Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Haskell for Mac

haskellformac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: Haskell for Mac

#151

Post by feelix »

stouset wrote: post #96
feelix wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from that it doesn't get you any additional protection whatsoever. With all the root OS X exploits floating around that bust you out of the sandbox as well as giving you full system access, as someone that has several utilities on the Mac App Store, it would be trivial to put an app there that gets set off by a timer, exploits root, and wreaks havoc. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=os+x+root+exploit&gws…

This is a totally unproductive (if all too common) attitude toward security. "If it doesn't solve every problem, it's useless." This protects against a whole host of issues. It safeguards against garden-variety incompetence[1]. It provides some defense against the large number of badly-intentioned people who can write an Objective-C app, but don't have the expertise necessary to weaponize a typical root escalation ex…

>It safeguards against garden-variety incompetence[1]. It provides some defense against the large number of badly-intentioned people who can write an Objective-C app

The exploits tend to be trivial, often trivial enough to fit into a single tweet. (https://twitter.com/i0n1c/status/623727538234368000) They require no competence to use.

As for protecting against incompetence and mistakes, that is far too an extreme of a measure solely to protect against that. Some decent QA will fix that.

So what is the point, really, of sandboxing if it does not thwart highly technical attackers? It severely limits the functioning of apps, makes it far more difficult for app developers (myself included), and for what benefit that could be worth the trade off?

https://www.google.com/search?q=developers+leaving+%22mac+ap...

Re: Haskell for Mac

#152

Post by s73v3r »

stouset wrote: post #96
feelix wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from that it doesn't get you any additional protection whatsoever. With all the root OS X exploits floating around that bust you out of the sandbox as well as giving you full system access, as someone that has several utilities on the Mac App Store, it would be trivial to put an app there that gets set off by a timer, exploits root, and wreaks havoc. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=os+x+root+exploit&gws…

This is a totally unproductive (if all too common) attitude toward security. "If it doesn't solve every problem, it's useless." This protects against a whole host of issues. It safeguards against garden-variety incompetence[1]. It provides some defense against the large number of badly-intentioned people who can write an Objective-C app, but don't have the expertise necessary to weaponize a typical root escalation ex…

Not to mention that exploit will be fixed soon.

Re: Haskell for Mac

#153

Post by s73v3r »

tempodox wrote: post #37
gamache wrote: post #28

As required by the Mac App Store, Haskell for Mac is sandboxed. Consequently, Haskell code executed in a Haskell for Mac playground cannot access any data except for Haskell for Mac documents, the app container, and those system files white-listed by the operating system. Any attempt to access other files or to initiate a network connection will be rejected by the operating system. This seems unnecessarily crippling.…

Exhibit A for how questionable this Sandboxing is when it comes to things like programming languages. And exhibit A for how Mac is becoming a household appliance instead of a general-purpose computer that YOU own and do with what YOU want. If you want to own your Mac you need to stay away from the AppStore at the very least, and ideally build all your shit yourself.

No, it really isn't. There's no reason why this app couldn't be distributed outside of the App Store, in which case YOU can still do what YOU want.

Re: Haskell for Mac

#154

Post by s73v3r »

webXL wrote: post #90
tempodox wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exhibit A for how questionable this Sandboxing is when it comes to things like programming languages. And exhibit A for how Mac is becoming a household appliance instead of a general-purpose computer that YOU own and do with what YOU want. If you want to own your Mac you need to stay away from the AppStore at the very least, and ideally build all your shit yourself.

I'd bet that fewer than 5% of Apple customers want a general-purpose computer, and it hasn't deviated much from that over time. Apple has always locked down their hardware and software relative to their competitors. The "it just works" philosophy isn't free, and if it seems like it's getting more locked down, it might have something to do with Apple trying to maintain its profits in the face of increasing competition…

"I'd bet that fewer than 5% of Apple customers want a general-purpose computer"

I'd bet that fewer than 5% of any computer company's customers want a general purpose computer.

Re: Haskell for Mac

#155

Post by s73v3r »

15155 wrote: post #53
rdsnsca wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not required to install apps through the MAS.

