4 ms·

It can be turned off on your Mac if that is what you want.

swiftcoder 1y ago
So far, yes. It's getting hardware with every release. First you had to click approve in a dialog to launch unsigned software. Later you had to right click -> "open" -> then approve. Now you have to open system settings to find the button to show the approval prompt. Meanwhile to install a kernel extension you now have to reboot into safe mode and disable part of system integrity protection (with big warnings that it's at your own risk). For the average user, kernel extension are already gone, and unsigned software not far behind.
- codyb 1y ago
  Devil's advocating here... when have kernel extensions _ever been_ a part of the average user's experience?
  - vetrom 1y ago
    The early MacOS era as well as pretty much the entire classic Mac OS era was infamous for being a more-or-less do it yourself environment for adding bits the OS didn't have or did sub-optimally for given use cases. The wisdom of such a freewheeling ecosystem in today's era is maybe debatable, but given how user-hostile the mainline OS and software vendors can be, I say there's still plenty of room for that ecosystem and it should be preserved.
    - codyb 1y ago
      I guess I do remember adding drivers here and there for scanners and printers back in the day
      - detourdog 1y ago
        The old OS was awesome in that way. As extensions loaded the would appear in sequence at the bottom of the screen when a driver failed the boot would lock-up and one could reboot with extensions off change the boot order or remove the driver from the system folder. Very easy to mess with.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    ever since that was how you did device drivers. If you anything interesting, hardware wise, it came with drivers that required help from inside the kernel, and maybe you can argue that was different but it's still kernel level stuff that normal users had to install.
- fingerlocks 1y ago
  You can also just resign the binaries in one quick CLI command. That can’t go away because it’s baked into the post-compile build stages of Mac and iOS apps. So relax, this thread is all a bunch of silly FUD.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    If you are a developer, with the developer tools installed, sure. That's already well out of reach of the average user.
    - fingerlocks 1y ago
      Average user doesn’t even know what side-loading is, nor do they care.
  - aa-jv 1y ago
    Yeah, haha. This is not FUD: try to do the same on iOS.
    - fingerlocks 1y ago
      Yeah I do it nearly everyday. You can side load all you want with a developer account.
      - aa-jv 1y ago
        >with a developer account Thanks, you missed the point.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        fingerlocks 1y ago
        I said the thread is FUD because essential tooling is baked into the OS that invalidates the central thesis of the thread. Your response was, “haha ok now try that on a separate platform that requires a well known upfront premium to circumvent binary integrity protection, because consequences are much more significant, lolz”. And I responded with “yes, confirmed circumvention possible after paying small fee”. Or were you saying something else that I misunderstood?

So far, yes. It's getting hardware with every release. First you had to click approve in a dialog to launch unsigned software. Later you had to right click -> "open" -> then approve. Now you have to open system settings to find the button to show the approval prompt. Meanwhile to install a kernel extension you now have to reboot into safe mode and disable part of system integrity protection (with big warnings that it's at your own risk). For the average user, kernel extension are already gone, and unsigned software not far behind.

codyb 1y ago
Devil's advocating here... when have kernel extensions _ever been_ a part of the average user's experience?
- vetrom 1y ago
  The early MacOS era as well as pretty much the entire classic Mac OS era was infamous for being a more-or-less do it yourself environment for adding bits the OS didn't have or did sub-optimally for given use cases. The wisdom of such a freewheeling ecosystem in today's era is maybe debatable, but given how user-hostile the mainline OS and software vendors can be, I say there's still plenty of room for that ecosystem and it should be preserved.
  - codyb 1y ago
    I guess I do remember adding drivers here and there for scanners and printers back in the day
    - detourdog 1y ago
      The old OS was awesome in that way. As extensions loaded the would appear in sequence at the bottom of the screen when a driver failed the boot would lock-up and one could reboot with extensions off change the boot order or remove the driver from the system folder. Very easy to mess with.
- fragmede 1y ago
  ever since that was how you did device drivers. If you anything interesting, hardware wise, it came with drivers that required help from inside the kernel, and maybe you can argue that was different but it's still kernel level stuff that normal users had to install.
fingerlocks 1y ago
You can also just resign the binaries in one quick CLI command. That can’t go away because it’s baked into the post-compile build stages of Mac and iOS apps. So relax, this thread is all a bunch of silly FUD.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  If you are a developer, with the developer tools installed, sure. That's already well out of reach of the average user.
  - fingerlocks 1y ago
    Average user doesn’t even know what side-loading is, nor do they care.
- aa-jv 1y ago
  Yeah, haha. This is not FUD: try to do the same on iOS.
  - fingerlocks 1y ago
    Yeah I do it nearly everyday. You can side load all you want with a developer account.
    - aa-jv 1y ago
      >with a developer account Thanks, you missed the point.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - fingerlocks 1y ago
        I said the thread is FUD because essential tooling is baked into the OS that invalidates the central thesis of the thread. Your response was, “haha ok now try that on a separate platform that requires a well known upfront premium to circumvent binary integrity protection, because consequences are much more significant, lolz”. And I responded with “yes, confirmed circumvention possible after paying small fee”. Or were you saying something else that I misunderstood?