Wow, that snuck out without much advanced fanfare (or I missed it).
I first glance, the main (in fact only) feature seems to be porting several iOS apps and features (notes, reminders, game center, etc.) to Mac OS X, and syncing everything together with iCloud.
There is also a Growl clone. Surprised this took so long. Then again, I personally don't like Growl, so I hope nothing depends on it being turned on.
I notice that, so far, there doesn't seem to be any new 'technologies', just (mainly) ports of iOS apps.
Looks very ho hum to me, but then again I have an android phone, so iOS syncing doesn't really interest me.
Growl gets a lot of things wrong and stagnated for years with (until recently) no sign of improvement. It was ripe for disruption. Maybe Apple's implementation will be less depressing.
There is also a Growl clone. Surprised this took so long. Then again, I personally don't like Growl, so I hope nothing depends on it being turned on.
It seems that Apple adopted a similar model as Notifications Center on iOS in that you can decide on a per-app basis what they can do: banner, badge, sound… See this MacWorld's screenshot: http://images.macworld.com/images/article/2012/02/notificati...
Very interesting. From the features list at the bottom:
*It’s a new Mac experience in China. OS X Mountain Lion brings all-new support for many popular Chinese services. And they’re easy to set up. Mail, Contacts, and Calendar work with QQ, 163, and 126. Baidu, the leading Chinese search provider, is a built-in option in Safari. The video-sharing websites Youku and Tudou are included in the new Share Sheets, so users in China can easily post videos to the web. They can also blog with Sina weibo, the popular microblogging service. And with improved text input, typing in Chinese is easier, faster, and more accurate."
is there a specific reason they needed to update the entire OS for this ? Most of the new features are actually apps, and the rest wouldn't really justify a major version change.
Don't forget all the API changes that present themselves with each new major version. For example, Notifications, GameCenter and Twitter are all new core libraries on the Mac that are accessible to developers.
In these events they talk about the new features as they're the most recognisable for press, often examples of what some of the new APIs are capable. (Features, which could of course have been programmed to run atop 10.7 Lion.)
E.g. growl does system wide notifications, but it's not built-in, and Apple like to control these things so they may more easily interface them with other Apple devices. (E.g. Apple could very easily make their Apple TV notify the user's iPhone when a new TV episode has been downloaded, or even schedule it onto their Mac.)
With that in mind Apple have a history of meshing the experiences across their devices, the messages app is a recent example.
This is an early preview. We don't know about all the new APIs and changes under the hood. Presumably there is a lot going on with the additional iCloud support.
One of these years Apple is going to discontinue carbon API support and go 64-bit only. I doubt this release is it, but those kinds of under-the-hood features are not the kinds of things that you would talk about at this point. We'll learn more at WWDC.
What they cover for the general public is usually only the most visible features. There's additional new stuff under the hood, which will be available for 3rd party developers to use in their apps.
The benefits might not be apparent immediately, but they'll start showing up in apps written to take advantage of 10.8's features. Some improvements in the frameworks will effect existing apps that use those frameworks.
Apple, as usual, really seems to be getting it right. The feature list looks super promising as a nextstep (sorry, had to) in unifying mobile with desktop. It's nice to see that the desktop OS is not being abandoned but instead updated to better reflect a consumers preference for mobile (with good reason). Microsoft has also got it right by tying their Metro interface in Windows 8 to the Windows Phone OS. The attempt, however, falls short in that it is not really unifying the two platforms but instead providing a common interface and feel. In order to truly unite desktop with mobile, I believe you need to go beyond providing a common interface and really integrate the components so they exist to the user simultaneously instead of in parellel. This is just another verification (and in my opinion, a big one) that mobile is taking the reigns and is the future.
It's still possible to turn this off, but I have a feeling that we should enjoy our freedom to run GNU grep instead of BSD grep for as long as it lasts.
For some reason I doubt that this runs all the way down to the UNIX level of things. It's probably just the restriction to only run signed .app bundles, and maybe signed installer packages. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Read what Gruber writes about that Gatekeep feature:
My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion:
* Only those from the App Store
* Only those from the App Store or which are signed by a developer ID
* Any app, whether signed or unsigned
The default for this setting is, I say, exactly right: the one in the middle, disallowing only unsigned apps. This default setting benefits users by increasing practical security, and also benefits developers, preserving the freedom to ship whatever software they want for the Mac, with no approval process.
Gruber was telling that the Apple ID was going to be free. It isn't. It requires a Mac Developer account as far as I could understand it.
When I was 15 I wrote a Taskbar dialer for Windows 9x and later NT (this was in the modem days. Of course I haven't updated it in ages and the only reason my old webpage is still there is because I found it by accident in an old backup, but here is a google search for it: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask).
I published that on the various download pages and it was good enough to even be featured in dead-tree publications.
Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
With this rule in place I would never have been able to publish that dialer. I would never have felt how it is to make something that others can use and find useful. I would never have ended up where I am today.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
I might be an old fart, but this is far from acceptable.
>Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
Yes but things change. Old fart or not, you're into technology, we all have to realize things change!
Hold on, XCode is free (without a developer login) you could install that and write the app.
You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did.
And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher.
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
I would be much happier (to the effect of actually seeing more good than bad in this restriction) if getting that ID was a matter of filling out a form an passing a turing test - so, for example, if any apple ID could be used to get a signing certificate, that would be much better.
(edit: this is not about the money. It's about they way of payment (minors don't have credit cards) and the required paperwork that, among other things, require you to be an adult)
That's interesting. My feeling is that the problem her is with the Apple Developer network rather than the functionality - I think the functionality just highlights the problem.
Personally I'd like to see the price on Developer licenses dropped and made free for full time or part time students. I think it would make commercial and PR sense for Apple too - show that they are developer friendly and make the Mac attractive as the machine of choice for the next generation of programmers (who will then also be a shoe in on coding iOS apps).
Historically, Apple has rarely provided free software, hardware or services to the education market. It appears to me that their strategy since the Apple II days has generally been to monetize the education industry to the highest level the market will allow. They may offer small student discounts off of list price on college campus bookstores, but I suspect it increases sales more than enough to raise profits.
I'm willing to bet that Apple is going to allow free certificates without having to pay a cent when Mountain Lion launches; Apple already did this for Safari Extensions, for example. (Safari Extensions must be signed, but anyone can request for a cert.)
It's also interesting that Apple is using the word "the _new_ Developer ID" in their developer site[1].
A license is $99. If you can afford a Mac to develop on your can certainly afford a $99 license.
They reason the have the fee is to keep out people who aren't serious about development. If they didn't have it for example the forums would be overrun with people who just signed up to get the latest OS beta complaining about bugs (this is already a problem at $99).
People can still develop and distribute apps without ever signing up with Apple. This restriction is a good protection step for users imo.
Yes, but Apple doesn't want to allow people to pay to get into a Beta. They want only devs taking part. A fee to enter the dev program seems like the best solution to me. Honestly they should increase it to $199 to help weed out the app spammers.
There's enough money in app spamming that it would have to be a lot higher than that to put them off.
As a rule the people who act like arseholes have at least as much money as those who don't, I don't think it's going to put them off.
I agree a nominal fee is reasonable as it puts another barrier in their way (you can check for duplicate memberships off the same card for instance so they have to get multiple cards) but the actual financial amount isn't a major barrier I don't think.
That's a good point. It would help get the beta testers out of the forums though :) Every time a new iOS version starts testing the forums are overrun with people who have x bug and don't understand what beta means. I wish there was a way for Apple to prevent a lot of the App Store spam. I wouldn't be against them becoming more curated (i.e. only apps they deem useful and quality get it). Or have a special section in the store labeled 'crap'.
I'm not sure that charging more is the solution, there's no shortage of people with more money than sense!
I don't see why Apple don't invite the developers of high-ranking iOS apps to an early-access program in order to keep their best apps up to date, and not invite anybody else to the beta.
I don't see why Apple don't invite the developers of high-ranking iOS apps to an early-access program in order to keep their best apps up to date, and not invite anybody else to the beta.
Because every publisher, not just the "blessed" ones, has software in the store that could be negatively impacted by a new iOS release's changed APIs. And every publisher has potential use cases for new features Apple adds in a new iOS revision.
Apple ships major iOS releases at the same time as shipping the newest iOS device. They want a customer to unwrap their new device and have free roam of the store to download/buy as much as they can. They want the software to use the new features in iOS and they don't want their customers downloading crap that is broken.
And as a developer who isn't even close to "high-ranking" (My one paid iOS app maybe pulls in $50 on a good month) it's still not fair to me for someone to one-star my app and say "doesn't work on iOS 6" even when I've had no chance to test it before general release.
You shouldn't have to prove that you're "serious about development" by paying money to write and distribute software. How many developers started as hobbyists?
Charging $100 just to be capricious is not a good move and is certainly not a good omen for OS 10.9 "Tabby" wherein you can be almost certain they will remove the option to run unsigned software (for your own protection, of course! You don't want to pay Apple $100? What are you, poor? The computer cost $1000! $generic_strawman_argument!)
You don't need to pay ANY money to write software for the Mac. Xcode is free. You don't need to pay any money to distribute software for the Mac. Distribute it through your own website. You need to pay to sell through the Mac App Store. I also presume you need to pay if you want it signed. Well that's a privilege. It helps you prove to potential customers your app is safe. You benefit from it so you should have to pay for it.
If you develop an app with the purpose of selling it on the Mac App Store for profit $100 should not be a problem for you.
If you want to distribute it yourself, go ahead. Apple is not charging you.
>"You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it."
The need for a non-default security setting in order to run the software is a pretty big difference.
Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings - thereby allowing Apple to unilaterally delete your application from your customer's computers without recourse - may only raise the bar a bit.
However, it is an entirely different development ecosystem from the one described. Microsoft couldn't delete your application or block customer's access to it arbitrarily back in the 90's.
If iOS is a precedent, the probability of Apple changing the terms of service in regards to their developer agreement in ways which have adverse effects on the saleability and distribution of existing applications is significant.
Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
The computer isn't free either. And you can always build and distribute without the ID or the certificate. This is just for distribution through the App Store or to users that have it set to only allow signed apps.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
"No" to the last question, maybe. On the other hand, it stops tons of malware. Signed binaries is considered one of the most successful anti-malware strategies by security experts. Are you saying otherwise?
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
You present an edge case ("I need to build and distribute my software to OS X users AND I want those users to not only allow signed apps BECAUSE I can't fork $100 dollars for a developer certificate").
If that kind of thing discourages you from "getting to the career of your dreams" what to say about the hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of toil needed to become a doctor, a lawyer, not to mention the hard learning needed to become a professional programmer.
The computer isn't free either. And you can always build and distribute without the ID or the certificate. This is just for distribution through the App Store or to users that have it set to only allow signed apps.
The latter is the default. So for other people to use this application I wrote as a minor, my users would have to change the setting.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
This would not have stopped me, but imagine what kind of an ego-boost it is for a 15 years old sufferer of heavy bullying due to overall geekyness to see his home-grown application not just be used by other people but actually getting mentioned in paper publications.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Honestly, without that ego boost when it happened, I don't know where I would stand today, if at all.
But this is my story. I have a feeling that I'm losing objectivity here due to heavy emotional involvement. I'll be quiet in this topic from now on and just turn that switch off for myself, hoping that there will be a switch to turn off in the future.
The latter is the default. So for other people to use this application I wrote as a minor, my users would have to change the setting.
Yeah, but should users configure their systems to the distribution convenience of some developers?
Or should Apple keep signed apps forever away from OS X for the same reason?
Or should they introduce them, but make unsafe apps the default, and thus render them useless for non security minded people?
All of those options seem a little strange to me.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Yes, but consider some other things:
a) nowadays computers are a dime a dozen and more kids have access to them than ever.
b) nowadays there are tons of compilers, programming environments, most of them given away for free and/or open sourced.
c) nowadays a kid can make a web app and reach millions of people worldwide. There are tons of ways to put it up even for free.
d) nowadays there are even kids making iPhone/iPad/Android apps, and some have reached hundreds of thousands of users.
e) the sound/graphics/processing capabilities of modern machines were unheard of in those times.
f) High Level languages like Python/Ruby/Javascript trump anything available at the old times for kids (mostly stuff like Basic, Logo, etc). Especially in the libraries department.
> On the other hand, it stops tons of malware. Signed binaries is considered one of the most successful anti-malware strategies by security experts. Are you saying otherwise?
As you've decided to pick anonymous security experts, I thought I'd chip in. I don't know if I'd call myself an expert but I've over a decade in industry breaking systems, fixing software and booting out bad guys, I'm speaking at BlackHat EU next month and I co-founded a security conference so I guess that means I'm not a complete security chump. I can categorically tell you that signed binaries are only part of a strategy, and not necessarily the best one at that. If your goal is to increase the cost of exploitation then signing can help, but so can a decent access control model (into which signing becomes a part thereof).
To put it another way, it's possible to defeat applocker (windows binary signing), iOS code signing on iOS 5.0.1, the XBox and Xbox 360's code signing restrictions, the PS3's code signing restrictions, and more recently, an analysis of RSA keys showed that between 2 and 4 out of every thousand keys are insecure due to weak randomness[1].
The bottom line is that code signing, like placebos only work if you believe them to unless they're backed up by something more solid to augment them and they form a stronger coherent strategy.
At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store as they know "it's safe". Even though we know it doesn't mean anything[2] to the end user in reality. The real thing that Apple will do is further on the line when they decide to make it so that you can only run signed apps (and this is at least the direction apple are taking) through their app store.
Your edge case point applies to countless open source developers, including those that worked on the original FreeBSD code that went into Darwin. Apple are of course, under the licences they've inheritied allowed to implement code signing, but please don't think this is an anti-malware measure, it isn't. It's about control of distribution. Anyone that wants to bypass code signing on an Apple product will find a way to do it.
"code signing […] only work if […] they're backed up by something more solid to augment them and they form a stronger coherent strategy."
You mean things like sandboxing and blacklisting? Or do you think this is not (an attempt at) a coherent strategy?
"At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store"
It also (even if ever so slightly) decreases the attack surface. It is harder to infect executables if the OS checks the hash of the code every time it is run. Finally, it gives Apple a handle for disabling malware, once it has detected it. That will not prevent malware from infecting systems, but it can make it less likely that machines will keep getting infected for years after the time.
$100 does not stop anyone from realizing their dreams. Teenagers know how to make extra cash. $100 is less than 2 days work at a minimum wage job.
I would much rather have teenagers work to be able to pay $100 to distribute signed applications than make it free for anyone (malware makers) to distribute signed apps.
The trade off isn't even close here. It's free to develop the app, and even distribute it outside of the app store. If you want to go into the app store, you'll need $100, which helps keep software more secure for millions of people.
An Apple ID is indeed free. I've had an Apple ID for downloading Xcode for years now. At the moment the only way to get an app signing key is by purchasing a $99 license (which also gets you publishing privileges in the App Store) but it is extremely likely that in the future getting a signing key will be completely free and will not require a $99 license fee. It won't get you App Store submittal and won't get you publishing on the App Store, but I think that is fair.
Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware.
Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs?
I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling.
I wonder how difficult it will be to get developer IDs. Might be a market for them.
Will be fun to uninstall a developers software from every machine by stealing his cert, releasing some malware signed with it, and then waiting for Apple to push out a revocation cert.
Neither of these will work, because (a) the signing key is per-developer and (b) the entire point is that when your malware is found to be signed with key X, key X is revoked and your software no longer runs. That's the purpose of the system...
And is, again, instantly revokable. It'll be annoying if it's stolen, but you just revoke it, give the company the new one, and update the app in the app store (or your download, if you're not in the store). This is arguably far better than being unknowingly hit by malware.
He's referring to the master key, which will be used to sign the per developer signing keys. If that is stolen, then it will be possible to sign arbitrary signing keys and issue arbitrary revocation certificates.
Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs?
Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was:
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?
The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are signed first. Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
EDIT: After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
> If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this?
Presumably, in order to keep the problem small. If OS X grows in marketshare, it will become an increasingly attractive target for malware developers. If the default is that the majority of Apple users only run signed applications (this also means that the certificate wasn't revoked), then the number of possible "users" for your malware is greatly reduced, making OS X a much less attractive target platform for malware developers.
> After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
If you are a legitimate developer, then there's no reason not to (assuming it actually is free and easy, which isn't clear). As a malware developer, there's little point; as soon as the developer ID is being used for malware, Apple will revoke the corresponding certificate, and your malware won't run.
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?
I don't understand the question. Apple has been improving OS X security mechanisms in every OS X update. From "address space layout randomization" to the "first run warning". This is another step in the same direction.
Are you implying that Apple should only do something about OS X security AFTER malware on OS X get's to be a problem? Because, I'd rather they do it BEFORE.
And I fail to see how pro-actively making an OS more secure is "security theater".
Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
Of course. I miss the irony here. Signed applications are touted by security experts as a highly successful security measure. Are you suggesting it is otherwise or are you just confusing the potential of misuse of that feature with that feature being meaningless?
