Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Require Sandboxing For Mac App Store Apps
mario_grgic writes "And so it begins: Apple will require that all Mac apps submitted to the Mac App store stick to strict sandboxing requirements. This means you must ask Apple for read or read/write entitlements for additional folders outside your Application Support folder before your app is approved. There are also restrictions on direct hardware access, communication to processes your app did not start, or even something simple as taking a screenshot. All that is needed after this to turn your Mac into an appliance is to only allow app installations from App Store."
All that is needed after this to turn your Mac into an appliance is to only allow app installations from App Store.
I've made the argument that this is exactly where Apple is headed for a long time now. I'll summarize the responses you're going to get:
Of course, the second that Apple announces that they ARE, in fact, locking down the Mac's too, I suspect you'll see one of two responses (should be interesting to see how it goes):
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why, at a technical level, is this so bad?
Because... uhh... uhhh.... uuhh... SCREW Apple!!
Haters gotta hate.
I fail to see any problem with this.
I'm actually far happier when apps are clean and well controlled in terms of what they put where, Apple is providing an assurance that this *will* be the case for officially approved apps.
Good on them.
Whether or not they eventually disable applications from outside the App Store is completely irrelevant to this move.
People might get sick of the restrictive nature of Apple products.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The End Of The World As We Know It!
I think the government should close down Apple and distribute it's resources to all the Geeks on Slashdot which are trying to protect those poor Apple customers from themselves.
> All that is needed after this to turn your Mac into an appliance...
Considering how much Jobs was influenced by an appliance designer (Dieter Rams of Braun)....
And they're here to make money. There seems to be a large market for people who want pretty appliances with certain "limitations" that work painlessly. Limitations is in quotes because it's a limit to myself and many on Slashdot, but not to most casual users.
* Scratch *
Slow news day.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
So, is this actually unreasonable? Seems to me that if you don't want machines to be pwned, it would be nice to have somebody look over the ap before it starts controlling processes outside its sandbox. Sudo privilege is nice to have, but it's also something you don't want to give away without oversight.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This is stupid. Virus and Trojans are not coming through the App Store. People are installing pirated software that has been infected or purposely contains a trojan. If people stop installing pirated software or being dumb and installing software without questioning it, this problem would go away in the MacOSX space.
Linux O Muerte!
You don't ask Apple for anything. You just declare what your application needs from OS to function.
Ever heard of Android? Works the same way.
This is very good practice for applications in the Mac App store. It's a huge security feature. Now, if Apple ever locks down the Mac to allow only applications from the Mac App Store (they won't), I'll give up Mac and go to Linux full-time (I use Macs for neuroimaging research and definitely don't have the applications/tools I use available through the Mac App Store; it would be nice to have a lot of them on a central repository though like Neurodebian {I virtualize that on my Macs}), but in the mean time I'll stick with my Macs. This is a wonderful security feature for applications given stamps of approval from Apple through the Mac App Store. Yes, there might be other security issues introduced through OS X issues but in general this is a positive step forward. Again, I'm not suggesting all applications should be sandboxed, I just think it is good practice for the ones distributed through the Mac App Store.
or don't use a Mac.
That depends on how successful Apple and Microsoft are at suing Android out of existence. If they succeed, mobile app development will pretty much require using a Mac.
This would be an important security feature if users could force it for any program.
Sandboxing applications is a common security model on Unix systems, so why is this a bad thing on desktop apps as well? The App Store apps already had restrictions on where you could put your executable. This just codifies other accesses into a model where the developer sets up the privileges the app requires instead of leaving it at the free-for-all it is now.
No app should have permissions to do something it can't show good need for.
The problem is that there exist things that an app can show good need for that are not possible using the machine-readable need-showing mechanism that Apple is set to provide.
You bought you Mac because it "just works"
Anyone with a remote clue will recognize that these measures are to ensure that the programs delivered through the app store "Just work"
To anyone who wants a simple to use computer, or anyone who administers (formally or informally) a computer for another user, these things are a boon.
I WISH I could containerize and sandbox the apps I deployed to my windows users at work. Christ, I wish I could have my organization wide app store where users could click on nice rounded-squares and get the apps they need themselves.
The future of all applications will be individual sandboxes. Why the hell would you have perimeter security (show your credentials to access the enture kingdom) versus a police state (show me your papers) that denies all privileges not specifically granted. I'm not saying I want to physically live in that world, but I definitely want my computers operating in that world
So a free Twitter app isn't allowed to take screenshots while I have my checkbook app open? I'm OK with that. Every one of those restrictions seem perfectly reasonable and good.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I do think some kind of sandboxing would be nice; for example, blocking Skype from automatically installing plugins in every browser under the sun without asking my permission. It's important that sandboxing doesn't prevent programs from being useful.
No, I will not work for your startup
If people stop installing pirated software
Define pirated software. Is VLC Media Player pirated software because it is an independent implementation of a well-known media codec? Is a game like Quinn or NullpoMino pirated software because it implements the same rules as a well-known commercial game?
So let me get this straight, If apple does only allow app installations from the App Store, rather than allowing you to install whatever you want on your computer. What does this mean for anti-trust precedents set against Microsoft? The lawsuits fighting against them bundling IE with windows. Microsoft never wanted to deny you the right to install another browser, they simply bundled their browser with their OS, and got sued for it. Apple did it, nobody batted an eye. Apple prevented you from installing another browser on an iPod, iPhone, and iPad, and nobody batted an eye. where are the anti-trust lawsuits? You know if google released android with the limitation of only using a chrome based browser, they'd be sued as well. Why is Apple so special that they can do the same things on an even grander scale and everything is ok? I'm not anti-Apple per se, I own an iPhone and an iPad, because they do what I want them to do, for the most part. I got the iPhone before Android was any good, and am now financially commited to iOS, which is why i got an iPad, apps are transferable, and I don't have to plunk down a lot more cash to get the same functionality. I do really wish I could use a different browser than Safari once in a while. Especially since Safari crashes on my iPad at least 3-4 times a day.
If this prevents companies like Adobe and game developers from installing crappy insecure DRM measures all over my machine, then I welcome this.
90% of the population won't notice anything different, where as the other 10% who happen to be tech savvy will bitch and moan about the walled garden until there face turns blue.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
OK, not the "central authority can veto apps" part.
But the "app package declares what system calls it needs to access; package manager reports it; sandbox enforces it" part.
You can achieve it in a limited way with things like chroot, but having it conveniently bundled is nice.
# apt-get install gnuTunes /usr/share/Music/ ... and so on.
INFO: gnuTunes requires:
- read/write access to ~/.gnuTunes/ for the user
- access to audio output
- read access to the optical drive
- read/write access to ~/Music/ for the user
- read access to
- make HTTP requests to http://gracenote.com/
I don't think Apple is necessarily only allowing app installations from the App store, just allowing people to only allow it.
Which can be done on Microsoft Windows too, it's part of their security certification.
You can install an application from anywhere. Apple is simply providing application writers a mechanism to help ensure user security (that you can also use in building non app-store apps), and a channel for people to get applications that they know will have less potential impact on the system if there's a security issue. If I get a computer for a grandparent and say "buy applications from here" then they are substantially better off and I can rest easier knowing it's less likely the system is compromised, even if any given application is compromised.
I would say what is restrictive is the notion that users should have to understand computers well enough to secure them. That is the real prison which we have forced millions to endure for years. A computer that people can use to a great desire without worrying about how to "maintain" it is liberation for 99% of computer users on the planet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ever heard of Android? Works the same way.
Every time Google adds a sensitive API to Android and documents it, it adds a corresponding permission to the application manifest schema. This means every single documented API in Android is either A. covered by the generic permission for all installed applications or B. covered by one of the permissions that an application can request. This Mac App Store sandbox, on the other hand, appears to add a category C: APIs that no sandboxed application can request, even with good reason. The page behind the second link points out a few noticeable omissions in the available permissions. This points to one of two paths of speculation: either Apple will add permissions covering these holes in a later revision of the policy, or Apple plans to completely remove the functionality corresponding to those holes in future versions of Mac OS X.
it wasn't too long ago when there were infected apps in the Android market. This is a good security move.
there was another computer operating system and hardware we could purchase.
Idiots.
Apple isn't a monopoly. QED.
Also note that they have NOT restricted non-App Store programs from being installed.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Why not? Because some useful operations in the existing API aren't available to any sandboxed application. I explained in more detail, contrasting it with Android's approach, in my reply to wumpus188.
Some people have already commented that this is a feature, not a bug.
This would be fine, if only Apple didn't have a monopoly on "stores" for un-jailbroken devices. If Apple allowed anyone to set up their own "app store" and allowed the customer to select which stores the customer approved of, then everyone (except maybe Apple) would be happy. Customers wanting a walled garden would have a walled garden. Customers wanting to shop in other stores could do so. App-makers could decide whether to put their good in Apple's store or not as they saw fit.
Let's look at it another way:
Imagine if your car manufacturer only let you buy gas at its stations. It had stations all over the place so buying gas wasn't a problem. It offered hundreds of brands of gas, but only gas that it had approved and for which it took a 30% commission.
I see anti-trust lawsuits in Apples future.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What does this mean for anti-trust precedents set against Microsoft?
Nothing. Apple is not a monopoly, anti-trust doesn't apply, they can do whatever they want until they reach, whatever, 90% market saturation. Also, what you and the summary suggest, only allowing Mac AppStore installations, will never happen.
The Admin and the Engineer
no steam games in app store & adobe will not give up 30% of the cost of CS to get in the app store.
The Slashdot crowd always loves to bang on Microsoft because, apparently, it believes that MS is the locus of evil in the technological world. MS doesn't pull even half of the gestapo crap that Apple pulls on a regular basis. Hey, libs, want to know what "corporate greed" really looks like? Take a look in the face of apple, and not only will you see greed but a grotesque Orwellian vision of computing that Apple is intent on shoving down your throat.
I didn't RTFA and I didn't see the word "Mac" in the title.
I had iPad and iPhone on the brain.
Sorry for the mis-placed rant.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is stupid. Virus and Trojans are not coming through the App Store
No, where they usually come through is data payloads to applications.
Which is why it's quite smart to not let applications have write access all over the system - not even all over your home directory.
There's already the user/system layer of protection, this just adds one more layer and greatly reduces the usefulness of corrupting data to an application as an attack vector - VERY important in an age where more and more applications have server based components that can be infiltrated.
Pirated applications are just one obvious vector of attack, but they will not be the worst problem if other paths are not secured.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They also seem to want appliance like inflexibility. Or they're willing to call the appliance like inflexibility as either
a) the best thing ever to happen to personal computing
b) not happening, man, you can still edit the BIOS feature, reset the battery, enter Control-V-F-N-D-T-R-M and follow with the serial key of your mac and you'll be able to bypass it, until you update, which you like totally have to do, else all those problems you're having with the wonderful Xperience is YOUR FAULT.
"OS X is a full fledged UNIX and as such, you'll always be able to do *Nixy things such as wget/curl a file, gunzip, configure and make"
I wouldn't bet on it. Its entirely possible to make the kernel limit what a user can do above and beyond a chroot jail - SELinux does it already. That doesn't make it any less of a version of unix. All you'd see on the command line is the "Operation not permitted" error and that would be that.
As for apple being dead if they messed about with the unix roots of OS/X , very unlikely. 99% of apple users couldn't care less and most of them don't even know their OS is a version of unix.
No, developing for WP7 just requires having a killer app good enough to get iPhone users to pay the ETF on their current contract and switch to a WP7 phone. I haven't seen anything close to such a killer app yet; would you mind showing me?
I do really wish I could use a different browser than Safari once in a while. Especially since Safari crashes on my iPad at least 3-4 times a day
There are alternative browser options on Apple devices, including the ipad. You can find some information here, but this was just a real quick look up about firefox on ipad. Apparently there are other browsers though. Just FYI.
No app store for you next!
If I want my app to listen to a specific socket and accept connections from remote logging instruments, or I want my app to allow the user to save/load files wherever they want - I'll have to convince Apple that I'm deserving of such 'responsibility'? *blink* *blink*
If apple does only allow app installations from the App Store, rather than allowing you to install whatever you want on your computer. What does this mean for anti-trust precedents set against Microsoft?
MS has no anti-trust precedents in the context of an app store.
I do really wish I could use a different browser than Safari once in a while
Try Opera
specially since Safari crashes on my iPad at least 3-4 times a day.
Based on precedent set by your thoughts contained in your post, I am going to attribute this to user error.
The problem is that there exist things that an app can show good need for that are not possible using the machine-readable need-showing mechanism that Apple is set to provide.
Which a user can still install outside the app store.
Eventually the permission models will encompass enough functionality it will be possible - but in the meantime users get a fleet of far more secure applications and a far more secure system.
The only downside is a handful of applications that cannot be sold through the app store - but you couldn't before it existed either...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
- The real news is that the deadline was announced today as March 1 2012, whereas back in the summer at WWDC it was announced as November 1 2011. So they've just delayed this for 4 months--probably to continue refining it.
This means you must ask Apple for read or read/write entitlements for additional folders outside your Application Support folder...
