151–160 of 373 posts
Messages is great, but is there a way to get every iMessage duplicated across iPhone / Mac? Otherwise you send an iMessage, close the mac, grap the iPhone and go away, but never get the reply back. And so forth.
Our family room computer is a mac mini that is logged into one user account all of the time. It is shared by myself, my wife and my kids. The iPhoto on that account is set up to use my iCloud account. If my wife wants to get her photos (iPhone) downloaded from iCloud she has to log over to an account that only exists for this purpose.
So I'm sure the whole documents, todos, calendar and everything else on 10.8 is going to be a similar pain in the ass for people sharing one computer.
We have to manage three AppleIDs. My iCloud account, her iCloud account and we share an AppleID for purchases from the App Store. They need to fix this for multi-Apple families.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs? Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was: a) a trojan (you had to install it yourself) and b) only affected like 10 users
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else? The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are s…
Because they're not thinking about their current problems, they're thinking about their upcoming problems.
It seems like the OS is either defaulting to allowing only only App Store applications or at least only (Apple-)signed applications: http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html It's still possible to turn this off, but I have a feeling that we should enjoy our freedom to run GNU grep instead of BSD grep for as long as it lasts.
Read what Gruber writes about that Gatekeep feature: My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, render…
But it's within the realm of possibility for Apple to start refusing support to users who disable GateKeeper. I would disable it anyway, but how many other users would?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else? The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are s…
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else? I don't understand the question. Apple has been improving OS X security mechanisms in every OS X update. From "address space layout randomization" to the "first run warning". This is another step i…
No, you stated what you THINK they will do.
For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem.
Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?
Third, even if they somehow get through the second caveat above, revocation would just be a step away.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
No, you said that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
As if defending against POSSIBLE FUTURE malware is a "security theater" or a strange notion.
" OS X Mountain Lion arrives this summer. With all-new features inspired by iPad, the Mac just keeps getting better and better. " Am I the only person that doesn't want an ipad on the desktop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since os 8.something I've always felt that my mac is a workhorse. It's like I've had to have a mac, I a professional designer damnit. But this update feels like it's creeping towards a heavily consumer facing product. My workhorse is being swapped for a show pony... (no doubt it'll still do the job, it just a totally unfounded feeling I have)
But this update feels like it's creeping towards a heavily consumer facing product. Two questions: 1) you think you are different than a consumer how? 2) what exactly do you see this update taking away from you?
2) Nothing. But now I'm buying a consumer product to do my work. It's like Iron Maiden using Garageband, or Philip Halsman using Instagram. (not that I would compare myself to them, but you get the idea)
" OS X Mountain Lion arrives this summer. With all-new features inspired by iPad, the Mac just keeps getting better and better. " Am I the only person that doesn't want an ipad on the desktop?
No, no one wants that (I hope). Read the Gruber preview and you'll feel more at ease. OS X and iOS are not merging. He describes Mountain Lion as "a series of steps toward defining a set of shared concepts, styles, and principles between two fundamentally distinct OSes." http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/mountain_lion
It seems to me that contrary to Gruber's claim, OSX is moving towards iOS and iOS is moving towards its competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else? I don't understand the question. Apple has been improving OS X security mechanisms in every OS X update. From "address space layout randomization" to the "first run warning". This is another step i…
I stated what malware writers will do. No, you stated what you THINK they will do. For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem. Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details aw…
I didn't think I would have to point out that I'm not psychic, and that it was only an opinion/prediction. I will try to be more clear in future.
"Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?"
Sorry. I forgot that identity theft was impossible, and not rampant and easy and used as a matter of course by malware authors.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.