AIUI, the cert is only checked the first time an app is run. So if the app has been run before Apple revoking the cert won't stop a user continuing to run it.
in Mountain Lion non-apps need special permission to run
Not true. In Lion, by default, non signed apps pop up a warning the first time you run them. This means Lion gets LESS warnings than Snow Leopard when all non App Store apps got a warning first time you ran them.
Apple have no intention of having a unified OS. They know full well that a phone OS isn't suitable for a desktop PC. They are only giving the two a family resemblance. Removing differences that are only historical, whilst keeping the differences that are essential. For example OSX will always be windowed apps with the option of full screening them. iOS will always be full screen apps only.
As far as I can see (I'm a paid developer for iOS but not Mac), the jury is still out in whether Developer IDs can be got for free or not.
Personally I think it makes more sense if they only come to those who've paid. If it's free he can just grab another cert with a different fake ID and continue where he left off. Better if losing a cert actually incurs a financial cost.
It doesn't make any sense as a transition. It's entirely unnecessary to have such a step.
It only makes sense as a way of having increased security for those apps that are not in the Mac App Store. The existence of this feature makes Mac App Store lock-down less likely, not more likely.
That's the Android approach. Apple won't do that. It's a a technical approach and Apple aim their computers at consumers. Users of Mac shouldn't be expected to know what elevated kernel privileges or accessing a network stack are.
My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.)
That's interesting because people were predicting Mac App Store only for the next version (which now called Mountain Lion). This third party self signing is a new feature. Why would they introduce it only to get rid of it again one or two versions later? That makes no sense.
It's clear this is a feature intended to make sure that they don't have to make OSX Mac Store only, whilst still keeping it virtually malware free.
Having privileges set by admins has been a feature of computers for the last 50 years. That in fact is the very purpose of admins.
If it's your own Mac, then you are the administrator and have control. If it's not your Mac (say you're an employee or a child) then you don't have the right to complete freedom on the Mac. Only those freedoms that the Admin decides to give you. This feature gives the admin more control about what software you can download and run, specifically untrustworthy software. And as such is unequivocally a good thing.
The only people who are criticising are: 1) those that don't yet understand the feature 2) those that are Apple haters, and will paint any difference from their favoured OS as a negative. Even when it's a positive.
You're saying that that a PC and a cellphone aren't a valid comparison. Then you go on to assert that OSX (A PC OS) will be a certain way because iOS (a cellphone OS) is. Spot the flaw/inconsistency/bullshit.
This does not limit your freedom in any way. Provided you are an administrator of the Mac you are just as capable of installing and running any arbitrary software as ever you were.
Mountain Lion just provides more protection against malware - if the administrator wants to use it. You don't have to.
If you don't get this, go away, read about Mountain Lion, and then come back.
Your fears for the future, are about as relevant as your fears of walking under a ladder. People like you predicted the next version of OSX would be locked down. People like you were wrong, it isn't. You have no credibility.
Family Pack was back when OSX came in shrink wrap. Now it's via the Mac App Store, you can install as many copies of the standard version as you like on computers you own and use. So you can update the family for $30.
No, that's the limit on iTunes purchases - stuff for iPhones and iPods. It's policed by the number of devices you can pair with a Mac or PC.
For the Mac App Store there is no limit, either in the licence or technically. You can install the software on as many computers as you own and use (personal) or control (commercial).
No. That's the iTunes store. The Mac App Store has no upper limit on the number of computers you own and use or control. You can install software from the Mac App Store on as many of them as you like.
Apple didn't used to release annually. 18 months was typical, then it got a bit slower for a while because OS X engineers had been helping out with iOS development.
However starting with Mountain Lion, Apple have said they are aiming for one OS X version a year, to match the iOS roadmap. This makes sense as there are features such as iCloud, Facetime, Messages etc that are applicable to both platforms, and so need rolling out on both.
I'm afraid you don't know what a service pack is. Service packs bring security updates and new drivers. New functionality is a rarity.
Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion are about new functionality. They are equivalent to to the XP, Vista, Windows 8 changes.
Apple does them more often than Microsoft because they can. Vista for example was only so long coming because Microsoft development process was fucked, and they had to restart development at least once.
When Microsoft does something it's evil and will never work and nobody wants it etc... Imagine the uproar if you heard that Microsoft could remotely prevent apps from running...
Microsoft includes Anti-virus with Windows these days. So Microsoft can and do do exactly what you're saying.
Thanks for the link. So 77 was the number of respondents to the survey that both worked in climatology and published in climatology.
For sure it would be interesting to hear from a statistician what the +/- figure should be on that 97%. It's not going to take it out of the 90s though.
But what I found more interesting from your link was from the broader 3146. The closer their field of study was to climate science, the more likely they were to say AGW was happening.
It's rather more than denial. It takes the assumptions in the original accusations, one by one, and shows why they are wrong.
If he's lied in that correction, then the denial world could could very easily get him fired from NASA. But that hasn't happened.
Obviously you wish the accusations were true. But appear to be nothing more than wishful thinking from people that would like to discredit Hansen.
The evidence against Fred Singer on the other hand is unequivocal. He's salaried on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. $5000 per month = $60,000 per year.
Some self-professed 'skeptics' dont take issue with GW or even AGW but more with the cost/benefit ratio, something that gets precious little rational discussion. Those who are skeptical of spending obscene amounts of money with at best fuzzy promises of any tangible results arent 'deniers' by any stretch no matter how convenient it is to label them as such.
I suspect most of them. They oppose the concept of AGW because they don't want to suffer financially. But they're not honest about that. They pretend the science isn't settled, rather than talking about their economic concerns. That's what makes them deniers. It's like children that don't want to go to bed will deny that it's 7:30pm.
I'm glad you raised it.
No matter which side of the debate you fall into we have to recognize and accept that the issue is an economic one, not a scientific one
Not at all. It's naive to imagine that everything is an economic question. There are too many things you can't put prices on. Extinction of species is obviously a bad thing, but how does it weigh up on a balance sheet? Even if you do, who's balance sheet? Do you imagine man has pre-eminence over all of nature? Because if you do that's quite a religious position in itself. And if you don't, then you agree that economics can't represent the problem. What's ice worth to a polar bear?
And then we've got the short-sightedness of economics. What time frame is todays economics relevant over. Does it matter much to us how people spent their money 500 years ago. What about 2000? And yet these are tiny amounts of time for the earth. We tend to be interested in, at most, 100 years. And that's because that's the top end of our life-span. And our individual lifespans are as nothing.
Once you get past the science, and you seem to agree that we have, then the questions are mostly moral. Not economic.
Economics certainly comes in to how we deal with the problem. It's certainly not the means by which we decide whether we deal with it.
Actually, there are near 20,000 scientists that deny AGW.
A statement which is not true, and for which you have no evidence.
And the only thing these documents prove (if you could someone exclude the faked data) is that skeptics only received a tiny drop in the bucket amount of money compared to the billions and billions received by the warmists.
A statement which is not true, and for which you have no evidence.
What?! Do you know this person you're replying to? Do you know for sure that he's a card carrying member of the denialist league? How do you know he didn't say something similar when that other stuff came out?
We know all of those things because slashdot posts are not forgotten.
Slashdot Mirror
AIUI, the cert is only checked the first time an app is run. So if the app has been run before Apple revoking the cert won't stop a user continuing to run it.
There are pros and cons to that.
Lion only app store apps show up in the launchpad
Not true. All apps show up in Launchpad.
in Mountain Lion non-apps need special permission to run
Not true. In Lion, by default, non signed apps pop up a warning the first time you run them. This means Lion gets LESS warnings than Snow Leopard when all non App Store apps got a warning first time you ran them.
Apple have no intention of having a unified OS. They know full well that a phone OS isn't suitable for a desktop PC. They are only giving the two a family resemblance. Removing differences that are only historical, whilst keeping the differences that are essential. For example OSX will always be windowed apps with the option of full screening them. iOS will always be full screen apps only.