* After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?*
Yeah, why? Surely not for the $100 it takes.
SSL certificates cost money too, but I don't see anybody suggesting running your web app in plain HTTP is better, or that paid certificates hamper secure web application development.
For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem.
Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?
Third, even if they somehow get through the second caveat above, revocation would just be a step away.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
No, you said that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
As if defending against POSSIBLE FUTURE malware is a "security theater" or a strange notion.
I didn't think I would have to point out that I'm not psychic, and that it was only an opinion/prediction. I will try to be more clear in future.
"Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?"
Sorry. I forgot that identity theft was impossible, and not rampant and easy and used as a matter of course by malware authors.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
Yeah, because it is so off base, right, you writing:
"If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?"
And me translating the above as you saying that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
I was attempting to prompt you into retracting your ridiculous statement about malware not being a problem. I wish I hadn't bothered now. I'll leave you to it.
I was attempting to prompt you into retracting your ridiculous statement about malware not being a problem.
Ridiculous how?
It's perfectly valid, as in: VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FEW OS X users ever had problems with malware. Less that what would be statistical noise. On top of it, all the cases of OS X malware, had been trojans. So, 99.9999% got scratch free, despite not even running any antivirus or anything.
You thought I was talking about malware that exists today. I wasn't. That's why your response made no sense. I was talking about in the future, when malware is installed before revocation certificates are pushed out.
This is why it looked like you were the one that was ignoring the future likelihood of malware on OSX, not me.
Go back to your first comment in this thread, and look at my most recent response to it. Then read my original comment. The problem here is that you simply misunderstood my initial comment, and replied to something which I did not say.
Depending what you call malware - some people feel that an application which silently uploads your address book is functionally equivalent, and there have been plenty of these available on all platforms.
"I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling."
You mistakenly read that as if I wasn't talking about malware that exists today. No. There are two situations:
1.) revocation cert issued before malware installed
2.) malware installed before revocation cert issued
I was talking about situation 2 occurring in N years time. You can tell this by the way I wrote "Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling." Which of course, isn't a feature of any malware that exists today, because the polling method doesn't exist yet.
>you wont get anything like that out of Cupertino.
You do know the core OS, Darwin[0], is open source? See also http://opensource.apple.com/ You may have even heard of a little rendering engine named WebKit that Apple helped create.
I'm wondering if Apple have described the circumstances, apart from the malware scenario, in which they would revoke a developer ID and the associated signing certificate?
Also, do users get the choice to accept a certificate revocation?
It preserves the freedom for developers to ship whatever they want, though I wouldn't say it benefits them.
But it's within the realm of possibility for Apple to start refusing support to users who disable GateKeeper. I would disable it anyway, but how many other users would?
Will someone from Canonical team up with someone like Samsung to create a kick-ass, no hassle Linux laptop with a decent battery life? I've got money I'm dying to give you!
Apple has a top dog and a few bosses. Who exactly will co-ordinate 1,000 OSS projects to give you a hassle free experience?
There ARE ways to make a kick-ass, no hassle Linux OS, even better than OS X and more open (and still open source).
But all of them involve throwing top dollar into it, starting a few projects from scratch, forking a few existing ones and stoping the bazaar-style, design by committee, approach. You should only rely on upstream bazaar-style approach for the userland (like OS X does) and server backend stuff, not for visible UI, no core components, no libraries.
Canonical, and all other Linux companies, always just wanted to act like integrators, instead of creators. Except maybe in a few select areas.
This is a scary preview of Apple's vision of desktop computing (which we all anticipated with the App Store being brought over from the iPhone world to the desktop):
The safest place to find apps for your Mac is the Mac App Store. That’s because the developers who create them are known to Apple, and the apps are carefully reviewed before they’re accepted in the store.
As I've had no reason to upgrade my home PC from 10.6 to 10.7, EOL for 10.6 will probably be when I ditch the Mac and just dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's really amazing how much Apple has changed since the pre-OSX days.
I hope you realize that Debian and Ubuntu and most of the large distros already have this: Known, vetted packages, signed and trusted, distributed through a central database. Frankly, I think it's a great idea. People in general shouldn't be downloading and executing random binaries on their machines. I think it would be great if the major distros also refused to install unsigned binaries without explicitly being told to allow it.
I don't think that's a very good comparison. A project in the Mac world begins and ends its life as a .app. This effort by Apple means that the vast majority of users will only see "approved" software. In the Linux world, most software begins as a .tgz, and earns packagers as it becomes more popular.
There are only a few things really keeping a package out of the main Debain repositories: Being "non-free" (which takes it out of "main"), being clearly malicious, and not attracting enough interest to have a maintainer/packager.
I think we've seen with the iPhone that Apple has very, very different criteria. Further, Debian hosts something in the ballpark of 20,000 packages: I seriously doubt we'll ever see such diversity for the Mac, especially with their developer fees.
The other force driving me away is their refusal to accept GPL3 software. I don't like having to build things myself that every Linux distribution provides so easily.
Well, it's down to who decides that an app is trustworthy. In the open source world, this is done through vetting by the community, whereas in Apple's case they can afford to hire people to do it. I agree that the community approach is likely to be better, but I don't think the Apple approach is inherently evil, just inefficient.
The stated goals of Apple for gatekeeping apps are practically the same as signing packages in the distros: To protect unwary users from installing malicious or broken applications. I think that's a worthy goal.
In Debian and Ubuntu, i can easily add new signing keys for individual people. This way I can ensure all software distributed by ubuntu and from $PERSON is accepted. Can you do likewise with new OSX?
With Debian and Ubuntu, there is no difficulty installing arbitrary unsigned packages, putting your own binaries on and running them, etc. There is a source that the community recommends, but that's all it is -- a recommendation.
That's not the case with OSX, as far as I can tell.
I actually think that the distros should be more aggressive about this, and do what OSX seems to be doing: Don't allow unsigned packages to be installed without a flipped switch. Why? Because anyone who can't figure out how to flip that switch shouldn't be installing unsigned binaries, in my opinion.
In regards to OSX, the argument seems to be that this is a step towards not even having the switch there, and yes, they may be headed that way which is unfortunate. I think that's a mistake that would end up biting them if they tried it, but maybe I'm naive. I still think being more aggressive in only allowing signed binaries by default is a good approach, even for open source systems.
Don't get why parent was down-voted? Seems like legitimate criticism to me: How can they claim the software is "carefully reviewed" to "protect the user" but still allow seemingly dangerous app?
That middle option, the default, is Developer Signed applications. Apple keeps the keyring and can torch the developer's key if they go rogue, but the developer does the signing.
The model essentially matches Debian package distribution.
(And as mentioned by oomkiller, this won't go down to unix, it is just the "application" launching.)
Edit: pilaf's reply got down voted into oblivion. What he suggests is flawed because applications are not in your PATH. But in the spirit, your application could write malware into somewhere on the PATH, and could find an exploit to get the setuid bit turned on. As soon as someone realizes this, Apple should kill your signing key thereby blocking the distribution vector. It will not help in cleaning up the mess. The victim is still looking at an "erase disk, reinstall, restore backup DATA ONLY!" recovery as they should anytime they lose control of a machine.
As a developer and anti-corporatist I think this is a thread to our freedom and will eventually result in the MacAppStore being a giant rip-off for developers.
However, as a son of parents who don't understand the difference between their Apple account and their Google account and call him because a webpage tells them that they have a virus and should download some shady program right now, I can appreciate this security measure.
Nothing surprised me nearly as much as Gatekeeper. A middle ground for security, rather than attempting to further sweep every developer into the App Store? It's impressive to see Apple pursuing a pragmatic balancing act instead of simply staying a course of consolidation.
I hope it'll be $29, because that's near enough to free, and I like the idea that Apple has a financial incentive to continue supporting their existing customers.
Then I will keep using Lion in hope they release a real OS X update sometime in the future for which I would pay play gladly as I've been doing with all the previous updated, because right now Mountain Lion is just a bunch of iOS Apps ported to OS X.
I'm sorry, but IMO the value of this update is $0.
Yes, with the difference that the other OS X updates were not just a bunch of iOS Apps ported to the Mac, that why I paid for them and that's why if Mountain Lion is release with a price tag over $0 I'll keep using Lion (and hopefully this will incentivize Apple to make a real OS X update somewhere in 2013-2014).
The default is the middle one - no unsigned apps, but they don't have to come from the App Store. Apple is going to start offering "Gatekeeper" certificates for non-App Store developers. The idea being that they can revoke a certificate if an app turns out to be malicious.