- But you are always allowed access to read/write files that the user selects through the normal open/save dialogs. So this restriction just applies to files you create without the user's specifying the location. Now, this still does potentially create some problems with some kinds of legitimate file access, keeping track of and using previously-saved/read files, and that sort of thing. But it's not nearly as drastic as the summary makes it sound.
... is when I abandon the platform. As it stands, only 3-4 Apps on my Mac are from the MAS. Unless I can get VMWare, MS Office and other basic desktop apps on my system, the platform is not meaningful for my work.
Which is probably the reason why it will never happen.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
This is likely based on work from MIT and Google:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/jansel/papers/2011pldi-nacljit.pdf
So let me get this straight,
If apple does only allow app installations from the App Store, rather than allowing you to install whatever you want on your computer. What does this mean for anti-trust precedents set against Microsoft?
It means the same thing that your mom turning into a goddamn pumpkin would - FUCKING NOTHING, because it's made-up FUD. This whole article is like saying, "OMG MS signs drivers, so if they decided to make it impossible to install unsigned drivers it would be TEH BADZ0RS!"
'Paging the Anti-Trust Division, please...'
My understanding is that applications won't be able to see other users's files.
Sounds like UNIX to me. And, gee, that's been around for only 40 years.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
Different App Store.
The Mac App Store is not the same thing as the iTunes App Store for iOS devices. The developer agreements are different, and the approval policies are different. For example, the full Opera browser is available in the Mac app store. (The iOS store only allows Opera Mini.)
CUPERTINO, CALIF.—Apple Inc. says there is a problem with its latest mobile operating system that is shortening the battery life of iPhones, iPads and iPods that use the software. .....
Apple shares added $1.59 to $399 in aftermarket trading. Shares ended the regular session up 41 cents at $397.41.
Wtf?
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
It is about time. The old goal of "protecting the system from the user" is obsolete. A PC is owned by the user - the user is not the enemy.
Instead, the data needs protecting from rogue applications. Not everybody will recognise a trojan even if the writing is on the wall, and even an expert may not have the resources to be sure. Sandboxing removes any doubt - an application has to say what it wants to do.
So for once, this is actually a useful development.
On the Big Picture level, this is complicated. So ... what... Apple gets out of the Pro Desktop/Laptop market... that leaves is back to Microsoft again right? Except instead of Windows vs "Rebel" OS X wars, it's Windows and ... what? For everyone who hates Windows and MS, if Apple literally phases out OS X, could THAT be the Year of the Linux Desktop?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The problem with the above approach is that this is just a very short step from being able to take data from one app and get it into another, or get it out of the MAC altogether. Already in the iPad apps cannot share data between them. I can share data trivially easily in Linux (and yes in windows too). Things that I have wanted to share between apps in iPad I haven't been able to do. Why CANT I write a file in one app and open it in another ? Why CANT I load data from ANY source outside the iPad into and app of MY choice in the iPad ? Why CANT I take data out of an iPad and send it where *I* want ?
As the iPad goes so goes the MAC, (and probably Windows too) :)
BUT
hopefully NOT Linux!!!
I will NEVER actually buy or depend on an information device or piece of software that i can't totally (at least theoretically) control!!
(The iPad I have I won at an IT conference, other wise I wouldn't even have one, and yes it is basically a toy for me. I don't use it for anything actually important
Signed
Cold Dead Hands
There are 35,000 apps in the Windows marketplace.
Not to mention these numbers back in March(when WP was just 6 months old). Should be quite higher now.
1.5 Million – The Windows Phone Developer Tools, consisting of Visual Studio Express for Windows Phone and Expression Blend 4 for Windows Phone, have been downloaded over 1.5 million times.
36,000 - 36,000 members of the AppHub community have voted with their wallets and became members of the Windows Phone developer community.
Typical Slashdot blindness.
This space for rent.
>For example, the full Opera browser is available in the Mac app store. (
It won't be from March.(or be stuck without any updates). RTFA. Atleast read the summary?
This space for rent.
theres a couple browsers for the iphone/ipad like Atomic Web
My understanding is that applications won't be able to see other users's files.
Sounds like UNIX to me. And, gee, that's been around for only 40 years.
Unix file permissions can be set and modified by any user with access to the root account, e.g. by the owner of the PC. They are not imposed onto users and programs by the vendor of the hardware or the distributor of the operating system.
...isn't this EXACTLY what people have been saying for years is the proper way to ensure application security?
Why is it bad just because Apple is doing it? ...oh wait. Apple. I forgot, anything they do is bad just because they're Apple. Turn off the brain, because AppleHate doesn't require the overhead of... y'know... thought, truth, consistency.
God help anyone who has one of you people on a jury, because there is no way they would be judged fairly or on facts.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
That's what Lion is, the start of a dumbing down of Apple's software basically making it iOS on a desktop/laptop platform, because everyone knows serious computer users don't use Mac's, it's moving to consumer (read cattle) only. /me braces for the inevitable Pro Apple backlash.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Where does it say Apple is disallowing installations of apps from anywhere other than the app store?
The troll summary may suggest that's what Apple "might do" in the future (with absolutely zero evidence to support it), but it doesn't mean they are doing it.
Sandboxing is a common security method, why is it suddenly evil because Apple wants to ensure it is used for apps sold via the store?
Wow, from the rumor of dropping the mac pro to a wholly new ruer of dropping the 17" Macbook Pro... really?
In actuality Apple is as strongly committed to pros as they have ever been, and they are laying the groundwork for pro support going forward. What other company is pushing Thunderbolt as heavily as Apple? Everyone else is pushing USB 3.0 and calling it a day, because they are not thinking of a world where a pro can hook ANY computer (even an Air) into a serious pro-level breakout box for things like advanced audio/video work. Thunderbolt doesn't make any sense as a pure consumer play, if Apple had no interest they would not even be using it.
Software wise they are doing in the Pro market what they have done in every other market - trying to blaze an alternate path forward they think works better than traditional approaches. Final Cut X may not seem like a pro product to you but Apple is working furiously to make it one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is building a secure platform for average folks. Sounds like a nice product.
If you don't want it, don't buy it. This isn't hard, people.
test
"idiot-ready" software is good software... for "idiots".
No, it's not. That's a myth started to defend the quality of OSS software and perpetuated by people who think they're above the masses because they know how to turn on encryption on their WiFi router.
"Idiot Ready" actually means 'thoughtfully designed'.
I want to emphasize that I do not actually think these people are idiots. I was just extending the metaphor that was already in play. So I will rephrase what I said to better reflect my intent:
What is sometimes called "idiot-ready" software is good software for a large number of people. The majority, I would say. If those are the users you're targeting, then yes, that is a good design. I just believe it's a fallacy to assume it's right for everyone. "Good" design is subject to the question of who your audience is. And so I take exception to a blanket-labeling of simple UI as good UI without caveats about who and what the UI is intended for.
