OS X Mountain Lion Limits Apps to Mac App Store, Signed Apps by Default

[aristotle]

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.

The software released under GPL works just fine on an unsecured system. What prevents it from running is the "user" making a "decision" on "their" system to not allow unsigned apps to run. The same executable on a system run by a trusting user would execute. The END USER trumps the GPL once it is downloaded by the end user. Their right to choose trumps RMS's insane ideas.

No user is under any obligation to allow unsigned versions of a GPL licensed to run on their system. The GPL does not apply to the end user as it is not an end user agreement. If the official builds from the project site are signed then they will run on any system that requires signed applications.

I will give you some leeway since you are from Quebec and you might have some trouble understanding the intricacies of the english language.

I have the right, as the end user, to refuse execution of a binary regardless of the source license of source code it was compiled with.

RMS can argue all he wants but he will have to release a new version of the GPL if he wants it to block gatekeeper. Of course, he will end up killing interest in the GPL among many developer since it would make it incompatible with not only gatekeeper but systems on linux which require code signing.

----------

No it doesn't. And I don't think hardware integration means what you think it does.

I'm afraid that it does. I actually have run Windows dual booted on my mac. You would only need to do a simple google search to see that Windows 7 on similar hardware to a mac will run a bit faster on the mac because of optimizations on the motherboard and because video bios is emulated and cached in memory instead of read each time from the video card. The EFI bios compatibility module provides a slight performance boost over systems that have native BIOS support.

 

[KnightWRX]

The software released under GPL works just fine on an unsecured system. What prevents it from running is the "user" making a "decision" on "their" system to not allow unsigned apps to run.

Exactly what I've been saying all along, this isn't an issue with Gatekeeper's current implementation. I don't know why you're trying to confront me on this, we're saying the same thing.

The day Apple forces signing (a day which may never even come to begin with) is the day it will run afoul of the GPL and other open source licenses with similar requirements.

But we're not there yet.

I think you just want to argue for arguing's sake. And you just want to attack people like you've attacked me, which is why you persist in trying to "prove me wrong" by saying the same thing I am saying.

 

[sentinelsx]

What if gatekeeper shows up on iOS instead?

It will be glorious!

 

[mijail]

Obviously you believe the OS is more integrated to the hardware than it actually is.
...
Look at rendering benchmarks. A truly integrated OS would score considerably better with considerably weaker hardware.

Which is this magical OS of yours which in your opinion makes wonders with uncapable 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.

Let's assume that your numbers are real (I don't know).

Given that memory pairing yields an improvement of typically about 5-10%, you're saying that the OS by itself is giving an improvement similar to that provided by hardware. Not bad, methinks.

IIRC, the numbers given for adding L2 cache to a computer in the PowerPC 603 era were also about 10%...

So, maybe those tales of integration improvements are real for OS X!

 

[mijail]

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.

I didn't tell you they are bad; I did tell that, since you are so fond of your freedom sandals, maybe you'd be more comfortable if you used them more instead of these heavy, oppressing boots. Maybe you'd even convince other people to start using freedom sandals too.
And maybe then the boot manufacturer would start making them somewhat lighter! ;P

 

[haruhiko]

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).

Then why I can't get a Macbook Air like Windows "Ultrabook" Laptop with 256GB SSD for 1/2 or 1/3 the price

 

[mijail]

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.

It is happening, in the Windows world at the very least.
And the worst problem is that you can't even know for sure when/if it happened. If everything keeps working as usual, you'll never notice someone got your passwords, and/or that your computer is part of a botnet.

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.

I'll bet that if you have a better idea, Apple and the rest of the industry will LOVE to hear from you, man.

And I don't see which ton of flexibility are you giving up, given that there is the possibility to ignore code signatures.

...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.

Ever heard of "never take sweets from strangers"?
Or of "not having sex with strangers without protection"?
Or of washing your hands before eating?
Why, oh why do we have to do such things?

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.

Yeah, and instead of starting on a way that could, might, in some way, end up in hell, you prefer to sit, like a sitting duck?

 

[Renzatic]

Which is this magical OS of yours which in your opinion makes wonders with uncapable hardware?

I didn't say it could do wonders with incapable hardware, I said it could do more with equivalent hardware.

The closest OS I can think of that fits the criteria would be console front ends. They don't have to deal with nearly as much overhead, and are built around very specific hardware configurations. Because of this, the console designer can spend much more time tailor the software to take advantage of the hardware. Much moreso than the do-it-all, handle-it-all, runs-on-all type OSes such as Windows and OSX.

