Yeah, rage against the machine all you want.. that doesn’t change anything. macOS is still the property of Apple, not the user, and some people never seem to comprehend the truth.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS Sequoia Makes It Harder to Override Gatekeeper Security
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not raging against anything. I just ignore them. 🤣
It also means that when a malicious binary is discovered out in the wild that Apple can revoke the signature on that executable preventing it from working. That's not nothing.
agreed. The day they remove the ability for me to install whatever I want, I am so gone. Windows here I come.
Everyone here seems to forget that real power users can also just use the spctl command to disable this whole thing and run unsigned apps with the regular open option. This isn’t some revolutionary power trip on Apple’s part, just a minor annoyance.
I remember the hardcore fans saying macOS will remain open even with the switch to Apple Silicon. That is aging like milk. Apple is playing the long game with the goal of Macs being as locked down as iPhones either by locking macOS or phasing it out in favor of iOS.
This will be investigated soon by the EU and may be blocked.
A user should decide if software is needed, not Apple.
A user should decide if software is needed, not Apple.
While true, there are still laws and court decisions that limit what corporations can put into those licensing agreements.
No, you welcome being locked in...
This is fine. Not a big deal.
Now let developers of free and open-source software get their apps signed without paying $99/year to one of the richest companies in the world so an app that makes $0/year runs properly.
Now let developers of free and open-source software get their apps signed without paying $99/year to one of the richest companies in the world so an app that makes $0/year runs properly.
True, there are more right in the law than in the eula... Right to make a copy of the software, to reverse engineering, to make performance comparison,...
But my favorite is to sell a license on the second hand market (and buy it...).
Install Linux and put macos in a VM.
Probably you are taking about the multiple Linux distros, isn't?
It's an antivirus... Something created in the last century...
Step 1 was Apple Silicon since it's easier to lock things down when they control the entire pipeline from chips to firmware.
I can’t help wonder if this is just another step in a process where Apple will eventually merge macOS with iPadOS and allow iPads to run macOS. Just thinking out loud.
Likely an unpopular opinion, but I don't see anything wrong with the annual dev fee. A hobby cost of $99/yr is pretty low. I think it would be nice for a free tier to be available for open source projects, however. I would say a free tier for students too, but Xcode is free to learn, develop, and test up until distribution. An à la carte approach to pricing may be worth exploring. And while I'm sure Apple does want everyone to pay up, you can still pass gatekeeper in settings for now.
The ship is already in the port ready to go given that so many Mac apps now are the half-baked Electron apps and not native
Registered non-profits and FOSS developers should get exemptions to the fee. For everyone else the $99/year is reasonable.
Right now FOSS projects typically need to ask for donations or sponsors if they want to release on MacOS. That shouldn't be necessary and only dissuades developers from porting open software to MacOS, especially for smaller projects that don't have sufficient reach to get sponsored. It's an unnecessary financial burden to one of the richest companies in the world.
If that happens I literally have to abandon the platform because it’s useless to me then.
I have a plan B lying sound just in case.
Except it's nothing at all like traditional antivirus in its implementation, resource requirements, and efficacy.
Antivirus has to deeply inspect a binary at the time of execution and look for specific binary fingerprints. This comes at the expense of CPU and bandwidth every time you run any executable on the system. It's possible to subvert by altering the executable in ways which change its fingerprint but don't alter its behavior.
Signed binaries can protect against that technique without draining CPU, RAM, or bandwidth.
You only have to pay the $99 if you don't distribute your free software as open source. So this is an encouragement for more software to be distributed as open source that every competent user can not only run, but read and modify the code.
Gatekeeper on your Mac doesn't block any code you build from source on your own Mac.
Last edited:
Given that the „license“ isn’t properly presented to me at the time of (or prior to) purchase, there’s no „agreement“. So many don‘t understand that.
As if the helpful person from the bank couldn’t make people go „the bank‘s“ website.
The IT expert in India will take control with a properly signed application. If not readily available and trusted off-the-shelf software like TeamViewer, they‘ll do it with their own properly signed app. Or even Apple‘s built-in screen sharing functionality.
These „experts“ in India often work in professionally set up call-centers. If you can rent or buy the office space and equipment, you’ll also have $99 to spare for a developer membership.
Some absolutely will.
Just a matter of cost/benefit analysis.
…or how and to which extent they can enforce them.
Last edited: