6 ms·
Apple didn't invent the GUI or the mouse, which were all taken from Xerox who in turn took them from earlier people. They leaned heavily on open source for thei
by drats 14y ago
Apple didn't invent the GUI or the mouse, which were all taken from Xerox who in turn took them from earlier people. They leaned heavily on open source for their comeback but did quite a lot to obstruct return contributions or fostering a proper open source eco-system. They also relied on funding from Microsoft for their return. They borrowed extremely heavily from old products for their re-invention [1]. Jobs delusionally claimed the iPhone technology was somehow "stolen", when there were tons of tablets and smart phones before the iPhone and people had bolts on their physical doors which were "slide to unlock". This instigated a wave of patent attacks, including Jobs getting his personal friend the CEO of Oracle to attack Android on facetious Java issues that resulted in them getting spanked in court. And now, as the private Samsung design images show, the claims about the similarity of the Samsung models are just laughable. But nevertheless they don't want to compete on merit against products that look vaguely similar (in a world of rectangles...) but have "SAMSUNG" in large lettering on the box and the back. They try to claim that customers would be confused by this entirely different branding and even got a number of temporary injunctions against competitors. In addition to this they run the App store like dictators, and small developers are cast to the wolves at a moments notice. They have horrible customer service in many places outside of the USA (and even there they've be sued numerous times in the USA for dodgy practices like selling phones with dodgy reception). They are not God, they are just a publicly traded company looking for profit.
Gatekeeper confirms that it's not special and just another public company with a legal duty to make profit for shareholders in spades. Imagine a desktop as locked down as an iPhone, with "dev boxes" that let you run your own apps for a few hundred more, it's positively stomach churning even at the most basic level, then you have to factor in that they will cave in to all sorts of special interests (and perhaps security services). As I understand it, those in the app store gold rush already have to pay for all sorts of development licence and software stuff as it doesn't come with the OS. But what if the TSA doesn't like your TOR app because it's exporting munitions to terrorists? We used to laugh at that law back in the 1990s because it was unenforceable, now it looks like we are headed for a future where the app would just silently disappear from people's desktops. But you paid extra for the dev kit version right? But as you had illegal apps which were detected on your desktop your commercial bread-and-butter ones are now suspended, under review, or taking longer to review for updates.
Steve Jobs' pathological lying about Apple's inventiveness always struck me as unsettling, but there is much worse coming in the future I fear.
[1]http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secr...
- quonn 14y agoGatekeeper just blocks the double-click for unsigned apps that were marked by the browser as downloads. Certificates are free. And even if they were not, users can open an app by right-clicking. And even if they could not, browsers could stop setting the attribute on downloads that triggers gatekeeper. When Flashback arrived, Apple kept updating the blocklist again and again. It's much better to just revoke a certificate. This is all about protecting non-technical users, and nothing else.
- mikeash 14y agoEither Gatekeepeer is trivial to bypass or it's useful to protect against malware. I don't think you can argue that it does both at the same time, which is what you appear to be doing.
- wmf 14y agoIt's trivial for the user to intentionally bypass. We'll see how hard it is for trojans to bypass.
- taligent 14y agoYes because everything is always black or white. The fact is that Gatekeeper is not designed to protect against malware in ALL cases. It is designed to make it easier for ordinary users in MOST cases to protect against malware.
- mikeash 14y agoNo, everything is not black and white, but in this particular case, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. If it's easy to bypass then it's easy to trick the user into performing the bypass. If it's hard to trick the user, it's hard for the user to bypass it intentionally. Am I wrong?
- taligent 14y agoOf course you are wrong. Firstly, most users aren't going to actively try and bypass the restrictions. Secondly, most users aren't going to know that they need to right click, open "Show package contents", understand the .app file structure, browse to the binary and open it from there.