Think of it as being able to tweak performance until you can tweak no more. Windows and OSX are built to be able run on a wide variety of hardware. Hardware that's updated, on average, on a yearly basis. Apple and Microsoft don't have enough time to tweak the performance of the OS to take maximum advantage of every piece of hardware that it runs on. Not when a newer and faster chipset is just right around the corner.

Basically, your OS and various hardware drivers are efficiently programmed. You can't deny that. But because updates happen so quickly in the PC world, they're never as efficient as they could be. Some people seem to think that Apple tweaks the absolute maximum out of each of their machines, because the OS is specifically tailored to that piece of hardware. That's not true. In all actuality, you're not getting much more power out of your MBP than you would out of equivalent PC hardware. Apple does have an advantage due to only having to build their OS around a smaller set of hardware, but the differences aren't so vast it makes it a night and day type situation.

 

[mijail]

I didn't say it could do wonders with incapable hardware, I said it could do more with equivalent hardware.

The closest OS I can think of that fits the criteria would be console front ends. They don't have to deal with nearly as much overhead, and are built around very specific hardware configurations.

So, first you talk about something as complex and open-ended as 3D rendering, and then switch to something as closed and limited as a console front-end?

I don't see how this can make sense.

Because of this, the console designer can spend much more time tailor the software to take advantage of the hardware.

Can, and MUST.

Much moreso than the do-it-all, handle-it-all, runs-on-all type OSes such as Windows and OSX.

Yep, the resource-and-purpose-limited OS+hardware is way more limited than the not-so-limited OS+hardware. We can agree on that.

Some people seem to think that Apple tweaks the absolute maximum out of each of their machines, because the OS is specifically tailored to that piece of hardware. That's not true. In all actuality, you're not getting much more power out of your MBP than you would out of equivalent PC hardware.

Counterexample: AirDrop brings new functionality to computers a couple of generations old.

 

[milo]

...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...

Except that's false. This article says it defaults to the middle "app store or signed" but even that's wrong. Right now the beta defaults to "anything".

But that's all a moot point, it can and probably will change before public release. The middle setting probably does make the most sense.

It should also be pointed out that in an upgrade install (or clean install followed by settings migration) the OS is aware of which apps have already been run and the stricter settings only apply once to apps being run for the first time. So with an OS upgrade (instead of clean install) the stricter settings users only see the warning on apps they've never run before. Overall, seems very common sense and it's hard to argue with it.

A $99 fee? All right, that screws with casual developers.

Are people really that uninformed that they don't know that apple has ALWAYS had the $99 fee, it's nothing new? Sure there is a free dev option but the $99 one includes OS betas so I suspect all but the most "casual" already pay it.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Then why I can't get a Macbook Air like Windows "Ultrabook" Laptop with 256GB SSD for 1/2 or 1/3 the price

Because they're too much of a niche to have enough competitors. I was referring more to desktops and normal sized notebooks, although you can see by competing "Pad" computers like the Samsung Galaxy that the same holds true when made en masse. Apple computers are already made with dirt cheap Chinese labor, so don't tell me it's because they're better made. We even have our bridges being made by Chinese labor (pre-fab) now in California and New York, among other places, so there seems to be no end to the cost-cutting measures employed to save a buck, even if it means shoddy quality and losses of American jobs.

 

[dejo]

Are people really that uninformed that they don't know that apple has ALWAYS had the $99 fee, it's nothing new?

Actually, before the renaming and price drop to $99 in March 2010, the Apple Developer Connection programs used to cost $499 or $3,499/year.

 

[mijail]

Because they're too much of a niche to have enough competitors.

I thought that this argument got outdated say 1 year ago, maybe more.

At least that's what Intel's efforts to help manufacturers create Air clones suggests. Funny too that even with Intel's push they haven't been able to compete in price with the Air.

I was referring more to desktops and normal sized notebooks, although you can see by competing "Pad" computers like the Samsung Galaxy that the same holds true when made en masse. Apple computers are already made with dirt cheap Chinese labor, so don't tell me it's because they're better made.

Even if that was all that matters (which isn't), there are lots of producers in China - and lots of quality levels to choose from.
So, if you are going to handwave things off by using the China scapegoat, at least try to be a bit more precise.

We even have our bridges being made by Chinese labor (pre-fab) now in California and New York, among other places, so there seems to be no end to the cost-cutting measures employed to save a buck, even if it means shoddy quality and losses of American jobs.