When you have an application whose entire purpose is to present a large toolbox of functionality - there is no way to make that simple. To use the application effectively, a user has to learn what tools are available and how to use them. Those tools need to be accessible - which means there's a limit to how far you can simplify the UI. How would you simplify the UI of a piano, for instance, so that new users could play their favorite songs without all that pesky practice?
That does not mean there is no place for thoughtful UI design - but a thoughtfully designed, high capability application will not be "idiot"-ready (I really must stop using that word... I'll have to think of a better way to convey that idea.) - people can not instantly dive in and use Photoshop or 3DS Max effectively just because the UI of those apps has been the subject of extensive, professional development. They could maybe get up to speed on the basics but learning the full set of functionality is bound to take time.
You have assumed I am defending OSS software design - I enjoy using Free Software and use it almost exclusively on my own systems, but your assumption is baseless and incorrect. Whether I like a particular application (Emacs, for instance) is separate from whether I think it's a good UI design. (Actually I think Emacs has some strengths in that regard - perhaps the main one being the ability to search for and invoke commands by name. But the rest, the keyboard shortcuts and all that - it's basically arcane. Useful once you've learned it but apart from the menubars there's not much hand-holding to get people up to speed.) I believe Free Software could benefit from improvements to its UI design, but UI design methodology is dominated by the idea that good UI design is an uncluttered window that presents all the relevant functionality of the application - and that functionality that can't fit in without cluttering the window is discarded. That isn't the direction that I, personally, want Linux, etc. to go. I want it to be a good system for me, and maybe others like me who have a deeper interest in computers (for their own sake, I mean) than most of the population. Let the other OSes target the majority of users out there, I'd rather see Linux be a good system for computing hobbyists.
Some traditional principles of UI design still hold in that case - I think computing hobbyists may not be quick to admit it but I think we all love a UI that helps us when we need it. I just think we also want it to stay out of our way the rest of the time. :)
Bow-ties are cool.
The term is "Mac" or "Macintosh".
MAC means something else, depending on whether you are a woman who likes expensive makeup or an IT nerd.
Oh also, cool story bro.
Applications for Windows Phone 7 must be written in a language that compiles to verifiably type-safe IL and must not use System.Reflection.Emit. All the efficient ways I know of making an emulator use either (unsafe) native code or Emit.
That sort of terminology ("idiot-ready") is why geeks are still despised and laughed at by everyone else in the world.
To be fair, it seems to me that non-geeks are willing and ready to adopt the mantle of "idiot" themselves in a self-deprecating way when it's comfortable to do so. For instance, people buy "idiots' guides" and books "for dummies". These books don't actually treat their audience like fools, but I was never entirely comfortable with the idea of people resigning themselves (even if just symbolically) to idiocy. If you do that, isn't it kind of like giving up before you've even tried?
Whatever, it sells books. :)
Personally, I took a similar direction when I started college, trying to get away from what I had been in high school - but over time came to the conclusion that I actually like those "geek" aspects of myself, and that anyone who couldn't appreciate that wasn't worth my time.
Bow-ties are cool.
Apple isn't getting sued because they are selling you the hardware and the software. Hardware vendors are not required to provide you options in terms of their firmware. When was the last time you tried to replaced the OS of your DVD player?.
The most current relevant example is Sony's Playstation 3. They have their own browser built-in to their gaming console and you have no other options or choices. With the recent news of the USB dongle that would allow users to install homebrew software on the PS3. They had the seller of those units arrested.
Microsoft and Google are only selling you their OS. The computers are made by Dell, HP, ASUS and the phones by HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Whether this is morally right or wrong, I'll leave that to the consumers. They can buy what they like.
But It seems Slashdot users prefer "buyer beware" over security nowadays... or at least when it comes to Apple, I bet there have been positive comments for the sandbox solutions for Linux...
The risk is that Apple will change future versions of Mac OS X to be even more locked down, even with respect to applications obtained outside the Mac App Store. GNU/Linux can be lawfully forked if someone tries such funny business, which keeps administrative control of the sandbox in the hardware owner's hands. Mac OS X cannot.
Lets say you get an option down the road, either 'appstore approve' or 'free for all'. ( which is more how i see it going down )
What is wrong with that? As shown with ipad/phone/pod most average consumers will be quite happy with the app-store route, which as a by product helps keep things stable and safe.
For those that want other stuff, the option will be there too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't really care about this at all; in fact, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do -- with one caveat. They must at least have an option to run non-Mac store applications on the computer. If we ever get to a point where we can't run arbitrary code on general purpose computers without some sort of special permission from the manufacturers, we're fucked.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
ok, it really is nonsense-summary week on /.
This is fantastic news for everyone who is worried the slightest bit about security. This has absolutely nothing to do with turning a Mac into an appliance, and nobody from within Apple has ever alleged that non-App-Store installations would be made difficult or impossible.
But what this is is a huge and desperately step needed in putting applications into their own corner. Imagine what would happen if random apps couldn't crap all over your system? The horror! Most of the spy- and malware would go away!
The OS X sandbox is actually a fairly nifty beast, but is has been under-used. This is a great step into pushing it out and making developers accept that just because I want to use their app I don't mean to give them full access to everything on my system - not even everything I can access with my user account.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Sandboxing applications is a common security model on Unix systems, so why is this a bad thing on desktop apps as well?
The App Store apps already had restrictions
Palm trees and 8
I can't think of any apps that would really need access to things not on that list
Accessing FireWire devices. Accessing Bluetooth devices. Making your application scriptable. (The entitlement for Apple events, used by AppleScript on Mac OS 7-9 and Mac OS X, is marked as one of "a couple of temporary exception entitlements that will be going away.") Taking layered screenshots. Loading third-party plug-ins that add functionality to a given application but aren't usable as stand-alone applications by themselves.
(keeping in mind that mounted hard drives would presumably come under filesystem)
There isn't an entitlement for accessing any file, other than using an Open or Save dialog. For example, a program for backing up the user's files is limited to the Movies, Music, Pictures, and Downloads folders unless the user chooses each file using an Open dialog followed by a Save dialog. And I don't see any entitlement for being able to open and save all files in an entire folder; otherwise, it'd be "files and folders the user has selected using an Open or Save dialog" instead of "files the user has selected using an Open or Save dialog".
that still make sense in the app store context.
So that we don't trip up on definitions and talk past each other, what does "the app store context" mean to you?
"screw it, they can exist outside the app store"
The persistent worry is that there won't be an "outside the app store", much as in the transition from Windows Mobile 6 to Windows Phone 7.
