>Doesn't take a genius to see that their end goal is to make mac os as restrictive as ios.
I've been hearing that for the past decade. With the exception of some reasonably deprecated technologies (32-bit support, etc...), to this day I'm able to run essentially all of the software on my Mac that I did back in 2010.
If and when Apple does prohibit the running of third party apps, I'll switch to another platform. Until then, this is all just FUD.
While you are able to, many others are not. So it's a hassle for those developing independently to distribute their software to the masses.
So yes, you can run the same software (mostly) as in 2010 knowing the workarounds. But as a consumer you are probably missing out on new, great software because developers wont pay the apple tax to make their stuff available. So you're already affected. It's not FUD, you're just not seeing the issue.
What are these many others, and what issues do they run into? And what great software are they missing out of? You're making a bunch of statements without providing examples or sources.
"These many others" I'm not providing examples of are exactly what the article is about. Didn't think I would have to rehash that...: Most people don't know that you can run untrusted programs with right click, or will even dare doing it.
What "great software they're missing out of"? Who knows? That's my point! It increases the burden to distribute software for Macs, so as a consumer one's missing out on what could have been. My guess is lots of small open source software won't make easy to install distributions for Mac.
They've already effectively prohibited it because, as you can see from the article, installing software that doesn't go through Apple is made incredibly painful and essentially nobody will succeed in doing it.
Apple doesn't really care that you can run it by using a bunch of workarounds if they have 99.9% control over all software distribution.
There's no way in hell that a casual user like my parents would to be able to figure out which 5 mouse clicks to do (without direct guidance) Even the documentation doesn't tell you to right click.
They're competent enough to install software, they just don't explore a lot in the UI. If they can't figure out how to do something with what's in front of them, they have a tendency to assume it can't be done. In other words, if they click on an app and the only options are "Move to Trash" and "Cancel", they're going to assume that their only options are moving the app to the trash or cancelling
Not too relevant here, but I think the main thing keeping regular people from installing open source software is that most OSS is an unpolished usability nightmare compared to commercial counterparts.
I've never used Krita, it looks nice though and I like seeing well polished OSS, but a specific example says nothing about the general trend.
> Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source
Sure. And users are able to install it... it's just a little hidden. My point is if you can't even figure that out then you probably can't figure out most OSS either. Most.
That OSS usually has poor usability is like the most common criticism ever. And could you explain how specifically am I dismissing users' wants? I'm just saying an extra 5 clicks is not that big of a barrier, when people in this thread are throwing phrases like "incredibly painful" around.
I will agree that many OSS desktop applications don't have the most modern UI and are not as visually appealing as some paid-for apps. But in terms of usability, "beautiful" apps can be just as if not more frustrating than dated-looking ones.
There's especially often a lazy route to perceived usability that consists in just not providing many features. Of course, it's easy to create an easy to use application if it doesn't do all that much (like $20 mail clients that can't even do GPG - no thanks, I'll switch back to ugly, but perfectly usable Thunderbird).
I mean why let anybody run any software at all? After all, it’s only their hardware that they paid thousands of dollars for. Even the OS itself can have security vulnerabilities. Best if we just ban software, it’s too dangerous.
GP is basically arguing it's impossible to run arbitrary software which is BS. It's not as simple as it could be, but Apple didn't prohibit it, they just hid it behind a few menus. And if you are too incompetent to click through these then you probably shouldn't be running arbitrary software. That's why the comic does not really apply here IMO.
Not sure how reasonable that really was, a good majority of my Steam library went unusable in one upgrade. There should have been some virtualization option available
still the real concern many have is, with the switch to ARM based processors will MacOS effectively inherit the restrictions of iOS
>Not sure how reasonable that really was, a good majority of my Steam library went unusable in one upgrade. There should have been some virtualization option available
Apple had been transitioning to 64-bit for over a decade when they finally dropped 32-bit support. That transition period is more than reasonable.
What makes me sad is there is nowhere to switch to seamlessly.
The writing has been on the wall since gatekeeper was introduced, but we stayed because there is just no better option. Some options are viable, but require sacrificing a decent chunk of the comfort we have now. It's the eternal waiting for the "year of desktop linux" except we moved the goalpost to laptop linux, battery performance, commercial third party support etc.
The funny thing being that people who didn't have these frictions already switched and will say "just do it, it's easy". But we won't have a choice anyway.
I still really don't understand why people get SO ANGRY about Gatekeeper. It's an excellent idea! Enforcing signed binaries by default is the correction option on a consumer OS. It's saved many, many folks many, many hours of hassle in fixing Aunt Millie's computer at Thanksgiving.
And people like you and me can turn it off.
It's not at all clear that Apple will remove the ability to run unsigned binaries. As of now, it's FUD. That's all.
And, moreover, it's mostly FUD in places like this from people who hate Apple anyway.
Most people (me included) are ok on the principle, and I actually don’t disable it. I want more security.
Issues are on the implementation, with for instance the network calls on every command run if for any reason the CLI is not whitelisted.
Also I am not against iOS either, I just need an alternative for the tools that don’t fit the model, and that role is currently filled by macos. The more macos is iOSified, the less it fills that role.
I've been hearing that for the past decade. With the exception of some reasonably deprecated technologies (32-bit support, etc...), to this day I'm able to run essentially all of the software on my Mac that I did back in 2010.
If and when Apple does prohibit the running of third party apps, I'll switch to another platform. Until then, this is all just FUD.