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.
OS X Mountain Lion Limits Apps to Mac App Store, Signed Apps by Default
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm quite glad you like the system, but because you do you cannot then complain when your certificate gets pulled because Apple decided at breakfast that you app no longer suits them..
Currently you are correct..
It is, I keep and use both..No panic no stress, it's not hard just delete the OSX partition and move on with life..
No jumping until the final product is released, if the option is still there were good to go. If at any subsequent time there after the option is removed then we jump...
Remember computers are personal like your shoes, if you don't like my choice of shoes thats ok but please don't tell me they're bad, I own them for a reason.
Last edited:
Too late for what? A potential malware attack? A program written by a rogue developer that somehow manages to take advantage of some currently unknown exploit that wipes out all your data? Yeah, it could happen. It's not an absolute inevitability, but the possibility is always there. After all, there's no such thing as a perfectly secure OS.
But does Apple have to go this far to protect us from the potential what-ifs? We're giving up a ton of flexibility just to guard ourselves from the potentiality of a theoretically possible scenario.
...like you going out to the mall tomorrow and getting Hantavirus. It could happen. There is a statistical chance. But will it? I can't say with 100% certainty that it won't. Better sell your car so you're not tempted to go.
Eh, I'm not saying everyone is saying that. I'm just arguing against the few who are.
Right. The counter to my argument there is that Apple isn't likely to go that far. I'm arguing the extreme because...well...the whole thing is a sorta of road to hell is paved with good intentions type scenario.
If you're not jumping until the final product is released then please stop guessing and then complaining until the final product has released.
And your logic to shoes applies in reverse as well. If Apple does decide to restrict the apps to only Mac App Store, then please don't tell us that's bad, since everyone's personal choice is different.
When did I complain I simply made a statement..
I won't tell you thats bad like I've said in just about every post on this thread..If you like it great, use it, you'll have the companionship of millions of other users who also like it. I care not at all what OS you use or the programs that are on your computer.
Last edited:
Some people can't see the forest in front of them because they're too busy staring at that waxy shiny poisonous apple that's been handed to them on a silver platter.
It seems pretty immature to call a discussion of something that affects the entire Mac platform "stupid", so I guess we can safely disagree on what is and isn't mature and exactly whom should be censored. Apple is censoring OSX and it's OK with some of you. Now you want MacRumors to censor free discussion on here to match. Viva La Communism!
What some people on here fail to see that are just saying it's OK as long as it's an OPTION and not a requirement is that it defaults to App Store only. Your average computer user these days is probably less savvy than a dozen years ago because the things are too easy to use and so people don't care about how you work them. The point is that they will simply NOT use external software (some won't even understand why they would want to at some point in the future if this trend continues into another generation of kids who grew up on the iPhone/iPad and this new OS) and this will discourage many developers from even making such software since it will be in their best interest to sell through Apple to get as many users as possible.
The downside to all that is features. If Apple doesn't like this feature or that feature or this image or that image or sound, etc. they will DENY it and the author will have to choose either a vastly reduced market (like with jail-broken iOS devices now) or they will have to compromise their program to meet Apple's requirements AND they will have to give a hard earned share of money to Apple (1/3 of all the money they make in a year from it) just to post it on their store. Keep in mind there are no other stores nor will there ever be that go around this problem because they are all non-entities delegated to porn and piracy in the public's eyes (or so Apple will try to paint it so they can get their unearned and undeserved 33% of all software program sales made for the entire platform. That is good for no one outside Apple. They are already the top corporation on the entire planet and at some point they will have too much power (like Google and Facebook controlling and ultimately selling all our personal information). Just from a freedom standpoint, I don't want any one corporation having too much power. The U.S. is already largely a puppet for corporate special interests and this sort of thing will just make it worse, a LOT worse.
Last edited:
As long as there is an option to disable it, I'm fine with it. But it seems to me the Mac App Store will be the only method of distribution in the future. I wonder what this will eventually mean for apps like Steam, with their own content distribution.
Apple will probably add Steam to the list of trusted apps and will make it available through the Mac App Store. I seriously never heard of an OS banning a specific app, non-malware that is. Heck, I'm sure Steam is already a signed app.
Also, this is a question worth asking on the Steam forums.
Article on Joystiq, the comments section (strangely enough) is a good read.
Last edited:
Clearly stated guesses are fine, however, attempting to spread FUD, or claim to have inside knowledge (without any references) is generally not ok.
As opposed to shooting from the hip and reacting, I simply asked if they happened to be speculating, which they appear to be.
Note I was posting as a curious user, not wearing my moderating hat at the time
I was being sarcastic...of course you go to MacRumors to post educated guesses and opinions. Pure sarcasm...
Sure they will, as long as Steam hands them 1/3 of their entire profits. No, I'm not kidding. That's the garbage that Apple is selling these days. They are becoming WAY too greedy for their own good. This is what I used to hate about Microsoft when they pushed everyone else out of business (Commodore, Atari, etc.) I thought Apple was different from Microsoft. I guess not.