Yet. First it was a setting in the preference panel, preventing you from installing non-MAS apps without disabling it. Next it's the upcoming rootless OS X, System Integrity Protection: it's only a matter of time until the ability to install non-MAS apps is completely removed, buried, or hidden in Recovery mode (as the SIP setting is) I suspect this will happen within the next one or two major versions of OS X.

I suspect you're crazy pants.

Re: Haskell for Mac

#156

Post by s73v3r »

teacup50 wrote: post #111
microtonal wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet. And we have heard this for how long already? Doing so would basically be suicide for the Mac. First of all because a sizeable chunk of users are technical users. Secondly, a lot of software is not available in the Mac App store and likely will never be (I think Microsoft and Adobe would rather abandon OS X than giving 30% for each cloud subscription to Apple and being at the mercy of the MAS gatekeepers).

Every single release, Apple tightens the restrictions and grandfathers in the existing things people use. It's not "yet" -- it's now, with each release, and getting worse each time.

No, it isn't. Not even close.

Re: Haskell for Mac

#158

Post by nobleach »

webXL wrote: post #100
nobleach wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I sit here in my building with 400 others sitting around me writing code on Macbook Pros. Knowing that in this industrial park alone there are other startups with hundreds of employees doing the same thing. (And this is in Utah - not San Francisco) I'd venture to say that 5% may be extremely off base. I'd say, you take every coffee-shop college student and match them against thousands who are writing code as we sp…

So "people writing code" == "people who want a general purpose Mac"? And I didn't say Apple customers who buy/own Macs. Keep in mind that a lot of people get an iPhone or iPad first, then want to be more productive with a keyboard and larger screen, or just want to keep buying App Store-enabled Apple devices in general. These are not professional coders and are the overwhelming demographic that Apple is selling to. D…

As opposed to a sandboxed device? Yes. Someone who wants the freedom to write code, install VMs, test browsers, compile C, you name it, no, they do _not_ want a little sandboxed device. The college student at Starbucks typing a term paper? sure.

Re: Haskell for Mac

#159

Post by JadeNB »

JadeNB wrote: post #125
jkyle wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First it was a setting in the preference panel, preventing you from installing non-MAS apps without disabling it. Pretty sure the default is MAS + Signed Apps. This setting also doesn't actually stop you from installing a non-signed app. You just have to right click and select open to bypass the warning. I actually keep this enabled so I know if an app isn't signed. So installing non-signed apps is a conscious deci…

> You just have to right click and select open to bypass the warning. I think that you also need an admin password, which can be an issue for users who don't control their machines. (My work distributes Macs with users configured to be admins, but on Windows machines only allows standard users, so I assume that it's only a matter of time until they change policies and this bites me.)

I'm a little surprised by the downvote; I may have made a mistake, or it may be something peculiar about my configuration, but, when I try to run an application, even if I control-click to bypass the policy, I still have to enter my administrative password. Is this not the way it usually behaves? (As I say, it's a work computer, so perhaps they have some unusual security policy in place.)

Re: Haskell for Mac

#160

Post by mchakravarty »

teacup50 wrote: post #115
gamache wrote: post #28

As required by the Mac App Store, Haskell for Mac is sandboxed. Consequently, Haskell code executed in a Haskell for Mac playground cannot access any data except for Haskell for Mac documents, the app container, and those system files white-listed by the operating system. Any attempt to access other files or to initiate a network connection will be rejected by the operating system. This seems unnecessarily crippling.…

I don't understand why they're only releasing this through the App Store in the first place. - Giving 30% to Apple is no small thing - You lose the ability to maintain a direct relationship with your customers, provide upgrade pricing, etc - Any updates are gated behind a delay-and-frustration-prone release process. - There are plenty of services that will handle billing for 5% or less, compared to Apple's 30%. Howev…

There are many advantages and disadvantages to distributing through the App Store. It definitely makes launching a new product easier.

We have started to investigate other distribution channels. However, adding that option will take some work (= time).

Post reply on HN