Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Great compermise.

Most users aren't burdenonded by having junk installed, and the people that do need it get a link to the latest version.

This makes perfect sense. Apple has always been behind when it comes to updates of the open source and non-Cocoa components of OS X.
 
A tip for those installing the macports XQuartz 2.7.0 xorg-server for the first time (or the first time in a while). For some reason, I had to rebuild each of the X11 apps (e.g. GIMP) to get them to access the new X11. Otherwise, they would fire up the (still installed) default server, resulting in both servers running. (There is probably a good reason, but, I don't know what it is.)
 
And what if they decide they don't want to give free code signatures if they don't approve of your content for whatever reason (competes against their product, too adult, does something one of their advertisers doesn't like, etc.)? They exercise that type of every day on the App Store. They might not do this today and they might not do this tomorrow, but they can start doing it any time they feel like it. It's like having to ask permission to go to the bathroom. What are you going to do if they say NO? They are putting the controls to enable this in OSX right NOW not tomorrow.

You were wrong on the facts, and your response is to criticize a hypothetical? That's not really very reasonable, let alone fair. And more importantly, it's fallacious reasoning, by way of a "slippery slope." You're making an argument against Gatekeeper because of a future, as yet hypothetical problem that doesn't exist today.

If Apple does move to an iOS-style, App Store-only model in the future, feel free to criticize them for it. I will join in that criticism, and in boycotting future releases of OS X if need be. But what you're doing is criticizing them for it now, when it hasn't happened yet. And that's no better than the nuts who argue against legalizing gay marriage because they think it'll result in legalizing dog marriage, or incest.

Gatekeeper is a solid move for the security of the average user, especially given the recent outbreak, which would not have happened had Gatekeeper been enabled on those machines. It provides the user the control over their own security. No one actually loses anything, except of course malware devs.

Nevermind. Be naive. :rolleyes:

Never mind. Argue fallaciously in favor of conspiracy theories.

This is a reason why OSX will *NEVER* succeed in the enterprise.

What's the metric for "succeed in the enterprise"? This is a very vague claim; by certain metrics, one could say that it is already doing this. By others, given the existing dominance of Windows, it's doubtful ANY other OS could ever succeed in enterprise, regardless of its behavior on deprecation.

For all the hate against Microsoft, at least they give users notice when they pull a major component.

I'd really like to see a citation for this. While I agree that I'd prefer to have had more of a word on Rosetta's demise, in my experience Microsoft hasn't given any more warning on these issues.

Just as a recent example, they claimed repeatedly and vehemently until very recently that Windows 8 for ARM would have a traditional desktop option, and only just announced that this would not be the case, not far off its release.

However, if you'd pointed out that Microsoft is, at least in PCs, much better about backwards compatibility, I think you'd be absolutely right. There are unfortunately, necessary tradeoffs that come with that position when it comes to memory & storage space bloat, but obviously it's up to MS & Apple, and customers to decide where to draw their own lines.

On the other hand, when it comes to the mobile space, Apple has been by far and away the best with updates and backwards compatibility. The original iPhone lasted all the way to iOS 4. The 3-year-old 3GS is still going on the latest version. And given the current trends, it wouldn't be surprising if the first iPad made it all the way to iOS 7 before deprecation. That sort of backwards compatibility is unheard of in the Android space, and Windows Phone 7 isn't even 2 years old yet, and it's already had a terrible backwards compatibility record.

Back to the thread topic, I am actually glad about the X11 'gone by default' thing, specifically BECAUSE I use XQuartz and I've had past frustrations replacing X11.app with XQuartz that would be avoided by a blank slate. I don't do anything stunningly important with X11 (mostly Freeciv, and occasional forays into Inkscape), but nonetheless the opportunity to do a clean install appeals to me.
 
Last edited:
You were wrong on the facts, and your response is to criticize a hypothetical? That's not really very reasonable, let alone fair. And more importantly, it's fallacious reasoning, by way of a "slippery slope." You're making an argument against Gatekeeper because of a future, as yet hypothetical problem that doesn't exist today.

