Phones are tools so why is it that whenever those tools are used in a way where money changes hands, the maker of that tool gets some of the revenue?
Imagine a tool company demanding a cut of the revenue a building generates because their tools were/are used during the construction/maintenance of that building. Everyone using the tool already paid for the tool!
Yeah that's true. Microsoft really needs to push forward with a new architecture at the core of windows. Stuff like what has happened today is inevitable under the current model where so much stuff has kernel level access. I just expected it to happen with something like anti cheat that doesn't have quite the oversight that I would assume CrowdStrike has in comparison.
Root has access to the kernel but the kernel knows everything that happens and that's my point. The kernel won't stop you from compiling a new kernel and setting it to run at the next boot. However, CrowdStrike running on Linux with eBPF for example would be able to identify and prevent such tampering without truly being in the kernel itself.
The most common way to install software on Linux is from your trusted distro repositories and from Flathub or the Snap store. Grabbing a script from the internet and piping it to a root shell is bad and something I'm sure we've all done. But take the most installed program on Windows which is likely Chrome, it really doesn't do anything differently. You download a small executable which requests admin, then it proceeds to download Chrome and install it. I'd argue grabbing a script might be the safer option because unlike installer executables from the internet, you at least have the option to read the script before running it if you choose.
As far as I understand, yes. It's kind of astounding to me that the world has self-inflicted what is essentially a cyber attack trying to protect a poorly architected OS from actual cyber attacks when a much better architected OS is known and running on nearly all the servers in the world.
On Windows, software regularly mucks around in the kernel (device drivers, system level tools like wireshark, etc), therefore it is also necessary for security software like CrowdStrike to also muck in the kernel so it can monitor what all the other kernel level software is doing. As demonstrated today, anything that mucks in the kernel runs the risk of crashing the kernel.
In Linux, software doesn't even get that option. Nothing ever gets kernel access except the kernel itself. Root is not kernel access. The kernel still decides what root is able to do. Drivers that require that access are built into the kernel. Software that requires deeper access like Wireshark tells the kernel what to do (through system calls as root) and the kernel does it on that programs behalf. Therefore, the kernel knows everything that any program does on the system. With a trustworthy kernel, all that security software must do is instruct the kernel to monitor activity on it's behalf.
I make a free mac utility and would be fine with notarizing it if it wasn't $100 a year. I don't want to pay $100 a year to give away something for free. And the message that pops up telling users to "contact the developer" because "the app needs to be updated" is just infuriating. To me it feels like Apple asking users of unnotarized apps to bug developers into paying Apple that $100 a year.
I know it's unrelated. I have a Mac and was unable to do any work for around an hour, had no idea why. Windows has smart screen, but if the service is unreachable you get a popup. This is just completely unacceptable, if it's possible that a server issue could cause all apps to fail locally, there should at least be a popup explaining that's why nothing is working. I'm fed up with far more than just this. I'm saying any temptation I had for an M1 Mac is now gone.
Lets say theoretically PC gaming didn't exist. If the only way to play games was with a console from Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo do you really think they would be selling consoles at a loss[1]? PC gaming is what keeps consoles priced competitively. If smartphones are like consoles, then currently you can only buy consoles. Sure Android is a little bit more open than iOS but not by much. There's not a problem with the existence of walled gardens / console-like devices, but there needs to be options available that aren't so restricted. Currently 99% of the smartphone market is controlled by Apple and Google, neither of which are willing to give up their control so I think this is a case where some kind of intervention is required to introduce competition.
Yes exactly. From the perspective of the user, macOS treats you fairly. Apple carefully words everything to shift the blame to developers for things like notarization. The message that appears when apps aren't notarized puts the blame on the developer by saying "This software needs to be updated. Contact the developer for more information". To the user who doesn't know any better it's the developer's fault. Apple takes great care to ensure users never blame something that has gone wrong on Apple themselves.
Users get a good experience on macOS and iOS so they will continue buying Apple devices which also leads to more people switching to Apple devices due to pressures of things like iMessage. Meanwhile developers are essentially forced to agree to Apple's terms to access an extremely significant portion of the market (especially when it comes to smart phones). Those terms effectively censor developer criticism by preventing developers from explaining their situation to users. If developers don't comply, their apps will be removed and their development certificates revoked on all Apple platforms. As a user Apple feels fair, as a developer it's painfully obvious that Apple is abusing their market position. Look at what's happening with Floatplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QzHu-sjdB8
Unless things change, I don't think I will choose to purchase an Apple device ever again. But if their market share continues to increase it will be impossible to survive as a developer without releasing for Apple devices and to develop for Apple devices I will be forced to buy their devices. The App Store and everything Apple offers is certainly worth something. Is it worth 30%? Who knows. The market isn't what decided that fee, Apple and all other software storefronts have somehow arrived at that number themselves. With no realistic way for competitors to offer alternative software storefronts on iOS and Android at their own price to compete and bring fees to their true value, we will never know.
Microsoft isn't the only provider of certificates. It's more like the web where there are many authorities, not just one. If Epic were getting their cert from Microsoft and Microsoft retaliated to something Epic did with Fortnite on Xbox by revoking their certificate on Windows, Epic could just switch to a different provider for their EV cert.
The other difference is the message itself. Windows just displays a warning that the software couldn't be checked by smartscreen.[1] Once the app is used by enough people for the app to be in the smartscreen system the warning will disappear. Users will still see that the publisher is "unknown" though.[2] MacOS directs users to contact the developer that the app must be "updated" even if the only issue with the app is that it isn't notarized. A more fair message would be along the lines of "This app has not been notarized by Apple. Only run the application if you trust the source."
Code signing is intended to verify that the app actually came from who you think it came from. If the certificate for MS Word is unknown or something other than Microsoft you know something's not right and it's either been modified by a third party or not MS Word at all. Apple is using code signing to exert control over Epic Games rather than it's intended purpose to verify to MacOS users that their Unreal Engine in fact came from Epic.
I made a Mac app a few weeks ago that got to the front page here on HN[1]. It isn't notarized by Apple since I don't want to pay Apple just so I can give my work away for free that fixes something that shouldn't be an issue in their OS in the first place. When users run the app for the first time, they get a warning[2]. For that kind of popup to happen when anyone tries to use anything by Epic would almost certainly dissuade new users a bit. Currently you can run unsigned code on macOS if you disable some security options in preferences but soon that won't be possible[3]. It's already the case that unsigned code can't run on iOS, so for Epic to develop an engine on iOS they must be able to sign their IPA files so they can actually be installed on a testing iOS device which can only be done through Apple.
Looks like it, yes. I don't use any special private APIs, just the public ones that you can use in apps on the app store. They need the accessibility permission to "Control your computer". Apps like BetterSnapTool/Magnet work with the same permission. Here's the code that actually intercepts scroll events: https://github.com/ther0n/UnnaturalScrollWheels/blob/master/...
I think the magic mouse is treated like a trackpad under the hood so all the gestures work. If someone with a magic mouse tried to uncheck the natural scrolling box under mouse they'd be confused as to why it didn't change so that could be why the two settings are "linked".
I don't know much about macOS development, 72 hours ago I had never done any at all! But as far as I can tell anything you could do in Objective C you can also do in Swift. I would have made a preference pane and would prefer it myself but I explained why I didn't in another comment. Apple kind of discourages preference panes unfortunately.
This is actually Apple's fault more than anyone. I was originally planning to release on the App Store but decided not to after thinking about the $100 a year fee to be in the developer program and the 30% cut Apple would take if it were paid, and that's assuming the app would be approved by Apple in the first place. Although I decided not to release on the App Store I want to keep the option open. Apps on the App Store need to be sandboxed, which means no preference pane.
I agree apps filling up the menu bar is annoying, so there is an option to hide it if you wish.
Imagine a tool company demanding a cut of the revenue a building generates because their tools were/are used during the construction/maintenance of that building. Everyone using the tool already paid for the tool!