Escaping on a tangent there?

 

[Renzatic]

Snip

You're focusing on the trees and shrubbery here, and missing the forest entirely. Either that, or we're talking about two entirely different things here...

My point is OSX on a Macbook Pro doesn't leverage the hardware any more efficiently than an equivalent Windows machine. There isn't any special marriage between hardware and software here. Performance on both platforms is roughly on par across the board.

 

[mijail]

You're focusing on the trees and shrubbery here, and missing the forest entirely. Either that, or we're talking about two entirely different things here...

My point is OSX on a Macbook Pro doesn't leverage the hardware any more efficiently than an equivalent Windows machine. There isn't any special marriage between hardware and software here. Performance on both platforms is roughly on par across the board.

I already mentioned AirDrop leveraging the capabilities of the network hardware to offer new functionality, even on computers a couple of generations old. The hardware is there, OS X uses it in "extra" ways.

Another example: the multitouch trackpad. The hardware is there, OS X uses it in "extra" ways.

Another example: the integrated and discrete GPUs. The hardware is there, yadda yadda.

...no special marriage?

 

[Renzatic]

snip

You're talking about software features. I'm talking about raw hardware performance. I'll be the first to admit OSX offers up more nifty ease of use features in comparison to the relatively more spartan Windows environment. But these aren't anything that can only be done in OSX.

Cept for this...

Another example: the integrated and discrete GPUs.

Are you talking about Mac laptops being able to switch between the two depending on GPU power required? If so, this has been available on Windows laptops for about a couple of years now.

 

[mijail]

You're talking about software features. I'm talking about raw hardware performance. I'll be the first to admit OSX offers up more nifty ease of use features in comparison to the relatively more spartan Windows environment. But these aren't anything that can only be done in OSX.

But the fact (and the pity!) is that only Apple/OS X seems to do it.

Are you talking about Mac laptops being able to switch between the two depending on GPU power required? If so, this has been available on Windows laptops for about a couple of years now.

Yep, but with complications / inefficiencies and the typical combinatorial problems in PCs.
Like Nvidia's Optimus, which does something similar, but keeps the integrated GPU running even when not driving the display - so possibly wasting battery life.

 

[KnightWRX]

My point is OSX on a Macbook Pro doesn't leverage the hardware any more efficiently than an equivalent Windows machine. There isn't any special marriage between hardware and software here. Performance on both platforms is roughly on par across the board.

Not to mention it's been shown time and again that for things like 3D graphics, Apple's drivers for GPU are far outclassed by nVidia's or ATI's driver running under Windows in Bootcamp.

 

[Renzatic]

But the fact (and the pity!) is that only Apple/OS X seems to do it.

Yeah. The pity. I'd kill for expose and spaces in Windows. Flip3D is about the closest I can get to built in expose, but...it's only so good. Works great if I only have 3-4 windows open. Really crappy if I've got 8+.

But to get back on topic, they're all OS features, and could be done in Windows if MS wanted to add something similar in. There's no taking special advantage of the hardware there.

Yep, but with complications / inefficiencies and the typical combinatorial problems in PCs.
Like Nvidia's Optimus, which does something similar, but keeps the integrated GPU running even when not driving the display - so possibly wasting battery life.

Since I don't know that much about Optimus and its ilk, I'll have to look it up and see if you're right or not. We'll argue this later.

Oh, and the "typical combinatorial problems in PCs"? Not really an issue, so long as you're using brand name, well supported hardware.

Not to mention it's been shown time and again that for things like 3D graphics, Apple's drivers for GPU are far outclassed by nVidia's or ATI's driver running under Windows in Bootcamp.

Yup. If there is one area where Windows trumps OSX, it's realtime 3D performance. It doesn't have anything to do with the OSX architecture, though. More the fact that Apple doesn't seem too terribly concerned with it, and only bothers getting it running "good enough".

 

[Eidorian]

Oh, and the "typical combinatorial problems in PCs"? Not really an issue, so long as you're using brand name, well supported hardware.

Go even further for out of the box on the Windows disc alone. Windows 7 was built for the Lynnfield/P55 + HD 5000 platform out of the box. Windows 8 is going to throw in USB 3.0 and Kepler/GCN. I would not be surprised to see Ivy Bridge and Intel 7 Series (Pather Point) support on disc either. Not that you going around reinstalling Windows often enough to notice.

So I time my hardware purchases with the 2-3 year update cycle on the software side. Hardware vendors can count on pent-up sales around a Windows release. Obvious, I know.