Observations of market trends is hardly conspiracy theory material, dude. It's just not that difficult to add 2+2 with Apple.
 
Observations of market trends is hardly conspiracy theory material, dude.

You're making a slippery slope argument, and criticizing Apple for an imaginary, hypothetical future policy they haven't implemented or said they were going to implement. That's a logical fallacy. Period.

It's one thing to say, "given Apple's move toward consistency between certain aspects of iOS and OS X, coupled with a desire for greater security on OS X, I worry that we could be moving toward a very locked-down software distribution model with OS X going forward."

But you didn't say that. What you did was advertise your ignorance about Gatekeeper repeatedly. Then, when corrected (twice), rather than admit your mistake and move on, you just assumed that Apple is DEFINITELY moving to a MAS-only distribution model, and criticized them for that, when they haven't even announced it, let alone implemented it, or anything of the kind.

It's just not that difficult to add 2+2 with Apple.

Really. I guess that's why analysts have been so consistently good at predicting Apple for the past 15 years.

Oh wait.
 
Last edited:
You're making a slippery slope argument, and criticizing Apple for an imaginary, hypothetical future policy they haven't implemented or said they were going to implement. That's a logical fallacy. Period.

The only logical fallacy I see is in your brain dude. :rolleyes:

Maybe you could look up the definition of opinion and read about 2000 times until it sinks in and then go take a class on manners because you have none.

It's one thing to say, "given Apple's move toward consistency between certain aspects of iOS and OS X, coupled with a desire for greater security on OS X, I worry that we could be moving toward a very locked-down software distribution model with OS X going forward."

The pattern is obvious. They've been moving every aspect of OSX to be more like iOS and iOS is locked down as tight as it gets with its monopolizing store-front and required 1/3 payment of all revenue, which has turned out to be very profitable for them which is why they would now like to do the same with OSX for even more profits. Lion looks and behaves more like iOS and has more bugs than a bait store due to no one putting the time and effort into it. The App store looks a lot like OSX's App store, but I'm sure you think that's a freaking coincidence. Next they put in a control mechanism that would only take a slight tweak to make it impossible to install your own software.

Unlike you, I've presented my evidence to back up my opinion while you haven't proved a single freaking thing. You could have just given your opinion on the matter, but no, you want to play mind games and put out personal insults. How very droll. :rolleyes:
 
The only logical fallacy I see is in your brain dude. :rolleyes:

Maybe you could look up the definition of opinion and read about 2000 times until it sinks in and then go take a class on manners because you have none.



The pattern is obvious. They've been moving every aspect of OSX to be more like iOS and iOS is locked down as tight as it gets with its monopolizing store-front and required 1/3 payment of all revenue, which has turned out to be very profitable for them which is why they would now like to do the same with OSX for even more profits. Lion looks and behaves more like iOS and has more bugs than a bait store due to no one putting the time and effort into it. The App store looks a lot like OSX's App store, but I'm sure you think that's a freaking coincidence. Next they put in a control mechanism that would only take a slight tweak to make it impossible to install your own software.

Unlike you, I've presented my evidence to back up my opinion while you haven't proved a single freaking thing. You could have just given your opinion on the matter, but no, you want to play mind games and put out personal insults. How very droll. :rolleyes:

The things is you're presenting your beliefs as if they were as much fact as the facts on which you base your beliefs, which is probably why he's reacting.

A bit like "because of X and because of Y my opinion is Z", instead of "because of X I believe Y is highly probable which is why my opinion is Z", which apparently is what you actually mean...
 
Great, one more big file to download when I get a new machine. I get the point with being up to date and stuff, but as they remove physical media I'm getting annoyed about small things like this.

Oh well.
 
Great, one more big file to download when I get a new machine. I get the point with being up to date and stuff, but as they remove physical media I'm getting annoyed about small things like this.

Do you think the next security patch/update won't require another big file to download anyway? Regardless of which OS you're running?

