Apple Gatekeeper- looks like OSX is moving towards a closed App store type system....
Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61
  1. #1
    RGAS Guru Xonetacular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,027

    Default Apple Gatekeeper- looks like OSX is moving towards a closed App store type system....

    http://www.analogindustries.com/blog...=1336705207848

    Maybe not yet, but that seems the logical progression so they can take 30% of all sales under the guise of malware protection. In any case Gatekeeper is not great news for small plugin developers and really will screw up legacy support of applications.

    edit: the app store thing is just pure speculation/paranoia a lot of people seem to have about this

    Really what the article is getting at is gatekeeper will screw up legacy support on applications and a lot of small developers are unlikely to go back and rewrite plug ins to sign them which will mess up legacy support.
    Last edited by Xonetacular; 05-11-2012 at 10:29 PM.


  2. #2
    Tech Guru deevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    From Ireland Living in Manila: Philippines :D
    Posts
    3,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xonetacular View Post
    http://www.analogindustries.com/blog...=1336705207848

    Maybe not yet, but that seems the logical progression so they can take 30% of all sales under the guise of "malware protection". In any case Gatekeeper is not great news for small plugin developers and really will screw up legacy support of applications.
    Actually not the case, gatekeeper is a separate entity altogether to the app store.... it simply means the software needs a digital signature in order to be flagged as "safe" .. any unscrupulous files can still be run if the user wishes (at their own risk).

    This is aimed at software developers selling OR giving away applications OUTSIDE of the appstore environment (as these have already been screened).

    However it does give apple the power to remotely disable or warn users of any application that is found to have malware included at a later date by the sounds.

    Theres no real reason for a developer NOT to have a signed application unless it actually contains malicious code.

  3. #3
    RGAS Guru Xonetacular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,027

    Default

    That's what I get for spending too much time on gearslutz in the past coupe days and getting wrapped up in their paranoia about this, carry on.
    Last edited by Xonetacular; 05-11-2012 at 11:09 PM.


  4. #4
    DJTT Administrator del Ritmo padi_04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    6,493

    Default

    I brought tinfoil hats for everyone

  5. #5
    RGAS Guru Xonetacular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by padi_04 View Post
    I brought tinfoil hats for everyone

    I don't know, I think Valhalla DSP may be onto something: http://valhalladsp.wordpress.com/201...-of-the-beast/


  6. #6
    DJTT Administrator del Ritmo padi_04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    6,493

    Default

    They might do it in the future, but it will stay side by side with regular installers and the appstore for some time. With Mountain Lion it's a security feature that can be disabled. One day they might drop it just like they did with Lion and PPC support. Only time will tell.

    That being said, when that moment comes i'm sure someone will get around it and "jailbreak" OSX

  7. #7
    Tech Guru space monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    back home
    Posts
    1,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deevey View Post

    Theres no real reason for a developer NOT to have a signed application unless it actually contains malicious code.
    Not sure I follow you on this--maybe there other reasons a developer would not want to go through the signing process. What are the implications of having a "signed" application? Are there extra cost in doing so? Is it just to ensure applications don't contain malicious code or is there more to it? Its appears to me some of the developers from the link are not happy about this and have expressed what appear to be legitimate concerns, i.e. 30% of sales go to Apple, increased cost of development and licensing.

  8. #8
    Tech Guru deevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    From Ireland Living in Manila: Philippines :D
    Posts
    3,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by space monkey View Post
    Not sure I follow you on this--maybe there other reasons a developer would not want to go through the signing process. What are the implications of having a "signed" application? Are there extra cost in doing so? Is it just to ensure applications don't contain malicious code or is there more to it? Its appears to me some of the developers from the link are not happy about this and have expressed what appear to be legitimate concerns, i.e. 30% of sales go to Apple, increased cost of development and licensing.
    There was a big to-do about it over on mac-rumors a few days ago as well, the implications of having a "signed" application are apparently zero, just means that its been digitally signed and can be disabled by apple if it is seen to be malicious.

    The 30% malarky is fiction so far as I know, most Devs that were fear mongering it appears "assummed" that every App would moved to and only available on the app store. Which is not going to happen and of course at which stage gatekeeper becomes redundant - as app store files as we know are thoroughly vetted for any kind of malware or violations. From what I was reading it appears that when you compile, software connects you to Apple and you get a digital signature which is attached to the software package.

    Probably the easiest way to think of it as was put by someone is the same as Microsoft Driver signing, its warns you if you try to install something unsigned, you tell the dialog to piss off and install anyhow, but in the case of OSX it seems they will be able to monitor possible bad software that is unsigned and defend against it and in the case of signed software that is full of malware they will be able to trace its source and (possibly?) disable it if necessary.

    At least thats what I've been reading :P .... I'll keep my head uncovered (for now), but thanks for the tin foil hat anyhows makes a great nut bowl hehe.

    Of course I could be wrong hahahaha
    Last edited by deevey; 05-12-2012 at 02:51 AM.

  9. #9
    Tech Guru mostapha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by padi_04 View Post
    That being said, when that moment comes i'm sure someone will get around it and "jailbreak" OSX
    If that ever becomes necessary, people would have jumped ship on Apple long before that. It would literally affect no one in the Audio world.

    Quote Originally Posted by space monkey View Post
    What are the implications of having a "signed" application?
    You have to pay $100 a year to join the Apple Developer program, and they make sure your software is actually your software. The worse one is that you might have to build applications in XCode if they don't add a way to just sign things. That's worse because IDEs suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by deevey View Post
    most Devs that were fear mongering it appears "assummed" that every App would moved to and only available on the app store. Which is not going to happen and of course at which stage gatekeeper becomes redundant…From what I was reading it appears that when you compile, software connects you to Apple and you get a digital signature which is attached to the software package.
    Yep. It's literally the same as providing a GPG/PGP public key to people and signing your applications with your secret key. The purpose is so that someone can't replace your application file through a MITM attack or on a mirror with one that has malware or some other threat.

    The only difference is that Apple is handling the keys for people, and if they do it right, it'll be safer. It'll definitely be cheaper (for developers) than actually getting signed by a good Certificate Authority.

    And you can turn it off.

    And after you can't turn it off, either you'll be able to hack the OS to turn it off of you'll abandon OS X for an OS that actually works as a computer instead of a glorified iPad……but that's a long way in the future. And, hopefully, people will get their heads out of their asses and realize that iPads suck by then.

    It literally doesn't matter. It's just one more thing to turn off after you finish installing OS X…just like Dashboard, the 3d Dock, some of the stupider eye candy, same-disk time machine backups that make absolutely no sense, "natural" scrolling, most of the gestures……man, I miss linux……I'm probably going to work on dual booting osx and archlinux……and literally run nothing on osx except pro tools, maschine, and SSL.
    Last edited by mostapha; 05-12-2012 at 01:22 PM.

  10. #10
    Tech Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    714

    Default

    I think this is a step to move to a closed system for OSX. The warning doesn't say that you want to use with caution it says move to the trash can. Apples computer sales are declining and to be honest I dont think Apple care that much they are far more interested in there other consumer products that make alot more money. They dont seem to care about mac pro sales

    Traditional computers make up such a small portion of there profits, so putting people into this locked in system but loosing a few customers wont bother them too much.

    OSX is not 10 years ahead of windows that is a wild claim. The core of the system is freebsd and if that licence got changed apple would face serious setbacks releasing updates. Freebsd isn't as well supported as linux so will fall behind.

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •