On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
> "In the middle setting, you can also install applications from identified
> developers. This code isn’t reviewed or sandboxed, but it is code-signed to
> eliminate the possibility of tampering after the fact. Since Apple Developer
> IDs t
On 02/22/2012 04:25 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
All very entertaining, but it doesn't actually answer your question. I'm
afraid I can find neither chapter and verse, nor exegesis, which makes it clear
what the default will be.
Rich Mogull from TidBITS has written an article about Gatekeeper. He's
John, hello.
On 2012 Feb 22, at 21:52, John Clements wrote:
> FWIW: actually, I don't see Jens saying that signed apps will by default run
> in a mode that enforces privilege checking, and I just spent a few minutes
> digging, and didn't find anything saying that. Are you really sure that
> G
On Feb 22, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Norman Gray wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> On 2012 Feb 22, at 20:03, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>
>> The tech press reports that the default is to "medium" i.e. applications
>> downloaded from the mac app store and from identified developers (that is
>> signed application
Greetings.
On 2012 Feb 22, at 20:03, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> The tech press reports that the default is to "medium" i.e. applications
> downloaded from the mac app store and from identified developers (that is
> signed applications) are allowed to run.
For those who haven't chased this up al
The tech press reports that the default is to "medium" i.e. applications
downloaded from the mac app store and from identified developers (that is
signed applications) are allowed to run.
/Jens Axel
2012/2/21 Robby Findler
> I'm hoping that there will be some backlash from this and we'll not
>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:59 PM, John Clements
wrote:
> As I've said before, I'll be sad but not surprised when Apple decides to
> become evil and I have to leave OS X for Linux.
[OT] I uninstalled OS X on my MacBook Air in December because of the
signs of the times from the last update. I'm now
On Feb 21, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, it's likely that I don't understand, but it sounds to me
>>> like it's better to stay out of this thing since otherwise you
>>>
A few minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >
> > Also, it's likely that I don't understand, but it sounds to me
> > like it's better to stay out of this thing since otherwise you
> > need to commit to be sandboxed -- and if it's the same
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> Also, it's likely that I don't understand, but it sounds to me like
> it's better to stay out of this thing since otherwise you need to
> commit to be sandboxed -- and if it's the same as on the ios, then a
> sandboxed racket is not very us
5 hours ago, John Clements wrote:
> In a move that I find not even slightly surprising, the new Apple
> operating system (10.8, out soon?) includes new features that make
> it harder for developers to deploy their code on user machines.
>
> http://tidbits.com/article/12795
The thing that I didn't
I'm hoping that there will be some backlash from this and we'll not
actually see a high setting being the default in 10.8
Robby
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM, John Clements
wrote:
> In a move that I find not even slightly surprising, the new Apple operating
> system (10.8, out soon?) inc
In a move that I find not even slightly surprising, the new Apple operating
system (10.8, out soon?) includes new features that make it harder for
developers to deploy their code on user machines.
http://tidbits.com/article/12795
Specifically, the technology is called "Gatekeeper", and it allo
13 matches
Mail list logo