I'm not sure if this matters or not, but the submitted title calls it "Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion", and 10.8 is indeed the version number I would expect; yet this number is nowhere to be found, neither on Apple's page nor in Gruber's announcement. Instead, it's just called "OS X Mountain Lion" everywhere. I wonder if they dropped the version number, or are downplaying it? But for what reason?
But where is the Mac Touch hardware ? you could see for a while where touch was it and we have these nice laptops and big iMac displays but we will use a mouse ?! I really want my next imac to be a docking station with a tear away tablet
Windows 8 is definately banking having this sort of hardware in laptops and displays being available. You dont do Metro on the desktop unless you think that kind of hardware will be available in some form at launch. Metro with a mouse is hideous, even for Microsoft...
I don't think the technology exists to make large tablets ergonomically feasible. In order for the tablet portion to be light enough to casually pick up and carry around, it would have to be not much larger than an iPad, which is to say, less than half the smallest reasonable screen size for a desktop.
You'd have to either make your operating system work very well with both touch and mouse/trackpad/keyboard (very difficult), treat touch as a gimmick (as with those Windows 7 HP iMac-like things with touch screens), or make touch (which is ergonomically highly problematic on anything but a smallish tablet) the first-class citizen.
-I'd probably pay $30 for the Airplay feature alone.
-I don't know how Apple thinks they can push these web-enabled apps that only work on their platforms. A chat app that basically only lets you interact with Apple customers is kind of comical.
-Gatekeeper won't win over any Apple critics, but it's actually more flexible/open than what a lot of people feared was coming (ie "App Store apps only").
-Notifications and system-wide share buttons are nice touches. I wonder if the share button will be limited to a few Apple-approved services.
Related to this, all my friends and family are already using an Apple product (referring to either iPhone, iPad or a Mac, or all inclusive). Really, everyone I know is. A chat app (and any other) that let me interact with them is perfect.
A chat app that basically only lets you interact with Apple customers is kind of comical. – would be. Thankfully you probably know people with AIM, XMPP, or SMS chat identities. And iChat works with those too.
From the official Apple pages: Messages supports iMessage and instant messaging services such as
AIM, Jabber, Google Talk, and Yahoo! Messenger.
How is the iCloud focus going to effect corporate adoption? If you are a large company can you host your own iCloud service on company resources? Does/will apple provide a sas70 for big corporate users?
No, no one wants that (I hope). Read the Gruber preview and you'll feel more at ease. OS X and iOS are not merging. He describes Mountain Lion as "a series of steps toward defining a set of shared concepts, styles, and principles between two fundamentally distinct OSes."
The ports of iWork and GarageBand felt like that to me. iOS changing from a web-driven OS into something that can be much better compared to a desktop machine.
OS X Safari tabs were added to the iPad version of Safari in iOS 5.
Most of the rest of the features that people are listing don't seem right, like both iOS and OS X have a search called Spotlight but they aren't very similar in UI.
This strikes me as more of a transition period. Eventually mac sales will be controlled completely via the app store and its highly structured sand boxed environment. Gatekeeper allows runtime control. Icloud replaces the local file system. The style guide moves to the ipad side. And in a few years the mac just fades away...
I read the Gruber article too and I'm not totally at ease yet. In terms or UI I don't mind the new look of things but I do worry about things like iCloud. It's a really excellent idea but I'm not sure if I want my file system in the cloud. Not for security but just for control. I've been in love with the Mac for over five years now and I'm starting to worry. What if I want a different cloud file system other than iCloud? What if I want no cloud file system? Sure, right now it's no problem but what about the future?
It's no secret that Apple is basically creating a hardware software empire where everything from the physical computer to the peripherals to the software and even web services are all Apple. I've been fine with that because the Mac never tried to force things on me. I've always had the option to use a different email client, Dropbox, music player, etc. without any trouble but I'm afraid Apple will move OS X in the direction of Windows where the OS assumes you're going to use its preferred software and services and if you don't it either makes it a hassle to use alternatives or it continuously throws up those annoying notifications.
All that aside, I'm most afraid for how friendly it will be to developers. Snow Leopard was the last OS X that was perfect for me as a developer. In Lion I have to deal with things like LLVM as the default compiler outdated command line tools, some Ruby gems give me problems, the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I know that developers and power users are in the minority and that for average folks who are all about media and entertainment with a little work thrown in Mountain Lion will be aweso,e out of the box. I'm glad they're making such an awesome system for those people but I feel like they're leaving developers out and not even giving us a way to switch off some of those default behaviors.
I'm only 25 but I feel like I sound like the old guy who thinks things were better "back in the old days". Maybe I am just resisting a good thing and I hope I learn to love it.
I believe your concerns are completely warranted. Lion was a a significant step in the wrong direction, and this sounds like an enthusiastic leap along the same unfortunate lines.
Sort of tangental, but I know the command line tools are not GNU but are they otherwise outdated? I used to install various GNU coreutils packages but decided they weren't really adding anything and in some cases (ls) they were removing functionality.
> the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I don't believe that is true, unless you're having problems with a specific editor?
Last time they took inspiration from iOS we ended up with "Launchpad", an inverted scroll-wheel, and the god-awful "restart all applications after reboot"-nuisance that cannot be fully disabled.
Yes, because then they don't all start at once, fight for RAM and swap around while leaving my computer a useless lagging mess when I just want to open a browser. It's probably okay in some cases, but it shouldn't be the default. Instead of prompting before shutdown, it could display a dialog on boot with a list of applications that had been running. Click on one to restore it, and have a "Restore All" option at the bottom.
I noticed on my old MacBook there was a considerable delay relaunching apps, but with my new one, between more RAM and the SSD it's pretty instantaneous, as is the restart itself. I was always careful about quitting apps to free up RAM on the old machine though, but just relaunching Chrome and bringing all my tabs back up was enough to do the same thing.
This is a much smaller burden to me than having to wait for OSX to launch all sorts of random apps after every single reboot. Most of which I simply close right away anyway because there's no point in having them clutter my screen until I actually need them again.
Or when you need to restart the machine because of a low-level software update... or because something has gone wrong with the software or the hardware.
Interesting. When I want to quit applications, I quit applications. When I'm done running the machine for awhile, I sleep it. I only ever reboot because of software update anymore.
There are better solutions than restarting applications in that case -- specifically, c/r solutions aren't too hard, and require no work from app developers to support.
Well, to add insult to injury, resume plain out doesn't work as soon as you leave the beaten path ever so slightly.
I.e. I really don't need iTerm to resume because it can't restore my sessions anyway. And even most regular apps fail to resume for me because almost all of my files are on a network share that OSX fails to auto-mount.
I would love it if it restored things to the proper desktop. When it actually matters (i.e.: you have multiple desktops setup with different browsers for different purposes, making re-opening them all in the proper place a pain) it is useless.
It's not change but in the case of Launchpad poor implementation. No control over what gets added without a 3rd party utility, no admin interface for serious arranging and even if you do wipe the database and manually add icons, it still winds up reseting once you install an application after the fact. Try installing Adobe CS to see how badly messed up it can get.
I wonder if this is a glimpse of what it's like to not have SJ being around to say "this is shit!" and make them do it better.
On inverted scroll, it's great until you have to use someone else's mac or a PC then it just gets painful.
For the record, neither the iPhone nor the iPad restarts applications after reboot; the only applications that are started when the device boots are MobilePhone, sometimes MobileMail, and any app marked with "run in the background" permissions that explicitly request it for scenarios such as VoIP (e.g. Skype, so it can sign in to the service on boot).
Launchpad is great and the scrolling behavior makes total sense. We also got fullscreen mode, which is the first multiple desktop like thing I've ever gotten used to using (even after years of using Linux, where I could never make use of virtual desktops because I couldn't remember what windows had gone where). The iPad-inspired improvements in Lion were probably the biggest jump in my desktop productivity since I got a Mac to begin with (around 10.4).
Yeah. I fiercely admire Apple for having the balls to fix what was obviously backwards but heavily entrenched in the minds of the public. They almost always do the Right Thing.
It's not just your girlfriend's computer that will be a problem for you -- it's _any_ other computer.
Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Apple to do this. I find it very un-intuitive. Even if the design of the way windows scroll was ultimately an arbitrary decision, it's ingrained now. I think it was silly to change it.
What's un-intuitive about it? On touchscreen—you move your finger up, content moves up. On Lion—you move your finger up, content moves up. Took me 40 minutes to get used.
1) When I started on mac it was targeted at (mostly) professionals in desktop publishing etc. So it was more B2B than B2C. I accept that this has been changing for a long time already, probably since OSX. Now I am a consumer, that's my point.
2) Nothing. But now I'm buying a consumer product to do my work. It's like Iron Maiden using Garageband, or Philip Halsman using Instagram. (not that I would compare myself to them, but you get the idea)
It feels to me like the problem people have here is pretty much all in the marketing. You still have all the features and more from when you considered it a creative professionals machine, it's just the feel imparted by the focus and marketing is different.
it's even more than that. they made (are making) the tools so accessible to everyone, that what was once considered a craft (fine tuning a $50,000 recording desk) has now been reduced to a few settings on an $800 laptop.
That's just way of the world, I'm not complaining, it's great to get these creative tools to as many people as possible. But my original point still stands.
Of course you still have to have a tallent to make anything of these tools, no matter how point-and-click they are, even so they're robbing me of that feeling of achievement and pride that I had in being able to handle a tool that not many could... and yes, I'm aware that I'm beginning to sound like an old man.
1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
Anybody reading this page is likely to be told they aren't a "consumer." I was having that problem with Ubuntu Linux, for goodness' sake, though in Linux they call it a "Real Person(tm)" instead of a consumer. As in, "Of course XYZ doesn't work out of the box if you run an alternative window manager, because a Real Person doesn't run alternative window managers, and Ubuntu is for Real People."
Based on that, I think it's a valid concern that in focusing on "consumers" or "normal people" or however you want to put it, Apple might fail to take care of the artists, designers, and musicians who have historically been a strong part of its user base. One consistent goal for the Mac has been to be a computer for people who don't want to learn how to use their computer. That could be interpreted to exclude designers, artists, musicians, and so on, because they use very sophisticated software tools with steep learning curves. It would be very easy to lose sight of the distinction between people who enjoy having a sophisticated understanding of their computer (nerrrrds! not a high value or high prestige market) and people who have to use sophisticated software to get their work done (artists, designers, directors, musicians -- a high prestige, trendsetting market.)
> 1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
For me the distinction is this. If a feature is being taken from a consumer (e.g., me as a consumer), I say bummer and find a new hobby. No Apple remote and Front Row anymore? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
If I use a feature in a professional workflow and it disappears, then I want at the very least a big fat warning before upgrading, but it'd be better if nothing disappeared altogether; or alternatively, if I could stay on the older version.
The current trend with Apple is to radically drop features that are only used by <n% of users and to always require the latest OS for everything. You cannot sync contacts off a 32-bit Mac anymore because MobileMe is running out and Lion/iCloud is 64-bit only. And on my 64-bit machine, I only found out that iSync was gone after I upgraded and held a (replacement) dumbphone in my hand.
Or look at OS X server, which I am happy I didn't buy. The reviews on the MAS are devastating and I was wondering if it would ever rise from beta software quality. If you relied on OS X server, well joke's on you.
That said, I think 10.8 in particular is only 10.7 with lipstick to directly compete against Windows 8. (Notice even the version numbers?) But 10.7 did cause lots of damage.
I'm not happy with the way things are headed either and you make some good points but I think you were out of line with the version number comment. Apple isn't trying to compete with Windows, at least not in the way you're implying. They're a whole different animal and they're setting the pace for everyone else, not the other way around. In any case, as far as version numbers go, OS X jumps one full decimal with each major release. Mountain Lion being 10.8 is not marketing (if it is it has nothing to do with windows) its pure coincidence. If anything Windows is using version numbers for marketing purposes. Win7 came out when OS X 10.7 was out and if I'm not mistaken, Windows is actually at version 6.2 if I remember right. If you don't believe me then open up a DOS prompt and ask it yourself.
So you think OS X server and iSync that I just mentioned were peanuts? Keychain syncing? Xcode is a mess too, Xcode3 is barely supported on 10.7 and breaks when you upgrade your device, and Xcode4 is not backwards compatible with anything.
OSX Server gained a simple user interface mode but otherwise is basically the same thing and now it's only $50. Just install the Server Admin package. It's exactly the same as 10.6 You can do HTTPD, VPN, POP/IMAP mail server, net boot, software update server, DNS, DHCP, etc. From what I can tell all the same functionality is there. Maybe there are some small things missing?
iSync is a relic of a bygone era that hasn't seen any updates in many years. There are better tools available like The Missing Sync. This company focuses on making a really good tool for the small number of people who need it. Apple can't cater to every niche. If they can't do it right they shouldn't do it at all IMO.
Keychain syncing is one thing I would agree on. I found it very useful. I suspect it will be coming back in the future. Apple may not have been totally comfortable with managing the keychains of 100 million people quite yet.
I don't think these changes have anything to do with iOS-ification or whatever. They were going to happen either way.
OS X server was definitely peanuts: they never took it seriously as a product and it's an expensive area to be in. The “support“ process was basically gated by you telling your Apple rep how many Macs you couldn't buy until a bug was fixed.
Put another way, in 2009 at MacWorld there was unanimous consent among my fellow IT track speakers that anyone with non-trivial needs should be using Linux servers for Mac clients, due entirely to the obvious low priority of the server product. Making it a $50 app store add-on is the first step in simply acknowledging that Apple is really a consumer product company and unwilling to devote the significant resources needed to stay competitive in the traditional IT market.
Why is it that a consumer product can not also be a workhorse?
I have been running Lion and do not feel that it makes my computer less of a workhorse. I dont think that ML will make it less of a workhorse. I see this update as adding a bunch of stuff, some of which will be useful to developers, and not removing anything that made me fall in love with my Mac as a dev platform.
As a non-Mac-user, I've always had the impression (from Apple and the general public) that Macs are consumer-oriented devices (or at least non-corporate machines). The only significant impact they've had in business in my view is for creative professionals like yourself, and only because for a while Adobe tools worked better on Mac (which may or may not be the case anymore).
Schools used Macs because they were cheap (for the schools). Creatives used Macs because the tools were better. 99% of the other Mac users used Macs because it was more consumer friendly than the business-oriented Windows. Apple has never been in the business of catering to business.
You're not. The continuing IOSification of OSX is something that has been bugging me too and part of why, to date, I've yet to upgrade to Lion. It looks like Apple wants to create a more iOS-like approach across all its products, which is fine if you buy into the whole ecosystem.
It also seems there's a trend here, with Apple bringing iOS increasingly into OSX and Microsoft bringing Windows Phone into Windows 8, the only operating systems which still are aimed primarily at computer users are Unix or Linux based.
I have yet to use Lion, so I cannot comment if the iOS metaphor suits the personal computer, but I am all for the vendors trying something new. The desktop metaphor has been used for multiple decades now, with very little variation. While it has proven to work well, is it the best we can do, or are we stuck with baby duck syndrome?
98% of the time for me at least Lion remains near identical to previous OS X versions from a UI perspective (with the exception of full screen which was just a glaring omission from all previous version IMHO).
The "Back to the Mac" line might be good marketing but massive over sell if viewed as literal truth. What they did was identify a few holes in the UI (for instance that you might not have every application you wanted in your dock but that going through your applications folder was a pain) and fill them with iOS-ish solutions.
But if you don't want them, you don't use them, they've not taken any of the old stuff away.
Why in the hell would navigating a bunch of sequential screens full of huge icons be less of a pain than an applications folder? Thank god for application launchers in any case.
And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows. This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
> Why in the hell would navigating a bunch of sequential screens full of huge icons be less of a pain than an applications folder? Thank god for application launchers in any case.
Because you can organise them, group related stuff together and so on as opposed to having a single long list. I admit that I don't really use it (I prefer stacks in the dock) but it's better than the application folder.
> And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows.
Fair enough, I didn't really use Spaces previously so I'd not noticed the changes, though I'm not sure what you mean about the fade in. Mine transitions very quickly between spaces with no fade in.
> This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
Can you explain this? Simple and intuitive are good. How is that stupid.
This worries me too, and I hope it doesn't go too far. However I am using Lion and in general I don't really notice it in this OS.
In fact, other than the reverse scrolling behaviour (which would be easy to revert if I cared) I rarely notice any difference in behaviour between my Lion laptop and my girlfriend's Snow Leopard laptop.
At the end of the day, the Mac is still the developer platform for iOS Apple has been really good to Mac developers, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon (it is totally against their interest in having a great apps ecosystem on iOS).
Lion is great. Swiping between full-screen desktops is a huge productivity boost. Touchpad gestures instead of hotkeys to bring up Expose is awesome. Yes it's iOS-ified, but it takes the good things from iOS that fit naturally with the touchpad.
