PDA

View Full Version : Sandboxing rendering third party plugin's "useless"




bedifferent
May 29, 2012, 03:58 PM
"Sandboxing" third party app's may be an issue for app's such as "Final Cut Pro" and "Adobe Creative Suite". Manufacturers may work out a way around this issue, but plugin's such as "FxFactory" and "Trapcode" are currently causing kernel panics with such apps as "Final Cut Pro X" 10.0.4. I've had to uninstall all third party plugin's, leaving me with Apple's native effects, as my 12-Core Mac Pro 5,1 was shutting down during rendering since third party plugin's were denied use of system codec's/kext's. I'm beta testing a certain OS and it's been a reported issue Apple engineers are disinterested in addressing, believing third party manufacturers should handle this issue (even though Apple is mandating this new policy structure). Be warned, if you are a "Final Cut Pro" or creative, in upgrading your OS to 10.7 or 10.8 if you rely heavily on third party plugin's and effects.

Apple To Mandate Sandboxing by March 2012 (http://www.osnews.com/story/25294/Apple_To_Mandate_Sandboxing_by_March_2012/)

The advantages are obvious: a sandboxed application cannot wreak havoc on the system, and thus, the user has far less chance of causing damage to his or her system. The gist is basically that any Mac OS X application can only access the data in its own application bundle (like on iOS), and that in order for the application to do anything beyond that, it has to receive special and explicit permission from Apple, dubbed an entitlement.

Another problem is plugins. Many applications - especially professional applications like Aperture, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and so on, all use plugins. In the sandboxed world, plugins are impossible, since applications can't even see them, let alone execute them. AppleScript is in a similar position.



bogatyr
May 29, 2012, 04:10 PM
All I know is I'll stop buying apps from their store when this goes live. Most apps I buy require access outside of a sandbox and without these features they become useless - i.e. ForkLift.

I'd rather buy a full featured app direct from the developer after this happens.

linuxcooldude
May 29, 2012, 05:17 PM
If you are beta testing Mountain Lion, maybe these FCP X plugins are not updated for the new version coming out. Could very well be the sandboxing that is causing this however. Plus the sandboxing was moved to June 1st, so don't know if sandboxing is even enabled for the Mac App store in ML.

bedifferent
May 29, 2012, 05:38 PM
If you are beta testing Mountain Lion, maybe these FCP X plugins are not updated for the new version coming out. Could very well be the sandboxing that is causing this however. Plus the sandboxing was moved to June 1st, so don't know if sandboxing is even enabled for the Mac App store in ML.

It's occurring on that other OS ;) (and happened on .4 beta's but not the final release). Reports from KP indicate it is from sandboxing, took me a week to narrow that down. Once removed, Final Cut Pro X 10.0.4 works without issue(s).

bogatyr
May 29, 2012, 05:59 PM
If you are beta testing Mountain Lion, maybe these FCP X plugins are not updated for the new version coming out. Could very well be the sandboxing that is causing this however. Plus the sandboxing was moved to June 1st, so don't know if sandboxing is even enabled for the Mac App store in ML.

The requirement is June 1st but apps can implement sandboxing before the deadline. The app in question may have done so already, developers have had a lot of time to implement the restrictions.

scottsjack
May 29, 2012, 07:20 PM
All I know is I'll stop buying apps from their store when this goes live. Most apps I buy require access outside of a sandbox and without these features they become useless - i.e. ForkLift.

I'd rather buy a full featured app direct from the developer after this happens.

Exactly, why give Apple 30% for nothing? Support the devs directly, help them become/remain profitable and get the "real" version of the software you're looking for.

matrix07
May 30, 2012, 09:48 AM
Exactly, why give Apple 30% for nothing? Support the devs directly, help them become/remain profitable and get the "real" version of the software you're looking for.

