131–137 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that it encourages possibly not technically inclined users to execute random scripts from the internet, which should be a capital crime.
What like downloading a tarball over http? Watch your own binary/source traffic for a day, we are downloading random ass executable content all day long.
I have zero issue with this, and it's clearly labelled and explained. Of all the breaches in my privacy, this isn't one I'm worried about. Google gets 100% of my searches and email messages, so it's a question of who you trust.
I switched to DuckDuckGo for the last couple of months. Works fine for 95% of my searches. The other 5 percent is related to local (to my country in Europe) searches, where Google is absolutely giving better results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually what is displayed is not necessarily the same as what would be executed if you ran that script. You are viewing one piece of code , you will be executing a different file. In fact, you can view the github code, and see the code displayed is embedded into index.html (with syntax highlighting). If anyone is at all concerned with their privacy, they should never blindly run a script like that.
Copy the text displayed in the code block on the page, diff it against the fix-macos.py file in the curl link. It is character for character the same code. Why am I the only one not too lazy to do this?
I cannot seriously listen to anyone who "cares" about privacy, then asks their users to download and execute unknown code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copy the text displayed in the code block on the page, diff it against the fix-macos.py file in the curl link. It is character for character the same code. Why am I the only one not too lazy to do this?
Today it is, tomorrow? A month from now? When the original dev ignores the site, and someone hacks his pw, changes the code, what then? I cannot seriously listen to anyone who "cares" about privacy, then asks their users to download and execute unknown code.
Or are you seriously going to tell me that you feel you can't trust a 75 line script you just fully vetted, but you can trust, say, the Linux kernel, despite the fact that you didn't manually parse the millions of lines of code in it? If that really is your argument, then I can only imagine that you stop on green and go on red out in the real world, because that's pretty damn fucked up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You admit you didn't even see the message, so you're engaging in pure speculation as to how you think it behaved, and then criticizing Apple for it. > Changing what it's supposed to do What it's supposed to do is provide a good natural language search of any and all information it has available to it. This is what millions of customers use it for, and this is what Yosemite enhanced. Now it has more information availa…
Afterwards, I did see it. Because it does show up if you hit cmd-space and then...you know...don't type. Which is insane, because of course I type as soon as I hit cmd-space, that's why I hit cmd-space. I don't use Siri, either. I don't own an iPhone. You're more than welcome to have whatever internet-enabled hurf and/or durf you want, what I'm saying is that enabling it by default in what is a low-friction, high-usa…
If you care so much about the possibility of a feature using the internet (as opposed to what would actually be a privacy violation, which is selling your information or queries to third parties, instead of, ya know, just using it to provide the functionality you're trying to use), then it's your responsibility to actually learn what this stuff is doing.
But you admitted to installing a brand new major OS update without reading anything at all about it. It's not Apple's fault that you chose to be so intentionally ignorant.
If you don't want the existing OS functionality to change, then don't install major OS updates. If you install major OS updates, then expect functionality to change. And the most cursory of searches would let you find out what's new and updated in the OS. Perhaps you should read the list to find out if any other functionality you use has been modified: http://www.apple.com/osx/all-features/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My argument is that it is explained well enough, but most people complaining in here haven't even looked at the feature beyond seeing the original article talking about how to disable it with scripting. For example, as near as I can tell, eropple doesn't use Spotlight for anything except as a quick app launcher, which is a usage that doesn't involve Spotlight Suggestions (and AFAICT doesn't even try to send any queri…
How does the new Spotlight know whether or not you're using it as a quick app launcher without communicating back to the mothership? I would have thought that it would send every query and then display the result or not depending on what comes back. I don't see how you could reasonably do it otherwise, unless you want to block internet searches for any term that matches an app name.
Based on the consistency of the delay, I assumed it was doing the quick local search for the top hit, and then deferring the more expensive searches (including internet-enabled searches) until it's decided that it's time to show the results window. So I tested it, sniffing http traffic, and while I didn't pinpoint which particular queries are sent by Spotlight, there was reliably a burst of HTTP traffic right before the results window was shown every time, and no noticeable HTTP traffic before then. This suggests that my assumption is correct, that it's not doing the internet-enabled search until it believes that the user is done typing.
Based on this, if you type your search and hit return immediately, then it won't have sent your query anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today it is, tomorrow? A month from now? When the original dev ignores the site, and someone hacks his pw, changes the code, what then? I cannot seriously listen to anyone who "cares" about privacy, then asks their users to download and execute unknown code.
Is the link in the curl line binary, compiled, non-human-readable code? No? Then your argument has no merit. It's a plaintext python script. Download it, parse it, if it checks out, run it. If it doesn't check out or you don't understand it, don't. It doesn't matter if it's today, a month from now, or a year from now. If the code checks out, and you feel like it will help you, run it. Or don't, and no one will care.…
As well, OSX won't let me execute unsigned binary code from unknown developers, unless I manually overwrite it.
The pattern of piping a script from curl and executing it, isn't one I'd expect a site that claims to care about people's privacy to champion. This seems to be exactly what you are saying too.
Why didn't the site owner say, 'curl this script', inspect it, here is the md5 of what it should be, then execute it? Why the cuteness of the direct download and execute? That is my critique.