 J E F FWhatta Ya Think About Dat?Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
 ·Rogers Portable ..
·WIND Mobile
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to HiVolt
Re: [OS X] Mountain Lion coming this summer What determine whether or not Apple will accept an "identified developer"? If a piece of software, like one based on WINE, would Apple be eager? Likely not.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein |
|
 ThinkdiffPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:6 | said by J E F F:What determine whether or not Apple will accept an "identified developer"? If a piece of software, like one based on WINE, would Apple be eager? Likely not.
Any developer can sign up for the certificate without any approval. They just need to sign up for the Apple Developer Program and generate a certificate.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On! |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17
·TekSavvy Cable
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| said by Thinkdiff: Any developer can sign up for the certificate without any approval. They just need to sign up for the Apple Developer Program and generate a certificate.
Doesn't it cost $100?
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
ThinkdiffPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:6 | Yes. But I would think most developers are already part of that program. Obviously it hurts small developers that want to distribute a free app on their own (although they could just instruct their users to allow 10.8 to exempt their app from Gatekeeper). I wouldn't be surprised if the certificates were offered outside of the Developer Program in the future.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On! |
|
 haroldo
join:2004-01-16
united state
kudos:1
·Comcast
| Not sure if it's a big deal.
For 95% of users (average folk), they'll go with the default (secure setting) and only get stuff via the app store. They'll not bother with downloading or installing programs from 'small developers' (most non-advanced users never install anything)
For the advanced users, they'll select quote:
“Allow applications downloaded from,” with three options:
Anywhere: This choice uses the same set of rules as every previous version of Mac OS X. If an app isn’t known malware and you approve it, it opens.
and be able to get an app even if they're outside of the program (right?)
No one loses choice, since avenues still exist...it's just harder for average folk to damage their computer. |
|
HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| The issue is not with this Mountain Lion... The issue is with future versions... 10.9 may be just App Store & Identified developers, and the next release, which will probably be OS 11, will be App Store only after everyone is slowly forced into this over time.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
ThinkdiffPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:6 | reply to haroldo
said by haroldo:Not sure if it's a big deal.
For 95% of users (average folk), they'll go with the default (secure setting) and only get stuff via the app store. They'll not bother with downloading or installing programs from 'small developers' (most non-advanced users never install anything)
For the advanced users, they'll select quote:
“Allow applications downloaded from,” with three options:
Anywhere: This choice uses the same set of rules as every previous version of Mac OS X. If an app isn’t known malware and you approve it, it opens.
and be able to get an app even if they're outside of the program (right?) No one loses choice, since avenues still exist...it's just harder for average folk to damage their computer. I agree, which I don't think the sky is falling like HiVolt always does. But I guess we'll see who's right when 10.9 comes out next year.
I'd prefer the default to be install from Anywhere and then have the user pick their preference on first start up (explain all the pros/cons), but that would be confusing to many people. If most apps will install without even knowing Gatekeeper is active (which they will) and every now and then I have to manually approve an App, that seems like a good balance to me and not too much different than the current system (pop-up of "This app was downloaded from the internet...")
--
University of Southern California - Fight On! |
|
|
|
haroldo
join:2004-01-16
united state
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to HiVolt
I'm not going to worry about what someone might do down the road. If this is a good product, I'll buy it. If the next one isn't, I wont.
Life's too short for me to worry about something that most likely wont occur, but could...assuming one's extrapolation holds true. |
|
haroldo
join:2004-01-16
united state
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Thinkdiff
said by Thinkdiff: ...
I'd prefer the default to be install from Anywhere and then have the user pick their preference on first start up (explain all the pros/cons),...
Not me. 95% of users wont understand (nor remember) the explanation. I'd set it secure and let the 5% EASILY figure out how to adjust it. We all know where System Preferences is found.
W*****s XP is a perfect example of a system that could have been set secure...but wasn't, with default settings set too liberally for the average user.
They should make it like they make cars...with idiot lights. Keep it simple. There's a lot of idiots out there
Last week I got this call...
"my printer isn't working"
"did you add paper?"
"yes. I put it in the top"
"the top is the document feeder, the bottom tray is the paper tray"
, etc. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | reply to Thinkdiff
said by Thinkdiff:Yes. But I would think most developers are already part of that program. Obviously it hurts small developers that want to distribute a free app on their own (although they could just instruct their users to allow 10.8 to exempt their app from Gatekeeper). I wouldn't be surprised if the certificates were offered outside of the Developer Program in the future.
From what I've read, if you want to distribute your app via the Mac App Store then you need to have a $99 paid Mac Developer account. If you want to distribute signed applications via your own website, you can get a free account that allows you to sign the applications in the same manner. |
|
 Khaine
join:2003-03-03
Australia | reply to J E F F
said by J E F F:What determine whether or not Apple will accept an "identified developer"? If a piece of software, like one based on WINE, would Apple be eager? Likely not.