I think you don't understand marketing.

heisenberg123
May 30, 2012, 11:01 AM
Exactly, why give Apple 30% for nothing? Support the devs directly, help them become/remain profitable and get the "real" version of the software you're looking for.

nothing?

might not help the big players but if you a small developer, the MAS puts your app on display for everyone to see

InuNacho
May 30, 2012, 11:06 AM
And people say OS X isn't being "dumbed down".

MikhailT
May 30, 2012, 10:27 PM
And people say OS X isn't being "dumbed down".

How is it being dumbed down again? You can still buy apps elsewhere and you can still do everything you want like on Lion or Snow Leopard, providing that those developers keep releasing the apps outside of MAS.

MAS is optional and so is GateKeeper.

Once both MAS/GateKeeper becomes mandatory, than you can say "dumbed down" as well as "locked down".

bedifferent
May 30, 2012, 10:57 PM
How is it being dumbed down again? You can still buy apps elsewhere and you can still do everything you want like on Lion or Snow Leopard, providing that those developers keep releasing the apps outside of MAS.

MAS is optional and so is GateKeeper.

Once both MAS/GateKeeper becomes mandatory, than you can say "dumbed down" as well as "locked down".

That's a long discussion with many heated on both sides of Apple's focus on the consumer market while neglecting professionals. Since iOS development, OS X has been given less significance. This was apparent with Leopard being delayed twice as Apple OS X engineers were moved into iOS engineering for the iPhone launch. Having worked at Cupertino, and having friends still there, it hasn't changed. First affordable power systems such as PowerMac G4/5's increased in base price with the Intel switch in 2006. Apple once offered three CCFL LCD's that were highly regarded by the professional industry due to native calibration which negates the necessity for third party calibration devices such as Syders, anti-glare screens, IPS panels and offered 20/23/30" sizes (now replaced by a stripped down 27" iMac LED LCD panel marketed for notebooks and notorious for banding, bleeding and uneven colors, I went through 5 24" LED LCD's until I got one of my two that worked out of the box). Used to be a PowerMac with display would run about the same price point as a well equipped Mac Pro. PowerMac's didn't eat into iMac sales as it catered to power users and high end customers who need an upgradeable system that can be used with a display of their choice (EIZO displays have become the display of choice for many design professionals). Jobs even stated to a room full of industry professionals after acquiring "Shake" in 2004 that their input would no longer be needed.

Aside from professional hardware neglect, OS X has become more iOS in many ways. First, ADC memberships dropped from hundreds of dollars to the $99 annual fee as iOS. This was done to entice consumers into OS X development. Secondly, OS X engineering has been strained as Apple does not like to hire more engineers, instead keeping a tight knit group that can be moved between departments. Apple's surge in demand has surpassed its ability in development. Lion has demonstrated [comparative to previous OS X versions] that stability has suffered. Reading reviews and threads has shown an overall increase in customer complaints (and this is just general consumer reviews, ADC threads and bug reporting has increased, with bugs since Lion DP1 still open for many). HFS/Finder is in desperate need of a rewrite, Lion memory management is atrocious (the argument that should be fully utilized RAM is erroneous; my Mac Pro with 16GB DDR3 running simple apps such as Safari, Mail, Calendar, etc utilizes ~40-50% of my RAM, once I open Final Cut Pro X 10.0.4 that jumps significantly), lack of improved "Time Machine" functionality, poor OpenGL Core support (4.0 support should have been implemented long ago), multiple display support is suffering, carbon is still used in some apps as well as 32-bit core Apple apps, "Mission Control" is a great concept but was not well thought out and uses too many resources for iOS "eye candy", iOS Spaces is such a complaint that a developer, Steven Sykes, produced "ReSpaceApp", which has been such a hit that BinaryAge (makers of "TotalFinder"), bought the app - now dubbed "TotalSpaces", to reincorporate 10.5/6 Spaces into 10.7/8, and on and on.

