop operating systems work. Sounds good? Ok, break!

whateverer 15y ago
> Or that not all developers are as overly dramatic and full of shit as you are, but whatever. I'm redeemed in that I don't hoard all of the shit, it seems. > Right. So in other words, on the default setting a user can easily install compromised software via a social engineering attack, or with a compromised USB key or other removable media? Great job, you've improved nothing and solved nothing. I disagree. Signed repositories, warnings and disabling downloaded binaries are good measures for protecting against trojans and worms, while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers. I'm not sure about the removable media, but you may have a point there. Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering. It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs. > Go figure. I doubt the Hacker News community could identify improved user interaction/reduced user anxiety if it bit them in the ass. You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'? > We'll make a deal then. Apple will do this, and sell more Macs than ever before. You'll insist they'll should do otherwise, throw a fit when they don't, insist users are idiots when it works perfectly and sells like gangbusters, and then act like it didn't change anything and was no big deal when eventually this is how all desktop operating systems work. Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine?
- shinratdr 15y ago
  > while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers. Warning against unsigned apps being potentially harmful is not scaremongering, it's the entire purpose behind code signing. I couldn't care less about "sullying the image of developers" and I bet Apple agrees. > Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering. No, I speak as if this system were MORE resistant to social engineering than all other desktop operating systems, which it is. It's also a step in the right direction, towards a system that is immune. > It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs. I imagine this is how it will end up in the future, the 3rd option will be removed from Gatekeeper. Frankly that doesn't bother me. As long as Gatekeeper retains the "signed, but independently distributed and not reviewed" option and Apple doesn't abuse it, I'll continue using OS X. > You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'? Right, because all benefits and downsides of code signing are fully represented in this one dialogue box. Give me a break. I'm not even going to bother to rebut this, I just hope you'll think it through for two seconds before responding again. > Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine? Not familiar with the publication. I just call them like I see them. Every effort Apple has made towards simplifying user interaction has met with that response, and every time Apple has been proven right and played out exactly like that. I don't know why people can't just give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.