33 ms·
Say I use my Macbook for development, and I compile a small toy C program using gcc. Does that mean now that I cannot run the produced binary by default? Forgi
by narkee 15y ago
Say I use my Macbook for development, and I compile a small toy C program using gcc. Does that mean now that I cannot run the produced binary by default?
Forgive me for being naive, but what does "app" mean in this context? Is a shell script an app? What about a python script with GUI elements?
- tptacek 15y agoNo, it does not mean that.
- Craiggybear 15y agoSources?
- tptacek 15y agoThe actual article you just read, for one. The way code signing is implemented today, for another.
- Craiggybear 15y agoGood question. I can't see this just yet, but it will happen. Probably by 10.9 which won't even have a command prompt -- or at least not one you can access easily without invalidating warranty or some such nonsense.
- batista 15y agoYeah, or 10.30, which will not even have a UI, just an OS-to-Mind interface. Can we please stop repeating BS? People like to make it sound like some kind of slippery slope, but including Mountain Lion, NOTHING has been taken away from users re: freedom, from OS X 10.0.1 to 10.8. In addition to running whatever from whatever, 10.7 gave you the option to use an App repository. You know, like the one, say, Debian had from decades, only not restricted to OSS. In addition to running whatever from whatever AND from the App Store, 10.8 adds the ability to only run signed apps. You, know, like the security solution that is considered one of most effective ones by security boffins.
- daeken 15y ago> NOTHING has been taken away from users re: freedom, from OS X 10.0.1 to 10.8. Well, no, that's not quite true. See also: PTRACE_DENY_ATTACH in random binaries (e.g. iTunes) and the gimped DTrace implementation. Are these showstoppers or the end of freedom as we know it? Not be a long, long way. Are they (fairly small) limitations on the freedom of users? Yes.
- wtallis 15y agoIntroducing new features that aren't completely open is not the same as taking away existing freedoms.
- k-mcgrady 15y agoWhy do you feel the need to be so overdramatic? You don't seriously believe that do you? Many users regularly need access to the Terminal. Developers for one user it all the time. I use it for git. Many people (including non-developers) use vi. People run scripts from it and use it for automation.
- hazov 15y agoEven if this is the case I believe this would mean that the third setting will allow you to run anything just fine, but I believe this will only apply to .app folders that are the bundled applications.
- gkefalas 15y agoNope, you'll be able to run it: "Finally, it’s important to note that because Gatekeeper uses the File Quarantine system, it only works the very first time you try to launch an app, and even then only when it’s been downloaded from an app on your Mac like a web browser or email program. And once an app has been launched once, it’s beyond the reach of Gatekeeper." (http://www.macworld.com/article/165408/2012/02/mountain_lion_hands_on_with_gatekeeper.html http://www.macworld.com/article/165408/2012/02/mountain_lion...)
- alanfalcon 15y agoC|Net reports you can override Gatekeeper on an app by app basis (even at the most restrictive setting), so as long as you trust yourself you're good: "It's also been designed to let you manually override the protection measures and install something that hasn't been signed, even if your settings are turned all the way up to App Store only."