At the same time, the UNIX guts of OS X keep getting better. Grand Central is an awesome API that you can use from C. 64-bit support is almost seamless. You can swipe just fine between full-screen terminal windows. Xcode keeps getting less shitty, LLVM and LLDB keep getting better. Objective-C keeps seeing feature and performance improvements. The API's keep being improved.
People are afraid that the gains for iOS means losses for OS X, but all I've seen so far are gains for OS X, largely focused on revamping the UI to take full advantage of the multi-touch capabilities of modern Mac hardware.
Are you kidding? XCode 4 is one of the most unstable pieces of software that Apple has ever released. It crashes all the time and is borderline unacceptable as an IDE.
Tim Cook said the other day that the iPad is helping the Mac gain marketshare. That tagline is telling all of the iOS users. You liked your phone? Why not try a computer that integrates with it perfectly.
I feel the same way. But what in Mountain Lion sounds anything like that?
All I see is popular out-of-the-box iOS apps/features being brought to the out-of-the-box OS X experience.
What power users don't already have growl, dropbox, a dedicated notes app, a dedicated reminders app, an integrated chat client, etc?
These Mountain Lion features are only iOS-like inasmuch as iOS had them out-of-the_box, while OS X users looked to third parties to provide them. If you ask me, Mountain Lion sounds like a more reasoned approach to "bring what works about iOS to OS X" than misfires like "Mission Control".
Exactly. Apple isn't trying to replace OSX with iOS. If anything, they want the two to talk to each other better. And, perhaps OSX could benefit from some of what they've learned developing UIs for the iPad.
No your not. I want my stuff to sync without issues like my notes, contacts, mail but I don't want my laptop/desktop to feel like my phone. Example: Launch pad, is anyone really using this?
Nope, and you don't have to. But for those users that are new to the platform (and I have watched quite a few) it makes them feel at home. They instantly know where to look for their apps, they can re-arrange them however they like. It is not for those of us who grew up on Mac OS, then Mac OS X, Linux and Windows, it is for those that have had an iPad or an iPhone and know there is a single location (home) where all your apps are. Launchpad fits that bill nicely.
I've been using OS X for years as my main OS, and I do occasionally use launchpad. I've got a boatload of stuff installed and I don't always remember what I have. Launchpad provides a nice way of viewing all the apps.
I don't use it everytime I launch somthing (I use alfred for that), but to refresh my memory every now and then.
It doesn't work exactly like I would like it too, but it's not bad, and it's very out of the way if you don't like it.
I use it. Sometimes I actually forgot what apps I have installed or forget the names of them if I don't use them frequently. If my hand is already on the trackpad I just have to pinch in and there they are. Quicker than going to the Applications folder.
I never use Launchpad, but I'm glad it's there since I've always had trouble explaining the Applications folder vs the Dock to people, and Launchpad solves that very nicely for non-technical people (especially ones with iPhones/iPads).
I actually like the idea of it being both (and and ipad becoming a desktop) Launchpad for ipad like utility, the normal desktop for desktop things, have both on both systems. Lets be honest here, we are moving away from a central computing device model, to a model with many peripheral devices. I'd like it if they all acted the same, and were capable of displaying the same content, as well as providing the same ability to create.
Is there any specific reasons you wouldn't want AirPlay, Notes/Reminders/Messages, notifications, etc? It seems to me those are all very good features to add to OSX that happened to debut on iOS first.
You might want to move away from Mac's then. For some reason that's where it's all heading. By the end of 2012 you will be squeezing and swyping all over your 27" screen.
Am I the only one afraid of upgrading my Mac in fear of breaking my Ruby gems, MySQL drivers, C libraries, ImageMagick, environment variables, iOS libraries, provisioning certificates, etc?
iCloud document storage and Notification Center. Both of these are slated only for third-party apps from the Mac App Store. Many developers, though, have been maintaining non-Mac App Store versions of their apps. If this continues, such apps are going to lose feature parity between the App Store and non-App Store versions.
This will affect software from companies such as Adobe where custom installers are necessary and/or the economics of taking a 30% App Store hit is not necessary when they can already reach their customer base. The move strikes me as anti competitive.
According to the screenshots, the spotlight icon is no longer on the top right, getting shuffled over to the left by presumably a new icon to invoke notification center.
That's a really bad choice. The corners are the click targets fastest to reach (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fittss_law ), and demoting searching in favor of 'reading messages that have popped up before' doesn't strike me as quite well-balanced.
It looks like the two fingers have to come in from the right side of the scroll area (like pulling down on the top of the screen--the right side in this case), so it's distinct from the other meanings.
372 comments
[ 21.7 ms ] story [ 1022 ms ] threadBy the time I _do_ upgrade I'm in for some future shock: like dropping a Victorian gentleman into Haight-Ashbury in 1968.
I first glance, the main (in fact only) feature seems to be porting several iOS apps and features (notes, reminders, game center, etc.) to Mac OS X, and syncing everything together with iCloud.
There is also a Growl clone. Surprised this took so long. Then again, I personally don't like Growl, so I hope nothing depends on it being turned on.
I notice that, so far, there doesn't seem to be any new 'technologies', just (mainly) ports of iOS apps.
Looks very ho hum to me, but then again I have an android phone, so iOS syncing doesn't really interest me.
It seems that Apple adopted a similar model as Notifications Center on iOS in that you can decide on a per-app basis what they can do: banner, badge, sound… See this MacWorld's screenshot: http://images.macworld.com/images/article/2012/02/notificati...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/features.html
One of the more interesting bits is at the - they're supporting a bunch of China specific services.
*It’s a new Mac experience in China. OS X Mountain Lion brings all-new support for many popular Chinese services. And they’re easy to set up. Mail, Contacts, and Calendar work with QQ, 163, and 126. Baidu, the leading Chinese search provider, is a built-in option in Safari. The video-sharing websites Youku and Tudou are included in the new Share Sheets, so users in China can easily post videos to the web. They can also blog with Sina weibo, the popular microblogging service. And with improved text input, typing in Chinese is easier, faster, and more accurate."
I hope that could be decoupled, making life easier for application authors: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_l...
E.g. growl does system wide notifications, but it's not built-in, and Apple like to control these things so they may more easily interface them with other Apple devices. (E.g. Apple could very easily make their Apple TV notify the user's iPhone when a new TV episode has been downloaded, or even schedule it onto their Mac.)
With that in mind Apple have a history of meshing the experiences across their devices, the messages app is a recent example.
One of these years Apple is going to discontinue carbon API support and go 64-bit only. I doubt this release is it, but those kinds of under-the-hood features are not the kinds of things that you would talk about at this point. We'll learn more at WWDC.
The benefits might not be apparent immediately, but they'll start showing up in apps written to take advantage of 10.8's features. Some improvements in the frameworks will effect existing apps that use those frameworks.
It's still possible to turn this off, but I have a feeling that we should enjoy our freedom to run GNU grep instead of BSD grep for as long as it lasts.
My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion:
The default for this setting is, I say, exactly right: the one in the middle, disallowing only unsigned apps. This default setting benefits users by increasing practical security, and also benefits developers, preserving the freedom to ship whatever software they want for the Mac, with no approval process.When I was 15 I wrote a Taskbar dialer for Windows 9x and later NT (this was in the modem days. Of course I haven't updated it in ages and the only reason my old webpage is still there is because I found it by accident in an old backup, but here is a google search for it: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask).
I published that on the various download pages and it was good enough to even be featured in dead-tree publications.
Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
With this rule in place I would never have been able to publish that dialer. I would never have felt how it is to make something that others can use and find useful. I would never have ended up where I am today.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
I might be an old fart, but this is far from acceptable.
Yes but things change. Old fart or not, you're into technology, we all have to realize things change!
You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did.
And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher.
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
I would be much happier (to the effect of actually seeing more good than bad in this restriction) if getting that ID was a matter of filling out a form an passing a turing test - so, for example, if any apple ID could be used to get a signing certificate, that would be much better.
(edit: this is not about the money. It's about they way of payment (minors don't have credit cards) and the required paperwork that, among other things, require you to be an adult)
Personally I'd like to see the price on Developer licenses dropped and made free for full time or part time students. I think it would make commercial and PR sense for Apple too - show that they are developer friendly and make the Mac attractive as the machine of choice for the next generation of programmers (who will then also be a shoe in on coding iOS apps).
It's also interesting that Apple is using the word "the _new_ Developer ID" in their developer site[1].
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/
They reason the have the fee is to keep out people who aren't serious about development. If they didn't have it for example the forums would be overrun with people who just signed up to get the latest OS beta complaining about bugs (this is already a problem at $99).
People can still develop and distribute apps without ever signing up with Apple. This restriction is a good protection step for users imo.
