4 ms·

I also have things I want to change in gatekeeper, but that feature is not one of them. Just gut feeling but I would say 110% of all users, would just click ”st

by plufz 5mo ago

I also have things I want to change in gatekeeper, but that feature is not one of them. Just gut feeling but I would say 110% of all users, would just click ”start” on every unsigned app if it was that easy.

Affric 5mo ago
Bingo. I know I would. I am the king of knowing immediately when I have fucked up. “Undo” has made us far too comfortable with mistakes.
weaksauce 5mo ago
they could do it like they do it for accessibility settings. you have to opt in for an app and you need to know damn well if it is a reputable app before giving those controls over. there's enough friction in that that it is not done by many apps but not hard enough that it's a huge ask to whitelist the app.
gblargg 5mo ago
So have a buried option that power users can flip one time to add an allow button to opening untrusted apps.
- Wowfunhappy 5mo ago
  But that's exactly what `sudo spctl --master-disable` does! You'll still see a warning dialog on first launch.
  - hedora 5mo ago
    That’s good to know, but the spelling of the command is incredibly user hostile, even by modern apple standards.
    - Wowfunhappy 5mo ago
      > the spelling of the command is incredibly user hostile Well the command is spctl, so I assume it stands for (s) Security (p) Policy (ctl) Control. I agree that "ctl" for "control" is a bit weird but it's a pretty typical Unix convention: pfctl, networkctl, systemctl, etc.
  - gblargg 5mo ago
    So you don't lose any of the protections, just are allowed the option of running anyway (or backing out and NOT running it after getting the warning)?
    - Wowfunhappy 5mo ago
      I don’t understand what you mean by “protection”. The “protection” offered by Gatekeeper is that you aren’t able to run unsigned software without going into System Preferences. That’s it. There isn’t some other secret sauce. Without Gatekeeper, macOS will instead pop up a dialog warning you that the application was downloaded from the internet, and provide an option to run it anyway, on first launch.

by plufz 5mo ago

Affric 5mo ago

Bingo. I know I would. I am the king of knowing immediately when I have fucked up. “Undo” has made us far too comfortable with mistakes.

weaksauce 5mo ago

they could do it like they do it for accessibility settings. you have to opt in for an app and you need to know damn well if it is a reputable app before giving those controls over. there's enough friction in that that it is not done by many apps but not hard enough that it's a huge ask to whitelist the app.

gblargg 5mo ago

So have a buried option that power users can flip one time to add an allow button to opening untrusted apps.

Wowfunhappy 5mo ago
But that's exactly what `sudo spctl --master-disable` does! You'll still see a warning dialog on first launch.
- hedora 5mo ago
  That’s good to know, but the spelling of the command is incredibly user hostile, even by modern apple standards.
  - Wowfunhappy 5mo ago
    > the spelling of the command is incredibly user hostile Well the command is spctl, so I assume it stands for (s) Security (p) Policy (ctl) Control. I agree that "ctl" for "control" is a bit weird but it's a pretty typical Unix convention: pfctl, networkctl, systemctl, etc.
- gblargg 5mo ago
  So you don't lose any of the protections, just are allowed the option of running anyway (or backing out and NOT running it after getting the warning)?
  - Wowfunhappy 5mo ago
    I don’t understand what you mean by “protection”. The “protection” offered by Gatekeeper is that you aren’t able to run unsigned software without going into System Preferences. That’s it. There isn’t some other secret sauce. Without Gatekeeper, macOS will instead pop up a dialog warning you that the application was downloaded from the internet, and provide an option to run it anyway, on first launch.