Most people do not really lack intelligence. What most people lack is a motivation to make use of their intelligence; they would rather have other people do their thinking for them. Why spend time reading a manual and learning how to use your computer, when all you really wanted to do was go to Youtube and watch cool videos that other people created?
Palm trees and 8
The developer would have to specify up front that he wants his app to do that. But if he says it shouldn't be allowed, then a virus that would hijack the app to take screenshots and tweet them out would be impossible regardless of the security context of the user running the app.
I don't know if the sandboxing applies to screenshots specifically, but you get the idea. That's all this is, the developer saying up front "I want my app to be able to do X, Y and Z" so that's all the OS will allow it to do.
Also note that they have NOT restricted non-App Store programs from being installed.
Yet
Nothing. Apple is not a monopoly, anti-trust doesn't apply.
You can still have an anti-trust lawsuit against you if you are not a monopoly. You can also be a monopoly and not get an anti-trust lawsuit against you. What matters is monopolistic practices, which any company can do.
Disclaimer: IANAL
If Apple's own apps run in the sandbox, that's fine.
I'm far from an Apple fanboy and haven't cared to buy their products in ages, but I'm glad to see vendors starting to do some of this stuff.
Basically Apple is just implementing Mandatory Access Control (MAC). We Linux fans love to boast about SELinux, but SELinux is just a way of sandboxing everything via MAC.
Now, the problem with Apple is that when they do this they make themselves into the system administrator, which is inappropriate. The computer owner should always be the one in charge, but they should be free to delegate this authority to Apple if they can later revoke that decision and take back control of their device.
I'd love to see Linux distros set up to operate under MAC by default. You basically just need to define some conventions around where apps should put their data, and how apps should go about sharing data. Then you just need to make the policies part of the packages and you have a system that is easy to operate under SELinux. The problem right now is that Linux software developers are not unlike Windows developers in assuming that the app runs with broad permissions, and bolting on MAC after the fact is like trying to lock down a copy of Windows XP when running apps written for Windows 98.
You're going to make it difficult for me to distribute malware through the Mac App store. It's you're loss Apple, now you won't get your 30% cut.
I really don't want my girlfriend to do anything stupid with her computer. This is a woman that some how managed to get her brand new Windows Vista laptop infected with spyware after 2 days. And I prepared it too with anti-malware software, Flash-blocked, and didn't even give her the administrative password. I still don't know how she did it.
A toaster is a single function device, a computer is not. To compare the two is disingenuous. Each time you add a function, you have to make a choice and the more functions you have, the more choices you have to make. The reason that Photoshop is so damn complicated is that it has thousands of functions that can fluctuate depending on the number of plugins you have. That makes thousands of choices available to the user and that makes it complicated. If you want simpler photo software, you use one with less functions and there are vendors that cater to that market. Now, could the interface be cleaned up and made more intuitive? Probably, but, since there are so many choices, you ask 10 users what would be the most intuitive, you will get 10 different answers that depend on what functions they use and what their personal preferences are. Trying to make software that complicated that all advanced users can live with is a monumental task that I don't envy them for. To also ask them to make the software accessible to casual (better term than idiot for parent posters) users is when you end up with software such as Final Cut Pro X and we know how that turned out.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
"This means you must ask Apple for read or read/write entitlements for additional folders outside your Application Support folder before your app is approved."
In general, I'm not against the idea of security sandboxing most apps, since most apps should be able to happily do what they need to in the sandbox.
I am, however, a little confused about the restriction above? I've always been a fan of having user data files in a home directory (which pretty much every OS does right now, I think?). That makes it easy to backup user data without backing up the entire filesystem from the root folder down. Are these Application Support directories going to be in the user's home directory, or more like the application folders you find under the "Program Files" directory on a Windows computer? Sounds like the "Program Files" directory concept?
Second, historically, it's been very common to take a file from one program and use it in another - load a photo from a camera to the hard drive using a syncing application, then open the photo in a photo editor to touch up the photo, then maybe import the photo into a photo album, or a presentation manager.
It sounds like these restrictions would completely break that model of re-using data in multiple applications?
Now that the Reality Distortion Field generator has ceased to function, Apple really needs to go downhill fast, taking all of its fanboys' ridiculous sentiments about oh-so-many overrated products and "technologies" with it.
Steve Jobs was not one of the greatest thinking men of all time. He was just a great bullshit artist in the right place at the right time.
Not quite. Applications will only be able to see parts of the filesystem that either: they request to see when they are written, or that the user specifies.
That is to say, by default an application can only see a private directory of its own. It can't read or write anywhere else. If it would like to ask a user to specify a file or directory to get access to, it can ask (through the Open or Save file dialogs), but it could only access them. If it would like to access some other directory or file without explicit user permission, then it needs to be included in the entitlement list. An entitlement list could contain things like, "The user's Pictures folder", or "/etc/services". The application could then access those things, but if somehow tricked to specify some other folder, it couldn't do it. Likewise, if the app would like to receive network connections, it needs to specify an entitlement that says as much. If it doesn't, then it can't access the network and can't be made to do so by a hack (other than altering the entitlement list and resigning the application with the original signing key).
It works very similarly to the Android "uses-permission" and "uses-feature" parts of an Android application manifest, if you are familiar with those.
The OS X sandbox feature (first came out with Leopard in 2007) is functionally equivalent to Android's "uses-permission" and "uses-feature" portions of the application package manifest. In OS X lingo, the permissions and features are called "entitlements". You can even sandbox apps from the command-line for apps that aren't sandboxed on their own.
Basically, it means that applications need to declare up front the resource access they need and they don't get anymore. They can specify "I need access to the whole filesystem" (in which case, they can see whatever the user can according to the regular file ownership and permissions rules). If a sandboxed app was tricked / hacked such that it attempted to access a resource it didn't request an entitlement for, then it access is denied. Sandboxed apps gain temporary entitlements to files and folders that users specify through Open/Save dialogs or applications dropped on the app icon as well as their list of recent files.
It's pretty flexible, actually. I'm a little confused why there are USB-device entitlements and not a FireWire equivalent, but perhaps that's because of a difference in the way the APIs for both are implemented. Also, that an application needs to explicitly name the Applications to which it wants to send event messages to could be annoying.
This really has nothing to do with locking apps to the App Store or making it so only App Store apps will run. There's nothing remotely antitrust about it either. I think it can be annoying for the developer, but probably isn't anything but good news for the user.
They got Linux to run on PC's that weren't suppose to run them...the Open Source Community always wins in these matters. If people don't like it, they will over come it. Its that simple. -T
no third-party plug-ins = no games with user maps or mods.
Where are the anti-trust lawsuits against Sony for only allowing installs from the PS Store on the PS3? And do you really feel the Mac's market share is approaching Windows in dominance? Where do you get your numbers?
Adobe Photoshop Elements is already in the app store. Photoshop itself is unlikely though, since they generally sell that as boxed retail.
My understanding is that applications won't be able to see other users's files. Sounds like UNIX to me. And, gee, that's been around for only 40 years.
First of all, Unix did not invent file permissions. Not by a long shot.
Other than that, well, this is a permission scheme, but finer grained and smarter than Unix permissions. Unix permissions are user based; it's primarily "who owns this file, and which users' processes are allowed to do what with it," with a few extensions like suid that are about escalating an app's privileges. So for example, vanilla Unix permissions will allow any process to access any file owned by the process' user.
The OS X application sandboxes being discussed, in contrast, are about what files or resources an application is allowed to touch, even if the application's process is owned by the same user as the file. So the sandboxes can forbid an application from surreptitiously opening files even when they're owned by the same user running the application. I.e., if one of the applications you're running gets compromised by a buffer overflow that allows arbitrary code execution, the injected code is not allowed to read arbitrary files in your account.
This of course exists in OS X together with Unix-style user-based file permissions. So in short, OS X can forbid a process from opening a file on two kinds of grounds: either (a) the process' user doesn't have permission to access that file, or (b) the process' application doesn't have permission to access that file. And in the latter case, there's also a trick that the OS and libraries work together to identify which files the user has explicitly opened through the user interface, and dynamically grants permission for the process to open those files.
Are you adequate?
As the iPad goes so goes the MAC
You doomsayers so far have not been able to come up with any hint of proof that this is the case.
And sandboxing gives the user far more control than the situations where J. Random App can do whatever it wants.
Why is that a risk? People who make such claims seem to be non-Apple users anyway and are not at risk.
In practice it never worked, because:
Apple is now trying to get developers to leverage this security feature.
I don't see people complaining that Android Market apps have to declare their accesses up front, but somehow it's wrong with Mac App Store apps.
This is likely based on work from MIT and Google:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/jansel/papers/2011pldi-nacljit.pdf
No, it's for C/C++/Objective-C code, not code JITted into machine code.
My understanding is that applications won't be able to see other users's files.
Sounds like UNIX to me. And, gee, that's been around for only 40 years.
No, applications won't be able to see other applications' files that belong to you. The Multics/UNIX/VMS/Windows NT permissions model may have been sufficient in a world of time-sharing machines where you were more likely to trust apps than to trust other users, so a permissions model that protected you from other users on the machine or on your network did the trick. A world where you can't trust apps that you yourself run is different.
So you live your entire life in fear of what might happens? Do you not eat because it might poison you even though there is little to no indication of such just because another plant in the same state as you is poisonous?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Unless that ability is declared or the user commands it. Standard UNIX permissions let the app do anything the user could do. This allows it to do even less.
Imagine the usual program hijacked by a buffer overflow, it executes code to delete a user's files. This would not allow that to happen unless the original developer explicitly allowed non user-initiated write access to all files. Or it hijacks a program to spread a trojan, but the program doesn't have the rights to create a network connection.
It can be changed on the fly, say a generous allowance to load various libraries and other files, write some files, make some connections, then clamp down before allowing input from untrusted Internet sources.
Basically Apple is just implementing Mandatory Access Control (MAC).
Yup, the Mac OS X sandbox stuff is built atop the MAC hooks.
We Linux fans love to boast about SELinux, but SELinux is just a way of sandboxing everything via MAC.
"Everything" can be a bit annoying. My Fedora virtual machine can't mount hgfs due to the SELinux sandboxing, which makes it a bit of a pain to move stuff between my Mac and the Fedora VM; given that I can scp stuff to it when I need to, and that my Ubuntu machine doesn't get in hgfs's way and is less of a pain to work on in other ways when I need a Linux development platform, I haven't bothered trying to fix it.
The Apple sandboxing doesn't sandbox everything, so if, for example, the VMware guest software needed to add kernel extensions or mount file systems, it wouldn't have to fight its way out of the sandbox.
Now, the problem with Apple is that when they do this they make themselves into the system administrator, which is inappropriate. The computer owner should always be the one in charge, but they should be free to delegate this authority to Apple if they can later revoke that decision and take back control of their device.
As noted, sandboxing is a per-app policy, not a system-wide policy, in Mac OS X, so it's a bit different.
The problem right now is that Linux software developers are not unlike Windows developers in assuming that the app runs with broad permissions, and bolting on MAC after the fact is like trying to lock down a copy of Windows XP when running apps written for Windows 98.
And this is different from Mac OS X how? There are apps out there that had to be modified to work in a sandbox, including some apps named "TextEdit" and "Preview". (Heck, there are some system daemons that needed some work to fit in a sandbox....)
Not sure I'm following you, but I have to say that thunderbolt is in no way a viable replacement for a Mac pro.
I run six monitors and four TB-class HDs; can you imagine the nest of cables and wall warts that would require if the expansion method available was thunderbolt, rather than four PCI slots and four hard drive caddies?
I'm *really* hoping the mac pro thing was just a rumor, because I'm not particularly looking forward to having to Hackintosh a machine together to get the performance and configuration I need. And if they make that impossible somehow, I'll have to consider moving to something more open, and at this juncture, Linux looks like the only game in town, unless someone starts an OSX clone project (lord, I wish they would!)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I love reading the responses to this when I've just come from the hysteria that is microsoft requiring secure-boot UEFI. So anything done in the name of security is fine, as long as it's apple and not microsoft?
As long as user-made maps don't have any executable content in them, they'd be considered documents, not applications.
Already in the iPad apps cannot share data between them.
App A defines a URL interface. App B sends request in that URL format. Amazing, they just shared data between them. That data might be a document, such as when you open a document in mail, and that document is opened in a suitable app - possibly 3rd party. There's nothing special about Mail that it can do this.
What you mean though is that apps can't write files to each other's (or a common) directory.
Issues there:
1) Most users don't understand directory structures. And even if they do, they store files in bizarre places and then forget (or never realised) where they are.
2) Bad software developers are bad at following standards or expectations about where to put files. Which results in a mess of a file system.
3) Linux doesn't have a sandbox and is therefore more vulnerable to malware. If Linux doesn't follow the trend and implement sandboxes, they will come a time when it's the least secure OS. Worse even than Windows.
First there were free for all file systems.
Then there were file systems restricted by user.
The future is file systems restricted by app.
I don't see any mentions of Opera in TFA or TFS. It only says that sandboxing is required, but there's no reason why Opera can't be sandboxed (Opera Mobile uses the same rendering engine as desktop Opera, and has largely the same feature - and it runs in sandboxed environments such as unrooted Android).
The reason why Opera Mobile is not available for iOS is because Apple will not approve any browser that doesn't use the system WebKit library to render HTML under the "no competing products" clause. Mac App Store, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a similar restriction (yet).
Why don't Slashdotters like to see the average Joe using a computer, without being afraid of "breaking" it or catch some virus?
Despite the complains I see about giving "family tech support", I really think, that in the end all of you enjoy feeling useful in at least one thing.
You can't describe any random app in terms of these declarative privilege requests. E.g. there's no privilege for "read/write this particular directory, now and ever" - it's only a few predefined directories like Documents/Pictures/Movies. There's also no IPC between two random apps.
Basically, a good deal of software on a typical Linux distro would be impossible to sandbox within the restrictions given.
You totally missed that the news indeed is about a AppStore on MacOS and not iOS. Read up and RTFA. Here is another response to add to your list: You will still be able to install/run applications from outside the AppStore.
I made a sandbox for firefox because mozilla won't put in the effort; like MOST developers. It is powerful and rather nice, see examples at /usr/share/sandbox/
#!/bin/sh /usr/bin/sandbox-exec -f firefox-sandbox.sb /Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin &>/dev/null &
I bet Apple has a standard sandbox file for use on default apps; developers needing more either submit details which generate a sandbox file or provide a sandbox file which then can be included with the app and perhaps verified so they are not merely allowing everything which would be the natural response to requiring a sandbox file.
I see it as a permissions system for programs that is LONG LONG OVERDO and still don't understand how unix people were happy with the chroot jail hack (or why windows was happy to give apps root access) for such a long time.
Sandbox files are LISP like structures like this:
(allow file-write* file-read-data file-read-metadata file-read-xattr
(regex "^/Users/[^/]+/Desktop"))
(allow file-ioctl
(literal "/dev/urandom"))
(allow process-fork)
(allow job-creation)
(allow network*)
(allow process-exec
(literal "/usr/sbin/netstat"))
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
This is another reason NOT to get a mac.
Do you not eat because it might poison you even though there is little to no indication of such
It's called mitigation. People wash their hands. People wash produce before eating it. People use condoms when having sex. Likewise, I take precautions against perceived threats to my computing freedom, such as building an exit strategy from any platform where I perceive a motive for taking away the freedom of a machine's owner. For example, buy computer versions of video games instead of console versions, and don't build a Mac-only workflow if Snow Lion might take privileges away from software obtained through MacPorts.
How can Apple be sued for something they haven't done?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Don't worry you can always get granny a cheap windoze laptop so thieves from china can rob her blind via a million different PC viruses.
Sure won't want any of those darn confining, restricting, safe garden walled environment to protect her from evil...
It seems like Thunderbolt could reduce the number of cables a bit - I already run three 3TB drives normally in two dual-SATA docks myself, and I'm looking forward to switching away from USB3.0 to Thuderbolt for the chaining, which displays would offer as well.
I'm not sure what resolution those displays are but it seems possible to get six of them out of the dual-thunderbolt setup the laptops have.
Still I am with you, somewhat hoping the Mac Pro rumors are just that and the system sticks around for a while.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you called this SELinux instead of sandboxing and said "RedHat enabled SELinux by default" and "official RedHat repos will only host apps with sane SELinux profiles" everyone would praise their security-minded approach to software distribution and OS security.
Not that Apple wouldn't like to make themselves the only way to buy software/media/food/etc., and I'm not saying their motives are pure. But the actual technical aspects of this change are good and it's ridiculous to cast it as bad just because of the brand name behind it. The only bad comes if Apple does not allow certain apps, but they already get to place arbitrary restrictions on what is published in the App Store, so I don't see why this change raises any new concerns in that respect.
Nothing. Apple is not a monopoly, anti-trust doesn't apply, they can do whatever they want until they reach, whatever, 90% market saturation.
This is a common misconception. You can be subject to relevant competition laws even if you have less than 50% of the relevant 'market'.
For example, two companies each with a 40-50% share of a given market who adopted policies tending to exclude any third or fourth companies from competing could easily fall foul of competition law (even if these policies were adopted with no collusion).
The real test is something like "one or more companies who alone or as a group dominate a given market and use that dominance to reduce or eliminate competition in related areas to the detriment of consumers". (This is my approximation of how EU competition law appears to be worded; I understand the US situation is similar).
NB I'm not implying anything here about how this does or does not apply to the current or future situation with Apple.
No application on the mac app store (once sandboxing becomes mandatory) will be able to take screenshots. It is simply not one of the entitlements an application get be granted.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
It abdicates any responsibility. That's why people love to say "Oh, I'm computer illiterate" or similar, seemingly self-deprecating remarks. This doesn't mean "I recognize your skill." This means "I can't be bothered to figure this out. Just make it go." That's what most people seem to want; someone to just make it go.
Apple's ecosystem is massively popular because Steve made it go, without having to understand anything more complicated than "enter your e-mail address and credit card number here, then click this button." There were problems, certainly, and still are, but the promise that someone else will just make it go is a powerful motivator.
People bought Android phones because AT&T was the only carrier with the iPhone, and people wanted that kind of shiny new device without having to switch networks. The sales people even told their customers "this is our version of the iPhone"** to make those sales. Most of those people were counting on Google to just make it go.
** As recounted by at least two Android customers when I tried to explain to them that they would need to buy additional software to access their Exchange mailboxes with Push functionality.
Looking at a hammer and a nail and knowing that the nail needs to go into a piece of wood, it doesn't require a lot of thought to figure out how to get the job done. Good software should be the same way.
Yup. But you can still also use the same hammer (the claw part) to open a bottle of beer. You are allowed to use a tool for a new purpose for which it wasn't intended at first.
Better software should be the same way.
Both easy to get the basic job done, but open to creative new uses. Apple's policy of locking iProducts utterly hinders the later.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I see it as a permissions system for programs that is LONG LONG OVERDO and still don't understand how unix people were happy with the chroot jail hack (or why windows was happy to give apps root access) for such a long time.
Agreed. There have been various attempts to improve the unix situation, but they all suffer from a lack of support from developers on individual apps.
Some of the band-aids include POSIX capabilities (basically limited suid-like capabilities), sudo (more for interactive tasks but it could be used by an app), and things like grsecurity and other kernel hardening patches that increase the strength of chroot jails (getting root in a chroot in standard unix isn't all that contained, but the hardening patches make it much harder to get out). And of course there is SELinux and other MAC schemes. They all suffer from a lack of developer support since nobody has had the guts to say "support it or we drop your software".
Most people do not really lack intelligence. What most people lack is a motivation to make use of their intelligence; they would rather have other people do their thinking for them. Why spend time reading a manual and learning how to use your computer, when all you really wanted to do was go to Youtube and watch cool videos that other people created?
Many people lack a motivation to use their intelligence in the ways that some people might think they should. For example, I have no motivation at all to, for example, devote any of my intelligence whatsoever to looking at or editing an xorg.conf file - I'd rather devote it to something useful, such as developing software
On the one hand, I understand and appreciate your message here: which is that some of the activities involved in "geek machismo" aren't actually worthy diversions. Isn't it better, after all, to make something cool rather than fight your OS to get it to the point where you can make something cool?
On the other hand - one could turn that process, of fighting a bunch of broken software, into something positive, in the form of improvements to the software in question, or just learning more about one's computer. Obviously that isn't always what people are going to want to do (if I set out to make a video, I want to get that video made at some point...) but it can be worthwhile.
I'm not fighting xorg.conf when I can help it - but I've been on a kick lately where I try not to allow myself any complacency when my computer doesn't work the way I want it to. I have to run Windows at work, so I found ways to make it more comfortable (mostly the right kind of cygwin setup, put a bunch of programs on the PATH, and set up a terminal window bound to a hotkey "Quake Console" style...). DBUS kept bitching at me during boot-up about deprecated SYSFS rules, so I learned how to fix those. (Really, though, DBUS itself could have made that a bit easier, I think...) If I'm working on a project and using some semi-broken tool in that work, I find out why it's semi-broken, try to fix it, and submit a patch. I was working with an assembler that was generating the wrong opcodes for certain instructions, so I found the problem and fixed it. I was working with kdenlive and getting really bad framerates out of the live feed from my DV camera - did a little digging and found the problem. I am trying to adopt a stance of not backing down from these kinds of issues - and that's been good times so far. It feels good to confront that kind of crap and beat it. :) I think it's a bit easy sometimes, as a tinkerer, to fall into a trap of just doing things that are easy - like getting an Arduino and loading it with code someone else wrote. That stuff can be fun but it kind of bypasses the real meat of the hobby.
At the same time I try to be realistic about what this all means outside of myself and people who share my interests - I am a computer hobbyist, interested to a certain degree in computers for their own sake. For someone who is just interested in the computer as a means to some end, my approach would be completely unreasonable, and some of these issues I have to deal with would similarly be unreasonable. It can be tempting to take anecdotes from one's own experience and try to apply them globally - but of course this doesn't always make sense. :)
Bow-ties are cool.
On the other hand - one could turn that process, of fighting a bunch of broken software, into something positive, in the form of improvements to the software in question, or just learning more about one's computer.
"Improvements to the software in question" is, for those in a position to make those improvements, the best response. If you have to fight your system to get it to do the right thing, and you do so by changing the system so that you, and others who follow you, don't have to fight it, that's a Good Thing.
As for "just learning more about one's computer", I don't want a system where I have to learn stuff about it just to get it to do stuff that it should be able to do without my help. I may want to learn about various configuration files and devices and drivers out of curiosity - on my own time and schedule.
I'm not fighting xorg.conf when I can help it - but I've been on a kick lately where I try not to allow myself any complacency when my computer doesn't work the way I want it to. I have to run Windows at work, so I found ways to make it more comfortable (mostly the right kind of cygwin setup, put a bunch of programs on the PATH, and set up a terminal window bound to a hotkey "Quake Console" style...). DBUS kept bitching at me during boot-up about deprecated SYSFS rules, so I learned how to fix those. (Really, though, DBUS itself could have made that a bit easier, I think...) If I'm working on a project and using some semi-broken tool in that work, I find out why it's semi-broken, try to fix it, and submit a patch. I was working with an assembler that was generating the wrong opcodes for certain instructions, so I found the problem and fixed it. I was working with kdenlive and getting really bad framerates out of the live feed from my DV camera - did a little digging and found the problem. I am trying to adopt a stance of not backing down from these kinds of issues - and that's been good times so far. It feels good to confront that kind of crap and beat it. :)
Exactly. The key here is that cases where you have to beat your system into shape are problems that need to be fixed, ideally in a fashion so that other people don't have to beat their systems into shape to solve the same problems.
I am a computer hobbyist, interested to a certain degree in computers for their own sake. For someone who is just interested in the computer as a means to some end, my approach would be completely unreasonable, and some of these issues I have to deal with would similarly be unreasonable.
Yup. And even for some of us where the end is "developing software", having to learn how to, say, beat some low-level part of the window system into shape gets in the way of, say, learning about something more connected to what we're developing.
On the other hand - one could turn that process, of fighting a bunch of broken software, into something positive, in the form of improvements to the software in question, or just learning more about one's computer.
"Improvements to the software in question" is, for those in a position to make those improvements, the best response. If you have to fight your system to get it to do the right thing, and you do so by changing the system so that you, and others who follow you, don't have to fight it, that's a Good Thing.
As for "just learning more about one's computer", I don't want a system where I have to learn stuff about it just to get it to do stuff that it should be able to do without my help. I may want to learn about various configuration files and devices and drivers out of curiosity - on my own time and schedule.
Well, I totally get that... I tried to address that point - that while I enjoy some of this stuff for its own sake, others may not. And there's not even any reason they should, especially if such diversions keep them from the other things they're trying to accomplish.
My post should be taken very much anecdotally. I've spent a fair bit of time simply avoiding problems, I think. I even bought a Mac to avoid problems. (And that's a great choice for a lot of people - it was a horrible choice for me personally. That doesn't speak to some flaw in Mac, it's just really not the system for me, as it turns out. Its nature conflicts with my preferences. It's a bad combination.) But personally I found that reversal, of confronting the issues and finding ways to solve them rather than just letting them cause me irritation over a long period of time, very rewarding. Even if it kind of sucks that I have to deal with some of that stuff at all. :) Taking charge of those situations and decisively beating the obstacles defeats a lot of the frustration that comes with them.
Bow-ties are cool.
I don't know if it's unreasonable (visibly it's safer), but your post shows you don't have a macintosh, or else you have forgotten: as much as I'm considering abandoning Apple*, I have had macs since the Apple II and the only virus I remember dates from the time of the 400K disks, before internet...
H.
(*) and guess what, the reason is the convergence between OSX and the walled, locked, sandboxed iMachines. My only trouble in fact (but abysmal) is that the only alternative with a real software ecosystem is Android, which I feel even more monopolistic than Apple being Google's...
(to those of you that would mention other systems: no, I'm not trend-obsessed with tablets, I don't even own one --I just can see app developers *already have* migrated to tablets. That some linux distros will follow is certain, but this leads to apps available in two years...
Herve S.