No, if adding a package that most people will never use makes the OS less secure (regardless of which OS you're running) then I'd rather see it be an optional download for the few who actually need it.
 
The things is you're presenting your beliefs as if they were as much fact as the facts on which you base your beliefs, which is probably why he's reacting.

A bit like "because of X and because of Y my opinion is Z", instead of "because of X I believe Y is highly probable which is why my opinion is Z", which apparently is what you actually mean...

What am I, Nostradamus? Of course it's my opinion, but it's based on real life observations and trends in iOS and OSX so it's more like theory of what they're going to do in a future version of OSX. More to the point, I mentioned this hypothesis years ago and I was told I was crazy by several people. And boom, one puzzle piece after another keeps falling in place. I didn't expect Jobs to die and figured Apple might change for the better if he left for whatever reason, but so far they seem to be following the plan pretty closely, which seems to be away with the 'trucks' (i.e. traditional computers) and in with the sleek shiny little sports cars (Macbook Air, iPads, etc.)
 
You have to wonder why any of us bother to use the internet. We all obviously hate each other. Every single person on every single forum is a douche to everyone else, feels compelled to correct them and point out useless and utterly worthless things, and then be offended when something stupid is obviously pointed out.

It's just so funny that we all use our computers (in some part) to be social, only to ultimately be rude and crappy to online people. We all do it. Weird.
 
Do you think the next security patch/update won't require another big file to download anyway? Regardless of which OS you're running?

No, if adding a package that most people will never use makes the OS less secure (regardless of which OS you're running) then I'd rather see it be an optional download for the few who actually need it.

Ok, so it's 59MB - I thought it was larger. Even on the smallest capacity MacBook Air (64gb - probably won't be around much longer), what's the impact of 59MB? About 0.01% of total hard disk space. On a 128GB MacBook Air, half that!

Thanks for pointing out my mistake though. I thought the X11 package was much larger (oops). Yea, downloading a security patch will probably be bigger lol.

Seriously though, a Lady Gaga album likely consumes about as much space. Plenty of people install stuff on their machines they'll never use ;)
 
What am I, Nostradamus? Of course it's my opinion, but it's based on real life observations and trends in iOS and OSX so it's more like theory of what they're going to do in a future version of OSX.
Again, you're not presenting it as a theory but as facts, which is probably why he reacts the way he does.
 
Plenty of people install stuff on their machines they'll never use ;)

There's a difference between people installing stuff, and Apple shipping something in the OS distribution. In the latter, Apple has to provide patches and support for the component, which can lead to scenarios where they are behind and known exploits are in the wild (the java situation we had just recently).

Leaving out 3rd party packages and letting you grab them from the source is a wise move on their part.
 
You have to wonder why any of us bother to use the internet. We all obviously hate each other. Every single person on every single forum is a douche to everyone else, feels compelled to correct them and point out useless and utterly worthless things, and then be offended when something stupid is obviously pointed out.

It's just so funny that we all use our computers (in some part) to be social, only to ultimately be rude and crappy to online people. We all do it. Weird.

I've always theorized that the purpose of life on this planet is basically that of a spiritual kindergarten. We're not here to build space shuttles or iPads, but to learn to get along with one another. Almost every war, religious difference, etc. is ultimately based on the selfish egotistical concept that I'm right and you're wrong and if you don't get in line with MY view, you're history. People don't usually respect other people's rights to disagree or have differing opinions. You see it in every aspect of life from religious views, homophobia, racism, political views to even petty crap like operating systems and the best fast food hamburger places. When people strongly disagree on something, one ultimately ends up insulting the other one and then they get into a verbal or even a physical fight. And over what? A simple different view/interpretation/opinion? It's utterly childish and unacceptable on any spiritual level above infant. And "adults" do it every day. Most of us do it at some point even if we're reasonable 'most' of hte time. It seems no wonder we're stuck on this isolated planet, possibly in a circle of life that might continue indefinitely because so many are too selfish to get a passing grade in "spiritual kindergarten".
 