Haha, Anti Virus Vendors already start to cry wolf about Gatekeeper:
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002316.html
This can only be a good sign. Yeah guys, no money to grab for you here.
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002316.html
This can only be a good sign. Yeah guys, no money to grab for you here.
Can you please do us all a favour and stop pretending to be both a lawyer and software developer. I do not believe that you are either. I really don't care what RMS thinks even the GPL Version 3 says because he is not a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer either but I have read the license and it does not say anywhere in the text what he thinks it says. It also appears that you are confusing DRM with digital signing. While DRM'ed items are usually signed, non-DRM'ed items can also be signed.
I will say this right now. When Mountain Lion arrives, I will "REFUSE" to install anything that is not signed. I will install items which are outside of the mac app store if they have been digitally signed by the author of the organization representing the authors. Digital signatures are about identity and the authors taking responsibility for those binaries.
I happen to work as a software developer and I have been writing software professionally for over a decade. Having the source in addition to the binary gives you absolutely zero guarantee that you can know what is in the executable. Every time you build from the same source code and do an MD5 hash of the executable, it will be different even if the source code never changed.
I might not be a lawyer but I can tell you that no license can demand that signing keys be included in the source tree. Why? Because any license can only cover things which are copyright/owned by the those who enrolled the product in that license. Certificates do not belong to those who were issued the certificates. They are the property of the issuing certificate authority and can be revoked by that authority at any time. Apple owns those certificates much like how other certificates belong to RSA, Thawt, etc... You can transfer the license to another party but not share the private keys with multiple parties. Doing so would defeat the purpose of the keys which is to identify the source of the item. It would be impersonation.
Since the certs cannot be part of the "open" source tree as they identify the project and their official builds, you can take the source tree and build an unsigned executable which will be exactly like the official build but unsigned.
I don't don't see a problem here. I do see a problem with the idea that having source somehow makes unofficial build safe when I know for a fact that that is not true. Every build is different and the only way that you can be sure that an executable is "official" is if it is signed.
The way we ensure that builds are genuine is to have them automated. Our builds occur on a central server and the resulting exes are packaged using a QA build which executes after the main build. This ensures that no tampering can occur by developers on a particular build. What the QA people see is the result of that automated build and that product is eventually released to production. This works fine for in-house software but code signing is the only way to ensure something is genuine for software distributed to the general public.
Again, signing != DRM. You can have one without the other.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Yeah this is actually a boon for open source projects in terms of maintaining a trusted build. People who want to run other builds can but normal, novice users can be more secure when running open source software.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
No windows runs better on a Mac than a Pc. Apple controls the hardware and writes the drivers so the integration is top notch. Not to mention you get apples hardware support.
aristotle said:
Yeah this is actually a boon for open source projects in terms of maintaining a trusted build. People who want to run other builds can but normal, novice users can be more secure when running open source software.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Eidorian said:
No windows runs better on a Mac than a Pc. Apple controls the hardware and writes the drivers so the integration is top notch. Not to mention you get apples hardware support.
Last edited by a moderator:
No it doesn't. And I don't think hardware integration means what you think it does.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Anything that scares the schister virus vendors I am in favor of, for sure
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Yes it actually does and I am talking about the hardware integration with the os. It is pretty clear you have no experience or understanding of the issue.
tblrsa said:Haha, Anti Virus Vendors already start to cry wolf about Gatekeeper:
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002316.html
This can only be a good sign. Yeah guys, no money to grab for you here.
Anything that scares the schister virus vendors I am in favor of, for sure
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Renzatic said:
Yes it actually does and I am talking about the hardware integration with the os. It is pretty clear you have no experience or understanding of the issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
RMS wrote the thing... how can he not know what he wrote ?
And yes it does say what I said it says, what RMS says it says, it's right there in black and white :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
And where did I pretend to be a lawyer ?
Lastly, I spent all day friday writing code so while I may not be a full fledge software developer (never pretended I was, I'm always very clear on what my job is), I do know a fair bit about code, writing said code and how the tools work. Not to mention I've been in the open source community for the last 15 years, I think I know a thing or two about their licenses...Again, this isn't an issue thanks to the Anywhere option.
I never said it was, that's not what the GPL says either. Signing requires keys, keys that can't be shipped with the source code and that the user would need to get for himself, thus he wouldn't be able to reproduce a binary from the source. Hence, signed code isn't GPL compatible. That is why we need Apple to keep the "Anywhere" option. It's not hard, it's there in ML, so it's not an issue. I don't know why you decided to get flipping mad over a big bucket of nothing you obviously did not understand.
That would result in pricing inconsistencies and would kill Steam's pricing scheme. Imagine paying more for Half-Life 3 (Valve can't count to 3, however) on Mac than on Windows despite being completely identical.
----------
Haha, Anti Virus Vendors already start to cry wolf about Gatekeeper:
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00002316.html
This can only be a good sign. Yeah guys, no money to grab for you here.
I thought I'm on a Mac...not iOS.
Though you can argue people can disable the feature, average users who did not venture into System Preferences would be completely oblivious to this change.
