> Or that not all developers are as overly dramatic and full of shit as you are, but whatever.
I'm redeemed in that I don't hoard all of the shit, it seems.
> Right. So in other words, on the default setting a user can easily install compromised software via a social engineering attack, or with a compromised USB key or other removable media? Great job, you've improved nothing and solved nothing.
I disagree. Signed repositories, warnings and disabling downloaded binaries are good measures for protecting against trojans and worms, while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers. I'm not sure about the removable media, but you may have a point there. Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering. It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs.
> Go figure. I doubt the Hacker News community could identify improved user interaction/reduced user anxiety if it bit them in the ass.
You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'?
> We'll make a deal then. Apple will do this, and sell more Macs than ever before. You'll insist they'll should do otherwise, throw a fit when they don't, insist users are idiots when it works perfectly and sells like gangbusters, and then act like it didn't change anything and was no big deal when eventually this is how all desktop operating systems work.
Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine?
> while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers.
Warning against unsigned apps being potentially harmful is not scaremongering, it's the entire purpose behind code signing. I couldn't care less about "sullying the image of developers" and I bet Apple agrees.
> Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering.
No, I speak as if this system were MORE resistant to social engineering than all other desktop operating systems, which it is. It's also a step in the right direction, towards a system that is immune.
> It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs.
I imagine this is how it will end up in the future, the 3rd option will be removed from Gatekeeper. Frankly that doesn't bother me. As long as Gatekeeper retains the "signed, but independently distributed and not reviewed" option and Apple doesn't abuse it, I'll continue using OS X.
> You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'?
Right, because all benefits and downsides of code signing are fully represented in this one dialogue box. Give me a break. I'm not even going to bother to rebut this, I just hope you'll think it through for two seconds before responding again.
> Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine?
Not familiar with the publication. I just call them like I see them. Every effort Apple has made towards simplifying user interaction has met with that response, and every time Apple has been proven right and played out exactly like that. I don't know why people can't just give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.
I'm redeemed in that I don't hoard all of the shit, it seems.
> Right. So in other words, on the default setting a user can easily install compromised software via a social engineering attack, or with a compromised USB key or other removable media? Great job, you've improved nothing and solved nothing.
I disagree. Signed repositories, warnings and disabling downloaded binaries are good measures for protecting against trojans and worms, while not scaremongering your users or sullying the image of the developers. I'm not sure about the removable media, but you may have a point there. Yet you speak as if this system were immune against social engineering. It will only be if and when Apple decides to remove the option to run any foreign unsigned programs.
> Go figure. I doubt the Hacker News community could identify improved user interaction/reduced user anxiety if it bit them in the ass.
You call a "Your computer is under siege!" message an 'improved user interaction' that will 'reduce user anxiety'?
> We'll make a deal then. Apple will do this, and sell more Macs than ever before. You'll insist they'll should do otherwise, throw a fit when they don't, insist users are idiots when it works perfectly and sells like gangbusters, and then act like it didn't change anything and was no big deal when eventually this is how all desktop operating systems work.
Have you considered a position in Smashing Magazine?