As far as I can see (I'm a paid developer for iOS but not Mac), the jury is still out in whether Developer IDs can be got for free or not.
Personally I think it makes more sense if they only come to those who've paid. If it's free he can just grab another cert with a different fake ID and continue where he left off. Better if losing a cert actually incurs a financial cost.
It doesn't make any sense as a transition. It's entirely unnecessary to have such a step.
It only makes sense as a way of having increased security for those apps that are not in the Mac App Store. The existence of this feature makes Mac App Store lock-down less likely, not more likely.
Considering that Steve Jobs said that he planned to lock down Macs (stated that iOS was the future of computing), it makes perfect sense.
He didn't say either of those things. He did say "we're transitioning to a PC world." But that doesn't contain any promise to lock down OSX.
That's the Android approach. Apple won't do that. It's a a technical approach and Apple aim their computers at consumers. Users of Mac shouldn't be expected to know what elevated kernel privileges or accessing a network stack are.
My prediction is that 10.10 will remove the ability to run unsigned content (after all, it's free to get a signing key.) And 10.11 will probably require all precompiled applications to be acquired through the App store (except on the Server version of the OS, for which the option to run unsigned binaries will almost certainly remain.)
That's interesting because people were predicting Mac App Store only for the next version (which now called Mountain Lion). This third party self signing is a new feature. Why would they introduce it only to get rid of it again one or two versions later? That makes no sense.
It's clear this is a feature intended to make sure that they don't have to make OSX Mac Store only, whilst still keeping it virtually malware free.
Having privileges set by admins has been a feature of computers for the last 50 years. That in fact is the very purpose of admins.
If it's your own Mac, then you are the administrator and have control. If it's not your Mac (say you're an employee or a child) then you don't have the right to complete freedom on the Mac. Only those freedoms that the Admin decides to give you. This feature gives the admin more control about what software you can download and run, specifically untrustworthy software. And as such is unequivocally a good thing.
The only people who are criticising are:
1) those that don't yet understand the feature
2) those that are Apple haters, and will paint any difference from their favoured OS as a negative. Even when it's a positive.
You're saying that that a PC and a cellphone aren't a valid comparison. Then you go on to assert that OSX (A PC OS) will be a certain way because iOS (a cellphone OS) is. Spot the flaw/inconsistency/bullshit.
This does not limit your freedom in any way. Provided you are an administrator of the Mac you are just as capable of installing and running any arbitrary software as ever you were.
Mountain Lion just provides more protection against malware - if the administrator wants to use it. You don't have to.
If you don't get this, go away, read about Mountain Lion, and then come back.
Your fears for the future, are about as relevant as your fears of walking under a ladder. People like you predicted the next version of OSX would be locked down. People like you were wrong, it isn't. You have no credibility.
Family Pack was back when OSX came in shrink wrap. Now it's via the Mac App Store, you can install as many copies of the standard version as you like on computers you own and use. So you can update the family for $30.
No, that's the limit on iTunes purchases - stuff for iPhones and iPods. It's policed by the number of devices you can pair with a Mac or PC.
For the Mac App Store there is no limit, either in the licence or technically. You can install the software on as many computers as you own and use (personal) or control (commercial).
No. That's the iTunes store. The Mac App Store has no upper limit on the number of computers you own and use or control. You can install software from the Mac App Store on as many of them as you like.
That EULA confirms what the OP was saying, not what you are saying.
Apple didn't used to release annually. 18 months was typical, then it got a bit slower for a while because OS X engineers had been helping out with iOS development.
However starting with Mountain Lion, Apple have said they are aiming for one OS X version a year, to match the iOS roadmap. This makes sense as there are features such as iCloud, Facetime, Messages etc that are applicable to both platforms, and so need rolling out on both.
I'm afraid you don't know what a service pack is. Service packs bring security updates and new drivers. New functionality is a rarity.
Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion are about new functionality. They are equivalent to to the XP, Vista, Windows 8 changes.
Apple does them more often than Microsoft because they can. Vista for example was only so long coming because Microsoft development process was fucked, and they had to restart development at least once.
When Microsoft does something it's evil and will never work and nobody wants it etc... Imagine the uproar if you heard that Microsoft could remotely prevent apps from running...
Microsoft includes Anti-virus with Windows these days. So Microsoft can and do do exactly what you're saying.
Seriously, I'm trying to teach European law to a European?
Yes, really. You are that dumb.
Get out of the basement. Apply for a passport. Go visit a foreign country for once in your life.
That very first thing you said was Ad Hominem:
"Right. So your real problem is not science at all, it's politics."
You've displayed it fully in your posts since. Free markets, sniping at Al Gore, pleas for libertarianism.
Oh look. I win. That was easy.
Thanks for the link. So 77 was the number of respondents to the survey that both worked in climatology and published in climatology.
For sure it would be interesting to hear from a statistician what the +/- figure should be on that 97%. It's not going to take it out of the 90s though.
But what I found more interesting from your link was from the broader 3146. The closer their field of study was to climate science, the more likely they were to say AGW was happening.
It's rather more than denial. It takes the assumptions in the original accusations, one by one, and shows why they are wrong.
If he's lied in that correction, then the denial world could could very easily get him fired from NASA. But that hasn't happened.
Obviously you wish the accusations were true. But appear to be nothing more than wishful thinking from people that would like to discredit Hansen.
The evidence against Fred Singer on the other hand is unequivocal. He's salaried on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. $5000 per month = $60,000 per year.
Some self-professed 'skeptics' dont take issue with GW or even AGW but more with the cost/benefit ratio, something that gets precious little rational discussion. Those who are skeptical of spending obscene amounts of money with at best fuzzy promises of any tangible results arent 'deniers' by any stretch no matter how convenient it is to label them as such.
I suspect most of them. They oppose the concept of AGW because they don't want to suffer financially. But they're not honest about that. They pretend the science isn't settled, rather than talking about their economic concerns. That's what makes them deniers. It's like children that don't want to go to bed will deny that it's 7:30pm.
I'm glad you raised it.
No matter which side of the debate you fall into we have to recognize and accept that the issue is an economic one, not a scientific one
Not at all. It's naive to imagine that everything is an economic question. There are too many things you can't put prices on. Extinction of species is obviously a bad thing, but how does it weigh up on a balance sheet? Even if you do, who's balance sheet? Do you imagine man has pre-eminence over all of nature? Because if you do that's quite a religious position in itself. And if you don't, then you agree that economics can't represent the problem. What's ice worth to a polar bear?
And then we've got the short-sightedness of economics. What time frame is todays economics relevant over. Does it matter much to us how people spent their money 500 years ago. What about 2000? And yet these are tiny amounts of time for the earth. We tend to be interested in, at most, 100 years. And that's because that's the top end of our life-span. And our individual lifespans are as nothing.
Once you get past the science, and you seem to agree that we have, then the questions are mostly moral. Not economic.
Economics certainly comes in to how we deal with the problem. It's certainly not the means by which we decide whether we deal with it.
Actually, there are near 20,000 scientists that deny AGW.
A statement which is not true, and for which you have no evidence.
And the only thing these documents prove (if you could someone exclude the faked data) is that skeptics only received a tiny drop in the bucket amount of money compared to the billions and billions received by the warmists.
A statement which is not true, and for which you have no evidence.
What?! Do you know this person you're replying to? Do you know for sure that he's a card carrying member of the denialist league? How do you know he didn't say something similar when that other stuff came out?
We know all of those things because slashdot posts are not forgotten.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2673121&cid=39046783
This is not surprise to me. Why is it a surprise to you?
Which, like most things you read on the Heartland Institute funded WattUpWithThat blog, isn't true.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120130_CowardsPart2.pdf