OS X is dumbed down to oblivion. I DON'T want OS X to become iOS.
A $99 fee? All right, that screws with casual developers. Apple is now $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Oh please, OS X is not dumbed down. It's still the same OS it was, Apple isn't removing anything with Gatekeeper or the rest of the ML features.
You won't be because Valve games are SteamPlay enabled - which means when you buy Windows version you also get Mac version and vice versa.
Obviously you believe the OS is more integrated to the hardware than it actually is. Hardware "integration" as you're calling it, is really nothing more than having specific support for a smaller selection of hardware. Therefore, it's not really integration. Apple doesn't have the time necessary to make sure each rev of OSX is programmed specifically to take advantage of a Core2Duo, an i5, an i7, along with any combination of AMD or nVidia graphics card. Tailoring their OS down to the bare metal, if you will. That would take even the most talented of programmers two years short of forever to achieve. And considering their yearly update schedule, it'd be almost impossible to implement.
In all truthfulness, OSX on a Mac isn't taking much more advantage of the hardware than your average PC running Windows 7 is. No. The only thing your hardware "integration" means it that you buy a Mac, you'll know it'll run OSX smoothly. They have control of what hardware goes into their machines, but don't write OSX specifically for each one they sell. Their implementation is very much like any PC OEM. Only difference is they write more drivers themselves.
You want proof? Look at rendering benchmarks. A truly integrated OS would score considerably better with considerably weaker hardware. But in reality? I'd say you might see a 5-10% difference between OSX and Windows 7. And even then, it depends on the software used.
And what about realtime 3D? I remember when Steam and Half-Life 2 came to the Mac, you had all these people expecting their two year old Macbook Pros to crush the latest and greatest PC hardware in benchmark tests. They were disappointed. Considerably. As in even the equivalent PC hardware was scoring almost twice the framerate of its Mac counterpart.
Course you could say that Valve has had more time to tweak their engines for Direct3D in comparison to OpenGL. But that's beside the point, right? Shouldn't an OS with such deep integration with the hardware excel in all fronts? Yeah, it should. But OSX isn't integrated with the hardware nearly as much as you think it is. At least no more so than Windows is with a regular PC.
In all truthfulness, OSX on a Mac isn't taking much more advantage of the hardware than your average PC running Windows 7 is. No. The only thing your hardware "integration" means it that you buy a Mac, you'll know it'll run OSX smoothly. They have control of what hardware goes into their machines, but don't write OSX specifically for each one they sell. Their implementation is very much like any PC OEM. Only difference is they write more drivers themselves.
You want proof? Look at rendering benchmarks. A truly integrated OS would score considerably better with considerably weaker hardware. But in reality? I'd say you might see a 5-10% difference between OSX and Windows 7. And even then, it depends on the software used.
And what about realtime 3D? I remember when Steam and Half-Life 2 came to the Mac, you had all these people expecting their two year old Macbook Pros to crush the latest and greatest PC hardware in benchmark tests. They were disappointed. Considerably. As in even the equivalent PC hardware was scoring almost twice the framerate of its Mac counterpart.
Course you could say that Valve has had more time to tweak their engines for Direct3D in comparison to OpenGL. But that's beside the point, right? Shouldn't an OS with such deep integration with the hardware excel in all fronts? Yeah, it should. But OSX isn't integrated with the hardware nearly as much as you think it is. At least no more so than Windows is with a regular PC.
Last edited:
It's pretty clear to me you're talking our your hind quarter all over this thread, but I was going to let it go until I got to this post seeing I know what is inside "Macs" and it isn't that special, guy.
Your typical Mac is a fancy (or tiny) case with a mostly standard Intel motherboard inside that meets Apple's specifications. It is all more or less standard equipment and standard graphics chips and run-of-the-mill CPUs, ram, etc. There is nothing special about Mac hardware (except maybe the case it comes in). Any well thought out Hackintosh can be made to function just as well or even better (because you can use better/faster hardware) than the "real" thing. Any idea that a "Mac" runs better because of imaginary integration (as if it were custom hardware like the Commodore Amiga used to have) is pure fantasy nonsense. The only thing keeping ANY typical Intel compatible PC from running OSX straight out of the box is that they typically have a bios instead of EFI (plug in a USB to EFI adapter to the motherboard and it works like a charm with NO modifications to OSX needed) and a given driver in case of hardware that Apple doesn't have a driver for in the operating system (easily avoided if hardware is chosen carefully ahead of time). There is literally NOTHING else to keep a typical PC from running OSX. In fact, I can easily make a Hackintosh that runs circles around everything out there Apple makes, save perhaps a Mac Pro (in even there in graphics performance by a LONG shot) and at typically 1/2 to 1/3 the price.
That's funny as I thought it was quite clear they are removing X11 (Rosetta went with regular Lion).
Missed this little tidbit did you :
Signing software is not the issue. Requiring a valid signature is.
The "hardware" bit in the FAQ is a red herring, the OS requiring signing is the same. Fortunately that is not the case with Gatekeeper, nothing is required and software can run unsigned.