71–80 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next thing you know, there will be no keyboard, just a featureless ball. It would roll down from slippery slopes real well.
Hopefully it'll eventually become a computer with no screen or keyboard, just a big red button which turns the thing off. I'd buy that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By the letter of the law, Mac App Store apps are to be sandboxed, which means no /Library access, which means no plug-ins. I don't understand: What prevents an app from having an "Add Plugin..." dialog that uses the sandboxed file browser to locate a plugin library in whatever sensible format?
I was under the impression that dynamically loading code was no longer allowed. Not that apps have to be static, but unless it was part of the .app and signed it won't run in the sandbox.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ (scroll down to Gatekeeper)
Here's hoping that 10.9 doesn't disallow such installations at all (or void your warranty instead?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. Every interpreter - and program that loads anything - will have to be foolproof. There was a case some time ago where an Xbox (or was it ps3?) game did not correctly check the saved games before loading them. IIRC people where able to exploit this and get the game to run code on their behalf. In theory, all the games and apps have to sign/encrypt/check everything they load. But I can't believe they will a…
That was the first way Wii owners got homebrew software running: the Wii version of Zelda: Twilight Princess didn't do a bounds check when reading the name of the player's horse from a save file. http://wiibrew.org/wiki/Twilight_Hack#Explanation
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/Fahrplan/events/2799.en.h...
One thing to be wary of: abandoning the Mac App Store is going to make life much harder for you and your users in the near future. As of OS X 10.8, by default applications cannot be installed outside of the App Store (though a setting exists to change this): http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ (scroll down to Gatekeeper) Here's hoping that 10.9 doesn't disallow such installations at all (or void your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For the duration of the company's existence, one of their biggest customer segments has been the creative industry I would have thought the Final Cut Pro X debacle ( http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/professional-video... ) would have served adequate notice to those folks that Apple doesn't consider them an important market segment anymore...
Maybe. I hope not. All the filmmakers/editors I know still use a previous version of Final Cut, many of them really like some of the features of Final Cut X (syncing is apparently dead easy, nearly automagic), and remain hopeful that Apple will pull it together and address their needs in future updates. I don't know if you have used/use Final Cut 6/7, but it is a phenomenally ugly, often poor performing, generally un…
[1] http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/31/apple-updates-final-cut-pro-x... [2] http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/final-cut-pro/id424389933?mt=...
One thing to be wary of: abandoning the Mac App Store is going to make life much harder for you and your users in the near future. As of OS X 10.8, by default applications cannot be installed outside of the App Store (though a setting exists to change this): http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/ (scroll down to Gatekeeper) Here's hoping that 10.9 doesn't disallow such installations at all (or void your…
So while you can abandon the App Store without penalty, you shouldn't stop paying Apple the $99 a year you need to do so to get the app signed, even if you aren't going to sandbox it or distribute it through the MAS. They just want the option of pulling a cert for a dev found to be distributing malware, not to personally review and reject every application that runs in OS X.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're trying to take take take everything away from the user. Soon there will be no filesystem.
Yes, and never mind that just about everything you take for granted about personal computers was "given" by Apple, too. I find this notion that users are entitled to complete device freedom really annoying. If you find it so objectionable, go build your own hardware and OS platform. This isn't a matter of human rights because no one is telling you that you can't make your own.
So... Apple generally gets kudos for 'giving users what they want', but users are not allowed to say what they want?
Nice work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you are dealing with more than, say, two hundred pieces of information, you kind of start needing to classify that information and have definite ways to find it. If tags are a way that you can definitely find and specify a given file, then tags will form part of a new, distributed file system. If tags wind-up just being half-assed, uncertain hints to where files might be, then they will form part of a new, disfu…
I think you missed my point. I have thousands of photos "in" iPhoto, and I have no idea of any of the file names or their location on the file system. I don't care what they are called or where they are, I just want to have my photos. Sure, there might be a filesystem under there, but I have no interest in interacting with it directly.
I like the idea of a sandbox. Apple promotes the sandbox as a security feature but shouldn't Apple try to improve much more important things (security wise) first which are much less invasive? Example: The Keychain application from Apple (used to store certificates, private keys and passwords) is using a encryption algorithm that is too weak for what it is used - namely: DES. You can break it with a reasonable amount…
"All the password data in the keychain is protected using the
Triple Digital Encryption Standard (3DES)."
"NIST considers keying option 1 to be appropriate through 2030."