As a rule the people who act like arseholes have at least as much money as those who don't, I don't think it's going to put them off.
I agree a nominal fee is reasonable as it puts another barrier in their way (you can check for duplicate memberships off the same card for instance so they have to get multiple cards) but the actual financial amount isn't a major barrier I don't think.
I don't see why Apple don't invite the developers of high-ranking iOS apps to an early-access program in order to keep their best apps up to date, and not invite anybody else to the beta.
Because every publisher, not just the "blessed" ones, has software in the store that could be negatively impacted by a new iOS release's changed APIs. And every publisher has potential use cases for new features Apple adds in a new iOS revision.
Apple ships major iOS releases at the same time as shipping the newest iOS device. They want a customer to unwrap their new device and have free roam of the store to download/buy as much as they can. They want the software to use the new features in iOS and they don't want their customers downloading crap that is broken.
And as a developer who isn't even close to "high-ranking" (My one paid iOS app maybe pulls in $50 on a good month) it's still not fair to me for someone to one-star my app and say "doesn't work on iOS 6" even when I've had no chance to test it before general release.
Charging $100 just to be capricious is not a good move and is certainly not a good omen for OS 10.9 "Tabby" wherein you can be almost certain they will remove the option to run unsigned software (for your own protection, of course! You don't want to pay Apple $100? What are you, poor? The computer cost $1000! $generic_strawman_argument!)
If you develop an app with the purpose of selling it on the Mac App Store for profit $100 should not be a problem for you.
If you want to distribute it yourself, go ahead. Apple is not charging you.
The need for a non-default security setting in order to run the software is a pretty big difference.
Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings - thereby allowing Apple to unilaterally delete your application from your customer's computers without recourse - may only raise the bar a bit.
However, it is an entirely different development ecosystem from the one described. Microsoft couldn't delete your application or block customer's access to it arbitrarily back in the 90's.
If iOS is a precedent, the probability of Apple changing the terms of service in regards to their developer agreement in ways which have adverse effects on the saleability and distribution of existing applications is significant.
Gruber's article says signing will be free. No paid developer program membership required.
The computer isn't free either. And you can always build and distribute without the ID or the certificate. This is just for distribution through the App Store or to users that have it set to only allow signed apps.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
"No" to the last question, maybe. On the other hand, it stops tons of malware. Signed binaries is considered one of the most successful anti-malware strategies by security experts. Are you saying otherwise?
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
You present an edge case ("I need to build and distribute my software to OS X users AND I want those users to not only allow signed apps BECAUSE I can't fork $100 dollars for a developer certificate").
If that kind of thing discourages you from "getting to the career of your dreams" what to say about the hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of toil needed to become a doctor, a lawyer, not to mention the hard learning needed to become a professional programmer.
The latter is the default. So for other people to use this application I wrote as a minor, my users would have to change the setting.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
This would not have stopped me, but imagine what kind of an ego-boost it is for a 15 years old sufferer of heavy bullying due to overall geekyness to see his home-grown application not just be used by other people but actually getting mentioned in paper publications.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Honestly, without that ego boost when it happened, I don't know where I would stand today, if at all.
But this is my story. I have a feeling that I'm losing objectivity here due to heavy emotional involvement. I'll be quiet in this topic from now on and just turn that switch off for myself, hoping that there will be a switch to turn off in the future.
Yeah, but should users configure their systems to the distribution convenience of some developers?
Or should Apple keep signed apps forever away from OS X for the same reason?
Or should they introduce them, but make unsafe apps the default, and thus render them useless for non security minded people?
All of those options seem a little strange to me.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Yes, but consider some other things:
a) nowadays computers are a dime a dozen and more kids have access to them than ever.
b) nowadays there are tons of compilers, programming environments, most of them given away for free and/or open sourced.
c) nowadays a kid can make a web app and reach millions of people worldwide. There are tons of ways to put it up even for free.
d) nowadays there are even kids making iPhone/iPad/Android apps, and some have reached hundreds of thousands of users.
e) the sound/graphics/processing capabilities of modern machines were unheard of in those times.
f) High Level languages like Python/Ruby/Javascript trump anything available at the old times for kids (mostly stuff like Basic, Logo, etc). Especially in the libraries department.
As you've decided to pick anonymous security experts, I thought I'd chip in. I don't know if I'd call myself an expert but I've over a decade in industry breaking systems, fixing software and booting out bad guys, I'm speaking at BlackHat EU next month and I co-founded a security conference so I guess that means I'm not a complete security chump. I can categorically tell you that signed binaries are only part of a strategy, and not necessarily the best one at that. If your goal is to increase the cost of exploitation then signing can help, but so can a decent access control model (into which signing becomes a part thereof).
To put it another way, it's possible to defeat applocker (windows binary signing), iOS code signing on iOS 5.0.1, the XBox and Xbox 360's code signing restrictions, the PS3's code signing restrictions, and more recently, an analysis of RSA keys showed that between 2 and 4 out of every thousand keys are insecure due to weak randomness[1].
The bottom line is that code signing, like placebos only work if you believe them to unless they're backed up by something more solid to augment them and they form a stronger coherent strategy.
At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store as they know "it's safe". Even though we know it doesn't mean anything[2] to the end user in reality. The real thing that Apple will do is further on the line when they decide to make it so that you can only run signed apps (and this is at least the direction apple are taking) through their app store.
Your edge case point applies to countless open source developers, including those that worked on the original FreeBSD code that went into Darwin. Apple are of course, under the licences they've inheritied allowed to implement code signing, but please don't think this is an anti-malware measure, it isn't. It's about control of distribution. Anyone that wants to bypass code signing on an Apple product will find a way to do it.
[1] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/crypto_security/ [2] - http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/02/15/what-ios-apps-are-g...
You mean things like sandboxing and blacklisting? Or do you think this is not (an attempt at) a coherent strategy?
"At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store"
It also (even if ever so slightly) decreases the attack surface. It is harder to infect executables if the OS checks the hash of the code every time it is run. Finally, it gives Apple a handle for disabling malware, once it has detected it. That will not prevent malware from infecting systems, but it can make it less likely that machines will keep getting infected for years after the time.
I would much rather have teenagers work to be able to pay $100 to distribute signed applications than make it free for anyone (malware makers) to distribute signed apps.
The trade off isn't even close here. It's free to develop the app, and even distribute it outside of the app store. If you want to go into the app store, you'll need $100, which helps keep software more secure for millions of people.
Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs?
I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling.
I wonder how difficult it will be to get developer IDs. Might be a market for them.
Will be fun to uninstall a developers software from every machine by stealing his cert, releasing some malware signed with it, and then waiting for Apple to push out a revocation cert.
Or, the signing key will be stolen, like it always is.
I'd wager that blackhats around the world are currently tendering to cartels for this contract as we speak.
Yeah, that.
Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was:
a) a trojan (you had to install it yourself)
and
b) only affected like 10 users
The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are signed first. Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
EDIT: After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
Presumably, in order to keep the problem small. If OS X grows in marketshare, it will become an increasingly attractive target for malware developers. If the default is that the majority of Apple users only run signed applications (this also means that the certificate wasn't revoked), then the number of possible "users" for your malware is greatly reduced, making OS X a much less attractive target platform for malware developers.
> After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
If you are a legitimate developer, then there's no reason not to (assuming it actually is free and easy, which isn't clear). As a malware developer, there's little point; as soon as the developer ID is being used for malware, Apple will revoke the corresponding certificate, and your malware won't run.
I don't understand the question. Apple has been improving OS X security mechanisms in every OS X update. From "address space layout randomization" to the "first run warning". This is another step in the same direction.
Are you implying that Apple should only do something about OS X security AFTER malware on OS X get's to be a problem? Because, I'd rather they do it BEFORE.
And I fail to see how pro-actively making an OS more secure is "security theater".
Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
Of course. I miss the irony here. Signed applications are touted by security experts as a highly successful security measure. Are you suggesting it is otherwise or are you just confusing the potential of misuse of that feature with that feature being meaningless?
* After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?*
Yeah, why? Surely not for the $100 it takes.
SSL certificates cost money too, but I don't see anybody suggesting running your web app in plain HTTP is better, or that paid certificates hamper secure web application development.
You then replied by being sarcastic about how malware isn't really a problem.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
Now you're ranting about how malware could become a problem as if this is somehow news to me.
I'm sure you had a point.
No, you stated what you THINK they will do.
For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem.
Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?
Third, even if they somehow get through the second caveat above, revocation would just be a step away.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
No, you said that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
As if defending against POSSIBLE FUTURE malware is a "security theater" or a strange notion.