 

[mijail]

But to get back on topic, they're all OS features, and could be done in Windows if MS wanted to add something similar in. There's no taking special advantage of the hardware there.

But I think that is a big part of the problem. Take multitouch in the trackpad. Man, we're in the 21st century, but still a company is able to take pride on using multitouch in the trackpad. That's the sorry state we're in.
To me, lots of times it feels that Apple is stealing the industry just by reaching for the low-hanging fruit that "the others" simply didn't try to get first. Feels like it's not that Apple is specially good, it's just that the rest are so stupidly bad.
(but of course that's maybe unfair, in that in hindsight it's too easy to see what was the supposedly low-hanging fruit...)

(incidentally, that's the reason I think Apple survived the 90's even with the "classic" Mac OS: it was a shame, but the competition was even worse)

Since I don't know that much about Optimus and its ilk, I'll have to look it up and see if you're right or not. We'll argue this later.

You can find some info here.

Oh, and the "typical combinatorial problems in PCs"? Not really an issue, so long as you're using brand name, well supported hardware.

Yep, theoretically. But I have had no luck with Toshiba, HP, Samsung, Dell nor some others. So for now I just happen to prefer Apple branded ;P.

Yup. If there is one area where Windows trumps OSX, it's realtime 3D performance. It doesn't have anything to do with the OSX architecture, though. More the fact that Apple doesn't seem too terribly concerned with it, and only bothers getting it running "good enough".

In fact we could argue about OpenGL vs DirectX , and that is architecture related. But I am out of my depth there, and it's been a long time since I read anything about the running balance of pros and cons for each - not even including Apple's seemingly subpar drivers, of course. (if anyone can provide any pointer, that'd be nice)

 

[IBradMac]

It's so sad everyone is seeing this as a good thing and is downvoting those who say otherwise. I guess that's why Apple can get away with locking down Macs so much.

I agree with you. I miss the days of downloading from a dev site.

 

[Eidorian]

But I think that is a big part of the problem. Take multitouch in the trackpad. Man, we're in the 21st century, but still a company is able to take pride on using multitouch in the trackpad. That's the sorry state we're in.
To me, lots of times it feels that Apple is stealing the industry just by reaching for the low-hanging fruit that "the others" simply didn't try to get first. Feels like it's not that Apple is specially good, it's just that the rest are so stupidly bad.
(but of course that's maybe unfair, in that in hindsight it's too easy to see what was the supposedly low-hanging fruit...)

(incidentally, that's the reason I think Apple survived the 90's even with the "classic" Mac OS: it was a shame, but the competition was even worse)

Apple has the margins built-in to take the minor risk of "low-hanging fruit" features. Standard Bluetooth 2.0 or hard drive parking comes to mind long ago in the late PowerPC era where your best bet was 100 MHz per revision. You are looking at paying ridiculous BTO pricing or more expensive base models otherwise.

 

[GermanyChris]

I agree with you. I miss the days of downloading from a dev site.

Remember it's for your SAFETY!!!

 

[Renzatic]

I'd reply to your other two points, but...eh. I'm feeling kinda lazy at the moment.

Yep, theoretically. But I have had no luck with Toshiba, HP, Samsung, Dell nor some others. So for now I just happen to prefer Apple branded ;P.

By brand name hardware, I mean the individual components. Depending on which price point you enter in at, you'll either get a laptop with good hardware in it, or one with cheap, shoddy pieces of crap that'll give you nothing but trouble, and die on you after a year or so.

This is one of the nice things about Apple. Unless they're having one of their rare off days (like the very first Air getting so hot, it'd flash fry your nuts if you sat it on your lap for more than 5 seconds), you can pick up a Mac knowing it'll be a solid machine that'll last you a few good years. With PCs, you have to do some research before you know what you're getting into.

In fact we could argue about OpenGL vs DirectX , and that is architecture related. But I am out of my depth there, and it's been a long time since I read anything about the running balance of pros and cons for each - not even including Apple's seemingly subpar drivers, of course. (if anyone can provide any pointer, that'd be nice)

From what I understand, there aren't many differences between the two these days. OGL has the big advantage of being available on every platform, and DX (from 10 up) has the advantage of being a little more streamlined, and a bit easier to program for. Not that I'd know. My experiences with both begins and ends with me writing a couple of half assed fragment shaders.

Though to get back on track, even OGL is faster on Windows than OSX. Yeah, I know. The article is a little out of date. But I don't think the situation has changed much between them.