From the macworld article
So what’s an “identified developer?” Basically, it’s any developer who registers as a developer with Apple and receives a personalized certificate. The developer can then use that certificate to cryptographically sign their apps. Any such app has two important characteristics: Apple can tell who developed it, and Mountain Lion can detect whether it’s been tampered with since it left the hands of the developer.
The first part is important because, Apple says, if a particular developer is discovered to be distributing malware, Apple has the ability to revoke that developer’s license and add it to a blacklist. Mountain Lion checks once a day to see if there’s been an update to the blacklist. If a developer is on the blacklist, Mountain Lion won’t allow apps signed by that developer to run.
When you try to launch an app using this system, your Mac will check with Apple’s servers to see if the developer’s signature is current. But what it doesn’t seem to mean is that previously-installed malware will be wiped clean, because once an app passes File Quarantine and launches successfully for the first time, it’s basically escaped Apple’s screening system.
»www.macworld.com/article/165408/···per.html
This information is really easy to find, I'm not sure why people are whipping themselves into a frenzy over nothing |
|
J E F FWhatta Ya Think About Dat?Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·magicjack.com
| said by Khaine:This information is really easy to find, I'm not sure why people are whipping themselves into a frenzy over nothing
Perhaps because it appears that Apple is headed for lock-down, maybe not in 10.9, but maybe 11.0. For example, would apps like Handbrake still be available? What about Transmission? I have a friend that created an app (WINE) for installing *some* windows programs, it was refused by the app store because it uses Windows files...
Of course, nothing might change, just permissions. Which, if that is the case, is great.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein |
|
Khaine
join:2003-03-03
Australia | said by J E F F:said by Khaine:This information is really easy to find, I'm not sure why people are whipping themselves into a frenzy over nothing
Perhaps because it appears that Apple is headed for lock-down, maybe not in 10.9, but maybe 11.0. For example, would apps like Handbrake still be available? What about Transmission? I have a friend that created an app (WINE) for installing *some* windows programs, it was refused by the app store because it uses Windows files... Of course, nothing might change, just permissions. Which, if that is the case, is great. Considering Apple have had private meetings with Developers over this »www.panic.com/blog/2012/02/about-gatekeeper/
quote:
But I can’t find it in me to disparage this goodwill effort that Apple has undertaken to not turn every third-party developer upside-down with regard to app distribution. To me it’s a great sign that they’re aware and at some level sympathetic to our concerns, while remaining committed to a high-security experience for users.
Further cementing this feeling is the fact that we were invited to a private briefing at Apple about Gatekeeper a week before today’s announcement. Cabel was told point-blank that Apple has great respect for the third-party app community, and wants to see it continue to grow — they do not want to poison the well. I think their actions here speak even louder than their words, though.
|
|
J E F FWhatta Ya Think About Dat?Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·magicjack.com
| said by Khaine:said by J E F F:said by Khaine:This information is really easy to find, I'm not sure why people are whipping themselves into a frenzy over nothing
Perhaps because it appears that Apple is headed for lock-down, maybe not in 10.9, but maybe 11.0. For example, would apps like Handbrake still be available? What about Transmission? I have a friend that created an app (WINE) for installing *some* windows programs, it was refused by the app store because it uses Windows files... Of course, nothing might change, just permissions. Which, if that is the case, is great. Considering Apple have had private meetings with Developers over this » www.panic.com/blog/2012/02/about-gatekeeper/ quote:
But I can’t find it in me to disparage this goodwill effort that Apple has undertaken to not turn every third-party developer upside-down with regard to app distribution. To me it’s a great sign that they’re aware and at some level sympathetic to our concerns, while remaining committed to a high-security experience for users.
Further cementing this feeling is the fact that we were invited to a private briefing at Apple about Gatekeeper a week before today’s announcement. Cabel was told point-blank that Apple has great respect for the third-party app community, and wants to see it continue to grow — they do not want to poison the well. I think their actions here speak even louder than their words, though.
If that is the case, then I likely will purchase more Macs.
As I said, no issues about having a locked down phone...not too happy about a locked down iPad so my 11 year old has it now. But the Mac better never be in lock down.
Eventually I'll have to get another computer...just unsure if it will be the iMac or MBPro.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein |
|
 Count ZeroObama-Biden 2012Premium
join:2007-01-18
Winston Salem, NC | reply to J E F F
There isn't a "acceptance" protocol. It's going to free for anyone to sign up for for an identity and then if their software is found to be malicious Apple will be able to kill the software remotely. That's the whole benefit. |
|
