[deleted]
Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
21–30 of 200 posts
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#22In general, this type of sandbox is a Good Thing. I would love to live in a world where the default environment for any program is a very limited sandbox that can only interact with the outside world via standardized UI elements. That is, outside a data store specific to the application, it can only access files via the standard dialogs, and so forth. The potential for malware distribution would be significantly redu…
Sandboxing is great since less and less control is in the hands of the app. I am sure apple will keep rolling out features expanding sandboxing, this is just the default impl. This also means that basically it will be harder and harder for apps to be malware in an already hostile system.
I wish android had this. Android needs this much more than iOS.
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, you can't (within the app, at least) - App Store apps can't make references to the existence of software that is outside the App Store.
Ugh, it's like the GPL in reverse.
I can imagine the GPL-inspired first line of the AMI license. "Most software is designed to let you do various things with your computer. Software licensed under the terms of the AMI (Apple May I) license is different. It is designed to make sure you can't do anything useful with your computer at all, at least not without asking first."
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#24I can think of only two GUI apps I semi-regularly use that can't fit within those restrictions: VMware Fusion, and Steam. Plugins are a red herring. Some poorly-designed plugin infrastructures will not be workable, boo-hoo. Valid use cases can be accommodated with proper message passing. Maybe we'll finally get applications that don't crash horribly because of buggy plug-ins?
What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague. Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.
The IPC mechanism is XPC, and my memcpys run at a few thousand megabytes per second, why don't yours?
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague. Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.
AudioUnit plugins have strict realtime requirements that won't work with message passing too. If Apple disallows plugins that will be the end of the Mac as a pro audio platform. Not that a lot of plugin developers would mind so much after the insane platform churn at Cupertino in this last decade, but it's hard for me to imagine Apple would go that far.
"strict realtime requirements" and Mac OS X (and most other off-the-shelf operating systems) do not mix and never have. Either these applications don't belong on the platform in the first place, or you are misunderstanding their requirements.
It doesn't matter anyway. What is it Apple has done recently to give you the impression that they place great importance on niche markets?
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#26I thought 1Password 3.9 (the MAS version) was already using App Sandboxing and I don't feel limited at all. Dropbox syncing works fine like before and browser extensions works better than before (without all the ugly InputManager hacks). Basing on this one app I often use, I'm overall happy with sandboxing so far.
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague. Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.
AudioUnit plugins have strict realtime requirements that won't work with message passing too. If Apple disallows plugins that will be the end of the Mac as a pro audio platform. Not that a lot of plugin developers would mind so much after the insane platform churn at Cupertino in this last decade, but it's hard for me to imagine Apple would go that far.
Exactly... AudioUnits and VST plugins literally must be loaded in-process of the host to be useful at all. As long as vendors aren't forced to use the App store for distribution I don't think anyone in that scene will care much about Apple's changes. In the digital music / VST / DAW scene I think the app store's initial launch amounted to a single "oh well, guess not" blog post on CDM and then everyone moved on. (I'm exaggerating a bit of course).
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#28The Sandbox makes me sad.
Remove exploits of a single poorly written app spreading to the rest of my Mac and taking over make me sadder.
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#29This would worry me if there weren't at least two other major Operating Systems available to choose from. The Mac is moving more towards simplicity and safety - targeting normal consumers. That's fine. Ironically, now Linux and Windows (and anything else that comes up down the line) will have to serve as the 'Computer for the rest of us'
This would worry me if the AppStore were the only way to get aplications on to your Mac. I can see it being very disapointing for developers who enjoyed the convenience of the AppStore, but need additional functions. But I guess they will have to sell ex-Store I can also see the benefit of Apple being able to say that 'Anything you buy on the Store is safe(tm)'. However if Apple every makes teh Appstore a compulsory…
Knowing Apple's achievements in pwn2own, this most likely won't increase the real security... Whatever you do, security always boils down to aware user, thus it is in fundamental contradiction to this company philosophy.
Re: Why the Mac App Sandbox makes me sad
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of plugin architecture do you propose that doesn't use dynamic loading or standard IPC mechanisms? Your "message passing" is much too vague. Remember, this needs to be fast enough to accomodate FCP video processing plugins - hundreds of megabytes of data may need to be passed between the host and plugin each second.
The IPC mechanism is XPC, and my memcpys run at a few thousand megabytes per second, why don't yours?
XPC services must be located within the host app's bundle [1]. They must be appropriately code-signed. How do you propose to use this mechanism for 3rd party plugins?
[1] http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/MacOSX...