The only logical fallacy I see is in your brain dude. :roll eyes:

Alas, I can't force you to understand the concept of logical fallacies, or how they work. I can only point them out when you use them in the hopes that you'll notice rather than get angry you're being questioned on things.

Maybe you could look up the definition of opinion and read about 2000 times until it sinks in and then go take a class on manners because you have none.

I am well aware what an opinion is. The funny thing is, though you're pointing this out to me, you seem to be confused on it, as you're conflating two different usages of the word.

One kind of opinion is the sort of opinion we have about curry, or James Cameron movies, or Bob Dylan. These are the sorts of opinions that we refer to when we say, "it's just my opinion." i.e. "I am of the opinion that red jello is better than green jello." Save some health hazard surrounding either red or green dye, there's really no logical way to discern which one actually is "better." Thus, it's a 'matter of opinion,' not mutable, not questionable.

The other kind of opinion is a synonym for "belief." i.e. "It's my opinion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real thing," or "It's my opinion that Barack Obama is going to lose his next election." These opinions are mutable, since they are matters of fact. This is the kind of opinion you've expressed, one where facts and logic are actually relevant to the case. Hence the discussion.

You charged me with "not providing evidence." The evidence, sir, is in your very own posts. Let's just review the sequence of events here:

1. You said something that wasn't true, and criticized Apple for it.

2. When it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, and rather than go immediately to verify, and then come back and say, "oh, I was wrong. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have attacked Apple for that, since it wasn't true," you came back and repeated the wrong thing you'd said before.

3. You apparently did go and check after you were corrected the second time, but even then, you didn't do anything resembling admitting being wrong or taking back any of your points. You just doubled down, and started criticizing Apple for hypothetical future scenarios it has neither done, nor said it was going to do, making a slippery slope argument that Gatekeeper would inevitably lead to Mac App Store-only distribution for OS X.

You're certainly welcome to critique my manners (though they are a red herring here), but I don't think you have a strong leg to stand on given your vitriol against Apple, and the condescending tone you took with other posters even prior to my arrival.

The pattern is obvious. They've been moving every aspect of OSX to be more like iOS

They most certainly haven't. They have changed some superficial things, for the sake of consistency. They've taken some useful design concepts (like pinch-to-zoom in Safari) and some arguably not-so-useful ones (like Launchpad). They've added more gestures. And they've added the MAS. That isn't "every aspect," by any stretch.

and iOS is locked down as tight as it gets with its monopolizing store-front and required 1/3 payment of all revenue,

You can still release apps for iOS without going through the App Store, via web apps. And many companies do. Some of them are even pretty great (Kindle Cloud Reader, Financial Times). And it's 30%, not 1/3rd.

which has turned out to be very profitable for them

Really. By what metric? Apple makes 95% of its profit from the sale of Macs, iPhones, iPods and iPads. That's 5% left for every single piece of software it produces, every single accessory/peripheral it produces, the iTunes Store, the iOS App Store, and the Mac App Store. I don't know what you call "very profitable," but I don't think it's that.

The much more likely explanation for Apple's continued exclusive use of the App Store on iOS is control: as long as they control every single piece of software that's installed on your device, they can more easily deal with your problems in customer service and repairs, and they can MUCH more easily guarantee that you aren't getting any malware.

which is why they would now like to do the same with OSX for even more profits.

Now you're just claiming you can read minds.

Lion looks and behaves more like iOS

Than Snow Leopard? Absolutely.

and has more bugs than a bait store due to no one putting the time and effort into it.

Now you're just venting general anger. This has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion.

The App store looks a lot like OSX's App store, but I'm sure you think that's a freaking coincidence.

I never said any such thing. I suppose what you're getting at, here, though, is you think that the advent of the MAS means we should be expecting the locked-down nature of the App Store, as if that's the primary quality of the App Store or something.

The hilarious thing about this assertion is that when the App Store came to iOS, the iPhone actually became far, far less locked down that it had been before.

Next they put in a control mechanism that would only take a slight tweak to make it impossible to install your own software.

A control mechanism the user gets full control over.

Unlike you, I've presented my evidence to back up my opinion while you haven't proved a single freaking thing.

You seem to think I set out to make the opposite point you were making: that Apple would definitely never lock down OS X like iOS is locked down. I never said that I thought that. I never said anything of the kind. I was just pointing out that you weren't really being fair, or reasonable in the situation; you were just saying untrue things, and then using fallacies to criticize Apple for things they haven't even done.

You could have just given your opinion on the matter,

I could have given my opinion on the matter, but that was never the purpose of my responses. Since you ask, my opinion is this: Apple might, in the future, completely lock down OS X. I think it's more likely that OS X will be gone by the time they'd decide to make that move.

I think it's unlikely they'd make such a big show of introducing Gatekeeper, only to, one or two years later, completely scrap it for an utterly locked-down, MAS-only system.

I think they know they already have a problem with developers, and I don't think they want to gratuitously anger their long time Mac devs in an increasingly competitive computing environment, where their best asset by far is the reserve of incredibly talented third party developers who have created (and are continuing to create) some of the best, most innovative software in the world.

Apple knows where they make their money, and it isn't (and has never been) in selling software, or content. It has always been in selling hardware. And I really don't think completely locking down the Mac, thereby alienating so many existing users and developers instantly, all at once, would serve their interest of selling more hardware, rather than less.

They could still do it; particularly if Apple fits your Snidely Whiplash-esque vision. But I doubt it.

but no, you want to play mind games and put out personal insults. How very droll. :rolleyes:

If by "mind games," you mean, "pointing out errors and logical problems with the arguments of others," then sure, I "play mind games." And personal insults, once again, is a red herring. All I've done so far is point out problems with your arguments. If you consider criticism on logical grounds to be a "personal insult," and the way you've spoken about Apple and to other posters not to be, I'd really take a hard look in a mirror.

----------

You have to wonder why any of us bother to use the internet. We all obviously hate each other. Every single person on every single forum is a douche to everyone else, feels compelled to correct them and point out useless and utterly worthless things, and then be offended when something stupid is obviously pointed out.

Yes, how dare I correct someone for saying something that's wrong when they're making an argument. How silly and frivolous of me. These discussions may be "stupid" and meaningless to you, but they aren't to everyone.

It's just so funny that we all use our computers (in some part) to be social, only to ultimately be rude and crappy to online people. We all do it. Weird.

I'm not trying to be crappy to anyone. I'm just trying to have a conversation, but that requires a level playing field, which means playing by the rules of logic.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between people installing stuff, and Apple shipping something in the OS distribution. In the latter, Apple has to provide patches and support for the component, which can lead to scenarios where they are behind and known exploits are in the wild (the java situation we had just recently).

Leaving out 3rd party packages and letting you grab them from the source is a wise move on their part.

Agreed. Apple stopped bothering to throw support behind X11 a good while back. And even when they were supporting it, it wasn't exactly a "banner" feature they were putting a lot of effort behind. We really are better off with XQuartz.
 
I suspect the percentage of OS X users who actually use X11 is equal to about 1 percent of the total OpenBSD desktop user population.

It is still available, including something this rarely used by default is just stupid.
 
I suspect the percentage of OS X users who actually use X11 is equal to about 1 percent of the total OpenBSD desktop user population.

It is still available, including something this rarely used by default is just stupid.

I think it's way higher than that. A lot of Unix heads use OS X as a desktop OS, and we use X11 a lot. However, none of us really use Apple's X11, as we all update to XQuartz right away.
 
I think it's way higher than that. A lot of Unix heads use OS X as a desktop OS, and we use X11 a lot. However, none of us really use Apple's X11, as we all update to XQuartz right away.

I'm one of them. But in terms of percentage of the OS X population, i would wager we're a very small group?
 
