6 ms·

As long as OS X still includes Terminal.app and lets me install other apps without using the App Store, I'm still hooked.

by jtokoph 14y ago

drivebyacct2 14y ago
I've always said this too, but looking at things like Facebook, Twitter, iOS, the last thing I want is to keep sacrificing to walled gardens where I have to play by someone elses' rules. GateKeeper, to Mac developers, is playing by Apple's rules. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say that it will tilt the favor towards those who utilize the very closed (in multiple senses of the word) App Store over regular applications.
- pi18n 14y ago
  Can devs sign apps with a self-signed root? If that's not possible, it's a closed garden already. And even if it is we can't be certain that they won't change it to App Store only in the future.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Users can disable the check.
    - lucian1900 14y ago
      For now. All the apps out there are still signed with Apple's cert.
      - danieldk 14y ago
        I regularly encounter applications that are not signed. It's easy to circumvent Gatekeeper (right click, then choose open). But I can imagine that this is quite confusing for the average end user. For them, it is already turning into a walled garden.
        czhiddy 14y ago
        Any user who doesn't know what Gatekeeper's purpose is (and how to disable it) probably stand to benefit from keeping it on. I imagine these people are the ones most at risk for downloading malware. People who don't want/like the walled garden can disable it trivially from the settings. For people like my mom, who clicks on any ad/link/attachment without a second thought, this will save a ton of headaches.
        virtualritz 14y ago
        What about an OSS app like Darktable (which beats the sh*t out of Lightroom, in many use cases)? None of the devs has an Apple Developer account and not one of them, understandably, is prepared to churn out the 99 USD just to be able to sign the OS X flavor of their app: http://goo.gl/gzFZO http://goo.gl/gzFZO Shouldn't a kick-ass app like Darktable be easily deployable by anyone, not just those who know how to circumvent the 'walled garden'?
        stephencanon 14y ago
        If it's really that good (I've never tried it), then surely a couple users would be willing to donate a few bucks for it to be signed (especially seeing as lightroom costs what, $150?). $99 isn't quite pocket change, but it's not big money either. Reading the link, it seems like (some of) the devs have philosophical objections to doing that; fine. But philosophical objections aren't the same as "it can't be done".
        danieldk 14y ago
        Any user who doesn't know what Gatekeeper's purpose is (and how to disable it) probably stand to benefit from keeping it on. I imagine these people are the ones most at risk for downloading malware. I don't necessarily disagree (I have a mom too ;)), but: (1) there are many trustable open source programs that are unsigned because their developers cannot afford or do not want to pay $99 per year for an Apple developer account; (2) OS X could display a warning that the user can override. What happens now is that people will Google for the error to install some legitimate software, find a blog post that describes how to disable Gatekeeper, and switch of Gatekeeper permanently.
    - pi18n 14y ago
      That's a nonanswer; the majority of users does not know what the hell that is, and the people that do are going to think twice about disabling system-wide security to run some app.
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        I wasn't taking a side. I already expressed worry about it. I answered the question the best I could. Nowhere do I seek to dispel concern about Apple becoming more closed, in fact, that was kind of my lead in...
georgeorwell 14y ago
I used Terminal.app a lot but I find iTerm2 is better.

As long as OS X still includes Terminal.app and lets me install other apps without using the App Store, I'm still hooked.

by jtokoph 14y ago

As long as OS X still includes Terminal.app and lets me install other apps without using the App Store, I'm still hooked.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

I've always said this too, but looking at things like Facebook, Twitter, iOS, the last thing I want is to keep sacrificing to walled gardens where I have to play by someone elses' rules. GateKeeper, to Mac developers, is playing by Apple's rules. I don't think it's a conspiracy to say that it will tilt the favor towards those who utilize the very closed (in multiple senses of the word) App Store over regular applications.

pi18n 14y ago
Can devs sign apps with a self-signed root? If that's not possible, it's a closed garden already. And even if it is we can't be certain that they won't change it to App Store only in the future.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Users can disable the check.
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    For now. All the apps out there are still signed with Apple's cert.
    - danieldk 14y ago
      I regularly encounter applications that are not signed. It's easy to circumvent Gatekeeper (right click, then choose open). But I can imagine that this is quite confusing for the average end user. For them, it is already turning into a walled garden.
      - czhiddy 14y ago
        Any user who doesn't know what Gatekeeper's purpose is (and how to disable it) probably stand to benefit from keeping it on. I imagine these people are the ones most at risk for downloading malware. People who don't want/like the walled garden can disable it trivially from the settings. For people like my mom, who clicks on any ad/link/attachment without a second thought, this will save a ton of headaches.
        virtualritz 14y ago
        What about an OSS app like Darktable (which beats the sh*t out of Lightroom, in many use cases)? None of the devs has an Apple Developer account and not one of them, understandably, is prepared to churn out the 99 USD just to be able to sign the OS X flavor of their app: http://goo.gl/gzFZO http://goo.gl/gzFZO Shouldn't a kick-ass app like Darktable be easily deployable by anyone, not just those who know how to circumvent the 'walled garden'?
        stephencanon 14y ago
        If it's really that good (I've never tried it), then surely a couple users would be willing to donate a few bucks for it to be signed (especially seeing as lightroom costs what, $150?). $99 isn't quite pocket change, but it's not big money either. Reading the link, it seems like (some of) the devs have philosophical objections to doing that; fine. But philosophical objections aren't the same as "it can't be done".
        danieldk 14y ago
        Any user who doesn't know what Gatekeeper's purpose is (and how to disable it) probably stand to benefit from keeping it on. I imagine these people are the ones most at risk for downloading malware. I don't necessarily disagree (I have a mom too ;)), but: (1) there are many trustable open source programs that are unsigned because their developers cannot afford or do not want to pay $99 per year for an Apple developer account; (2) OS X could display a warning that the user can override. What happens now is that people will Google for the error to install some legitimate software, find a blog post that describes how to disable Gatekeeper, and switch of Gatekeeper permanently.
  - pi18n 14y ago
    That's a nonanswer; the majority of users does not know what the hell that is, and the people that do are going to think twice about disabling system-wide security to run some app.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      I wasn't taking a side. I already expressed worry about it. I answered the question the best I could. Nowhere do I seek to dispel concern about Apple becoming more closed, in fact, that was kind of my lead in...

georgeorwell 14y ago

I used Terminal.app a lot but I find iTerm2 is better.