You said before : "If you were ok, you should still be."
I wasn't OK with it when they introduced the mac app store, I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store. Then the sandboxing restrictions and now the signature things.
I never wanted to play in apple's walled garden. It was fine when it was all the way over there on ios. But the walls are going up around OSX as we speak, and someday they might even remove the back gate, but at that point it will be too late.
Because you will already be living in a world where to get into the nickle-and-dime scam that is the mac app store, you need to bow to apple's wishes, which get even more erratic as it gets more powerful (see sandboxing).
For anyone who doesn't want to play on the app store they now have to now get 'certified' by apple that they are allowed to write software for the mac. If you don't play by those rules, you can expect your software to be widely ignored regardless of the quality or malware status.
And really, the operating system is so much less important than the browser these days.
Don't go blaming Apple for Growl's dick move, or anything else that is similar. Anything that was truly open-source still is, even if future versions have gone proprietary. (And by the way, you can still checkout the latest source code from Growl's mercurial repo.)
The Mac App Store sandboxing rules, while not perfect, are obviously a good thing. Complicated pieces of software should come with ACLs. I really don't want to trust Adobe's stuff to not mess up my system or phone home with all my data. As long as the option remains to acquire software elsewhere (which it will!), the sandboxing thing is nothing to complain about.
And why do you assume that Gatekeeper will be so much more effective than UAC at stopping unsigned software from running? It really won't be hard for users to learn to open an app through the context menu when Gatekeeper complains.
"I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store."
This has nothing to do with Apple.
"For anyone who doesn't want to play on the app store they now have to now get 'certified' by apple that they are allowed to write software for the mac. If you don't play by those rules, you can expect your software to be widely ignored regardless of the quality or malware status."
Sensationalist drama. The people who will be looking for software outside of the Mac App Store are the people who will know how to click to disable needing signing.
I wasn't OK with it when they introduced the mac app store, I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store.
I wasn't OK with it when they introduced the mac app store, I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store. Then the sandboxing restrictions and now the signature things.
I never wanted to play in apple's walled garden. It was fine when it was all the way over there on ios. But the walls are going up around OSX as we speak, and someday they might even remove the back gate, but at that point it will be too late.
Because you will already be living in a world where to get into the nickle-and-dime scam that is the mac app store, you need to bow to apple's wishes, which get even more erratic as it gets more powerful (see sandboxing).
For anyone who doesn't want to play on the app store they now have to now get 'certified' by apple that they are allowed to write software for the mac. If you don't play by those rules, you can expect your software to be widely ignored regardless of the quality or malware status.
And really, the operating system is so much less important than the browser these days.
*edit: typo