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.
And you think that 1 in 100,000 Android users DO?!?
No, the OS is set to, by default, say "this application is not signed and hence not trusted", it's nothing to do with spreading FUD, it's a legitimate security device –warning users not to run random things that they don't know the origin of.
Not to mention the fact that, although I don't know about Linux (but I'll bet at least Ubuntu does it), but both Windows and OS X have be putting u pat LEAST a "first launch" warning dialog on ANY "downloaded" stuff for several years now, and for the most part, users don't find those things an impediment to downloading stuff in the slightest. In fact, those were instituted to "catch" stuff that might have been SURREPTITIOUSLY downloaded and installed by malware.
And yet nobody claimed that THAT had a "Chilling effect" on downloading and installing stuff from the intarwebs.
What's the big deal here? Heck, Apple even put the default at the "medium" setting, where it would bother regular users the least, and yet still not open them up to every prison-raping, just because they got "click happy" at the wrong time...
apple padlocks the door shut once you enter. google leaves the door open and even tells you that you may leave at any time you wish.
Really? So you are somehow LESS able to install an alternative OS on an iPhone than on a Android one?
If you think so; it's only because you aren't smart enough to do it.
Do you REALLY think you couldn't port Android to an iOS device? Anything can be reverse-engineered...
Just because there doesn't exist a precompiled binary, doesn't mean it can't be done. Ask the zillion people who have ported Linux to everything from TV sets to Microwave ovens...
You're just a talentless whiner. Admit it.
Comparing an OS based on the Linux kernel with an OS with a BSD-flavored OS? Why, the two have nothing in common!
Wow, I didn't know that SCO's legal team posted on Slashdot! How about a Q&A session?
OS X and Linux really DO have NOTHING in common other than supporting POSIX.
Linux is FAKE Unix. OS X, by virtue of it's BSD heritage, isn't a "fake" Unix; but arguably far closer to a "real" Unix (whatever THAT is...).
As usual, it will be the OSS stuff that gets the shaft on things like this. Projects that don't have enough central management or funding to get a cert.
Considering the fact that Open Source is, by its very nature, technically MUCH more easy to have a "poisoned" copy floating around the dark recesses of the internet (like the thousands of instances of exactly that on Windows), I would say that that isn't inserting any kind of "shaft" anywhere; but rather, acknowledging that having bona fides is actually a pretty nifty thing, especially for non-savvy users. But also for "savvy" users that get a little too anxious to d/l that nifty "pre-compiled Binary" of something from Deity-Knows-Where...
And ANY Slashdotter that doesn't sport a full neck-beard secretly KNOWS they search for a precompiled Binary FIRST, even if it comes from some obscure Blog site, amirite?
By being default-enabled, requiring admin privileges to change, and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.
OMG! Not the Scary Warnings!!!
MAKE IT STOP!!!
Please.
I'm confused by your response. Besides the fact that Android runs on phones and OS X runs on computers - which I do think is a salient difference - I also don't understand explaining away one company's bad behavior by pointing towards another company that's doing the same thing. I don't see what Android does as being at all relevant to people's frustration with Apple and their move towards rigid control of their platforms.
You don't seem to understand how regular (non-geek) people work. Apple does.
If you don't start with the most "safe" setting, then you mightaswell not even put it there, for the vast majority of people.
Having said that, if Apple even considers not letting an OS X expert, like me, take off the training-wheels; then I'll be the first one in line with my torch and pitchfork...
Lion: July 2011 Mountain Lion: Summer 2012
Looks like "1 year" to me.
So let me get this right: You are against getting technologies out to developers and users as they become ready for prime-time; or would you rather Apple wait some longer period of time to add new features and technologies? And so, since you seem to think that they should sit on these new features for more than a year, exactly what schedule WOULD meet with Your Highness' Approval?
Not to mention the fact that no one has discussed the "point releases" and other Software Updates (those ARE "Service Packs") that Apple puts out on a regular basis.
All free, and on a MUCH more timely schedule that Windows "Service Pack" updates...
So, rant on, Apple-Hater; Rant on...
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.
Not only that, but did you see the "...or CONTROL" part of the paragraph?
So no, it doesn't even require that the Mac be owned by you.
And yet, people STILL bitch...
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...
Say WHAT?!? Where did you see that Apple could do that?
You will be run over by a bus.