I'm one of them. But in terms of percentage of the OS X population, i would wager we're a very small group?

Maybe, but as small as 1% of all OpenBSD desktop users ? Quite the exageration (you do realise that OpenBSD is not really the distribution people go to for desktop BSD, and the people that run BSD is already quite small... making your number probably something like double-digits if even that... which I assume there are more of us using X11 out there on OS X).
 
Maybe, but as small as 1% of all OpenBSD desktop users ? Quite the exageration (you do realise that OpenBSD is not really the distribution people go to for desktop BSD, and the people that run BSD is already quite small... making your number probably something like double-digits if even that... which I assume there are more of us using X11 out there on OS X).

Yes i know all of that. And maybe it was a slight exaggeration, but still - i reckon less than 1% of os x users would use X11...
 
Alas, I can't force you to understand the concept of logical fallacies, or how they work.

Alas, I can't force you to understand the concept of trolling, which is how your posts are striking me at this point. You make personal attacks, write giant walls of text that say nothing more than "I am right" and throw fancy words around instead of cogent arguments to 'back up' your claims. You are utterly incapable of telling fact from opinion and like to label opinions as fallacies, which is ludicrous. In the end, your 3 page long reply boils down to, "I don't think Apple will pull the plug on 3rd party Apps for OSX", but instead of saying that, you decided to spend days attacking my opinions (which you have not proven wrong in any sense of the word, since you can't disprove an opinion whereas I logically laid out my line of thinking which is anything BUT a logical fallacy. In fact, it's been right in line with Apple's behavior all along) on what direction Apple is heading rather than just state your own. That makes you not worth conversing with as you are little more than looking for attention as far as I can tell. You didn't like what I wrote and you went off like a firecracker when all you had to do was state your own views rather than attack mine. Well, I'm done being troll-bait. Go argue with yourself in the mirror because I'm done talking to you.

For the record, this is what I said in this very thread and I'll be darned if I can see how I state ANYTHING as a 'fact' or have any logical fallacies what-so-ever. I gave my opinion on a trend and that's it. I've highlighted all the words that prove I didn't state anything as a fact that wasn't one (contrary to what someone on here said):

...post1... (4 negative, probably from the "kool-aid" comments which fanboys don't like):

It (referring to ML) IS a downgrade in many respects (Delete Rosetta in Lion, Delete X11 in Mountain Lion and Add Gatekeeper to keep out developers who haven't paid their 33% Apple Tax), but clearly all the Kool-Aid drinkers will drink anything Apple decides to juice

...post2... (2 positive votes)

I gave my reasons for disliking Gatekeeper in another thread (the one on Mountain Lion). In short, it's one more step to making the Mac just like the iPhone. Defaulting to App store ONLY is a sure way to get know-nothing types to only use the App Store which in turn leads to a very real decreased user base for regular/traditionally distributed programs which in turn leads to more developers being forced to cater to Apple's every whim (in order to maximize their potential user base and sales) on what you can and cannot post on their store (not to mention giving 1/3 of all your developer profits to them for no reason other than they have pushed the market away from traditional sales by said defaulting to App Store only). In turn, you have less features, less software to choose from (especially in certain categories) and one might easily conjecture you will eventually have NO option to turn it off in the next version or two of OSX (each baby step towards that goal with no complaints from people like you tells them it's OK to keep going).

...Post 3... (3 positive votes)

And what if they decide they don't want to give free code signatures if they don't approve of your content for whatever reason (competes against their product, too adult, does something one of their advertisers doesn't like, etc.)? They exercise that type of every day on the App Store. They might not do this today and they might not do this tomorrow, but they can start doing it any time they feel like it. It's like having to ask permission to go to the bathroom. What are you going to do if they say NO? They are putting the controls to enable this in OSX right NOW not tomorrow.

Nevermind. Be naive.

That brings me up to the present and Meyvn's crusade to insult my ability to use logic. There really isn't anything else to say. It's self-evident above.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.