Basically, consumer focus in OS X has strained an already stressed OS X engineering department, resulting in less stability and professional focus. Tim Cook recently stated that Apple will focus more social networking integration into iOS and OS X. While I do not mind iOS integration I do mind it at the cost of what made Apple such a great system, OS X. :)

haravikk
May 31, 2012, 05:56 AM
Hmm, this sounds like it's going to require hacky workarounds, such as a plugin daemon process or such, which can isolate plugins while still giving them the permissions they need.

Even so, apps that require kernel extensions and so-on seems very uncertain at the moment, how are advanced system programs of this nature supposed to work?

I fully support sandboxing in spirit, but Apple has been pushing back the deadline without actually doing anything to solve the problems. Sandboxing is going to be horrible unless it has the possibility for runtime exceptions (not failures, but the ability for an app to request special permissions while running in order to install kernel extensions, and do other non-standard stuff that sandboxing doesn't directly support).
With such a system properly supported it'd be easy for users to give one-off permission, or permanent permission for certain tasks an app needs to perform. So long as the user understands what they're approving (and considers whether they expect the app to require it) then it should be fine.

guzhogi
May 31, 2012, 01:34 PM
Kinda wish Apple would change sandboxing so that sandboxed apps can use plug-ins in something like ~/Library/Application Support/<app or company name>. That way, we can have plug-ins and but still keep the system safe.

nuckinfutz
May 31, 2012, 01:43 PM
Basically, consumer focus in OS X has strained an already stressed OS X engineering department, resulting in less stability and professional focus. Tim Cook recently stated that Apple will focus more social networking integration into iOS and OS X. While I do not mind iOS integration I do mind it at the cost of what made Apple such a great system, OS X. :)

Par for the course. Apple has always been consumer focused. Lion certainly has its issues but on newer hardware it's been pretty stable in my experience.

Sandboxing - there's more at play here than just "security". I'm waiting for the second shoe to drop here and divulge why Apple is so adamant on Sandboxing.

blow45
May 31, 2012, 05:01 PM
Apple's surge in demand has surpassed its ability in development. Lion has demonstrated [comparative to previous OS X versions] that stability has suffered. Reading reviews and threads has shown an overall increase in customer complaints (and this is just general consumer reviews, ADC threads and bug reporting has increased, with bugs since Lion DP1 still open for many). HFS/Finder is in desperate need of a rewrite, Lion memory management is atrocious
Amen, to everything. Memory management is a you very well put it is simply atrocious.

MikhailT
May 31, 2012, 07:46 PM
"Mission Control" is a great concept but was not well thought out and uses too many resources for iOS "eye candy", iOS Spaces is such a complaint that a developer, Steven Sykes, produced "ReSpaceApp", which has been such a hit that BinaryAge (makers of "TotalFinder"), bought the app - now dubbed "TotalSpaces", to reincorporate 10.5/6 Spaces into 10.7/8, and on and on.

That's the only thing I can think of that's being dumbed down from your long post, the Mission Control feature is definitely a failed attempt to making it easier for users but doesn't work too well for power users. The lack of support for multiple monitors is sad as well.

But like you said, TotalSpaces is being developed

Neglecting professionals and hardware have nothing to do with dumbing down the OS X. Most of those are related to Pro hardware and Pro apps, it has nothing to do with OS X itself. Beside MC, there's nothing else that suggests OS X is being dumbed down. Launch Control may appear to be another one but that's optional and you can still use different launcher apps to do what you need.

Instability != dumbing down, lack of engineering resources != dumbing down.

Removing Terminal from the OS X is an example of dumbing the OS down because it prevents newbies from screwing up the OS X and moving the power away from power users.

Your statements are great for why OS X's future feels like it is going in the wrong direction but it doesn't answer the question that I asked on why OS X is being dumbed down. Nothing in ML's release suggests it, everything is just being added to ML while it is also getting some optimizations on the lower OS level.

Also, I have been using Lion since its release and it has never been a huge problem for me like you mentioned. The memory management definitely needs to be worked on but from what I heard, people reported that it's working better in ML.