I didn't think I would have to point out that I'm not psychic, and that it was only an opinion/prediction. I will try to be more clear in future.
"Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?"
Sorry. I forgot that identity theft was impossible, and not rampant and easy and used as a matter of course by malware authors.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
Yeah, because it is so off base, right, you writing:
"If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?"
And me translating the above as you saying that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
Ridiculous how?
It's perfectly valid, as in: VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FEW OS X users ever had problems with malware. Less that what would be statistical noise. On top of it, all the cases of OS X malware, had been trojans. So, 99.9999% got scratch free, despite not even running any antivirus or anything.
So, an ACTUAL, EXISTING problem, it is NOT.
Now, a POSSIBLE, FUTURE problem, yeah, it can be.
This is why it looked like you were the one that was ignoring the future likelihood of malware on OSX, not me.
Go back to your first comment in this thread, and look at my most recent response to it. Then read my original comment. The problem here is that you simply misunderstood my initial comment, and replied to something which I did not say.
Because they're not thinking about their current problems, they're thinking about their upcoming problems.
"I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling."
You mistakenly read that as if I wasn't talking about malware that exists today. No. There are two situations:
I was talking about situation 2 occurring in N years time. You can tell this by the way I wrote "Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling." Which of course, isn't a feature of any malware that exists today, because the polling method doesn't exist yet.Read what the world's biggest Mac-shill has to say to defend the world's least open company and biggest patent-troll?
Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll go for something open and free, and you wont get anything like that out of Cupertino.
You do know the core OS, Darwin[0], is open source? See also http://opensource.apple.com/ You may have even heard of a little rendering engine named WebKit that Apple helped create.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Also, do users get the choice to accept a certificate revocation?
But it's within the realm of possibility for Apple to start refusing support to users who disable GateKeeper. I would disable it anyway, but how many other users would?
There ARE ways to make a kick-ass, no hassle Linux OS, even better than OS X and more open (and still open source).
But all of them involve throwing top dollar into it, starting a few projects from scratch, forking a few existing ones and stoping the bazaar-style, design by committee, approach. You should only rely on upstream bazaar-style approach for the userland (like OS X does) and server backend stuff, not for visible UI, no core components, no libraries.
Canonical, and all other Linux companies, always just wanted to act like integrators, instead of creators. Except maybe in a few select areas.
The safest place to find apps for your Mac is the Mac App Store. That’s because the developers who create them are known to Apple, and the apps are carefully reviewed before they’re accepted in the store.
As I've had no reason to upgrade my home PC from 10.6 to 10.7, EOL for 10.6 will probably be when I ditch the Mac and just dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's really amazing how much Apple has changed since the pre-OSX days.
There are only a few things really keeping a package out of the main Debain repositories: Being "non-free" (which takes it out of "main"), being clearly malicious, and not attracting enough interest to have a maintainer/packager.
I think we've seen with the iPhone that Apple has very, very different criteria. Further, Debian hosts something in the ballpark of 20,000 packages: I seriously doubt we'll ever see such diversity for the Mac, especially with their developer fees.
The other force driving me away is their refusal to accept GPL3 software. I don't like having to build things myself that every Linux distribution provides so easily.
The stated goals of Apple for gatekeeping apps are practically the same as signing packages in the distros: To protect unwary users from installing malicious or broken applications. I think that's a worthy goal.
But _normal_ users, that is not-very-technical people using Linux as a desktop, _never_ see that tgz. They wouldn't even know how to install it.
That's not the case with OSX, as far as I can tell.
In regards to OSX, the argument seems to be that this is a step towards not even having the switch there, and yes, they may be headed that way which is unfortunate. I think that's a mistake that would end up biting them if they tried it, but maybe I'm naive. I still think being more aggressive in only allowing signed binaries by default is a good approach, even for open source systems.
Changing a single setting in the Preferences app (once!) is "difficult" now?
Defaults matter. Non-technical users don't know about this computer magic.
Carefully reviewed to ensure they don't upload your whole address book.
The model essentially matches Debian package distribution.
(And as mentioned by oomkiller, this won't go down to unix, it is just the "application" launching.)
Edit: pilaf's reply got down voted into oblivion. What he suggests is flawed because applications are not in your PATH. But in the spirit, your application could write malware into somewhere on the PATH, and could find an exploit to get the setuid bit turned on. As soon as someone realizes this, Apple should kill your signing key thereby blocking the distribution vector. It will not help in cleaning up the mess. The victim is still looking at an "erase disk, reinstall, restore backup DATA ONLY!" recovery as they should anytime they lose control of a machine.
I'm sorry, but IMO the value of this update is $0.
It will cost $29
Side note: panthers are technically black leopards or jaguars.
Windows 8 is definately banking having this sort of hardware in laptops and displays being available. You dont do Metro on the desktop unless you think that kind of hardware will be available in some form at launch. Metro with a mouse is hideous, even for Microsoft...
From the official Apple pages: Messages supports iMessage and instant messaging services such as AIM, Jabber, Google Talk, and Yahoo! Messenger.
Ehm, it's iChat linked to iMessage. It still supports chatting over gmail, yahoo etc.
Direct link =)
Am I the only person that doesn't want an ipad on the desktop?
http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/mountain_lion
It seems to me that contrary to Gruber's claim, OSX is moving towards iOS and iOS is moving towards its competition.
Oh, not much--just the whole kernel, userland, graphics layer, and half of the Cocoa API.
EDIT: Also, Spotlight.
Most of the rest of the features that people are listing don't seem right, like both iOS and OS X have a search called Spotlight but they aren't very similar in UI.
It's no secret that Apple is basically creating a hardware software empire where everything from the physical computer to the peripherals to the software and even web services are all Apple. I've been fine with that because the Mac never tried to force things on me. I've always had the option to use a different email client, Dropbox, music player, etc. without any trouble but I'm afraid Apple will move OS X in the direction of Windows where the OS assumes you're going to use its preferred software and services and if you don't it either makes it a hassle to use alternatives or it continuously throws up those annoying notifications.
All that aside, I'm most afraid for how friendly it will be to developers. Snow Leopard was the last OS X that was perfect for me as a developer. In Lion I have to deal with things like LLVM as the default compiler outdated command line tools, some Ruby gems give me problems, the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I know that developers and power users are in the minority and that for average folks who are all about media and entertainment with a little work thrown in Mountain Lion will be aweso,e out of the box. I'm glad they're making such an awesome system for those people but I feel like they're leaving developers out and not even giving us a way to switch off some of those default behaviors.
I'm only 25 but I feel like I sound like the old guy who thinks things were better "back in the old days". Maybe I am just resisting a good thing and I hope I learn to love it.
> the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I don't believe that is true, unless you're having problems with a specific editor?
Thanks but no thanks.
I'm a huge fan of the inverted scrolling, though.
This is a much smaller burden to me than having to wait for OSX to launch all sorts of random apps after every single reboot. Most of which I simply close right away anyway because there's no point in having them clutter my screen until I actually need them again.
I.e. I really don't need iTerm to resume because it can't restore my sessions anyway. And even most regular apps fail to resume for me because almost all of my files are on a network share that OSX fails to auto-mount.
On inverted scroll, it's great until you have to use someone else's mac or a PC then it just gets painful.
It would be nice if there was a proper system preference though.
Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Apple to do this. I find it very un-intuitive. Even if the design of the way windows scroll was ultimately an arbitrary decision, it's ingrained now. I think it was silly to change it.
But this update feels like it's creeping towards a heavily consumer facing product. My workhorse is being swapped for a show pony...
(no doubt it'll still do the job, it just a totally unfounded feeling I have)
Two questions:
1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
2) what exactly do you see this update taking away from you?
2) Nothing. But now I'm buying a consumer product to do my work. It's like Iron Maiden using Garageband, or Philip Halsman using Instagram. (not that I would compare myself to them, but you get the idea)
That's just way of the world, I'm not complaining, it's great to get these creative tools to as many people as possible. But my original point still stands.
Of course you still have to have a tallent to make anything of these tools, no matter how point-and-click they are, even so they're robbing me of that feeling of achievement and pride that I had in being able to handle a tool that not many could... and yes, I'm aware that I'm beginning to sound like an old man.
Anybody reading this page is likely to be told they aren't a "consumer." I was having that problem with Ubuntu Linux, for goodness' sake, though in Linux they call it a "Real Person(tm)" instead of a consumer. As in, "Of course XYZ doesn't work out of the box if you run an alternative window manager, because a Real Person doesn't run alternative window managers, and Ubuntu is for Real People."
Based on that, I think it's a valid concern that in focusing on "consumers" or "normal people" or however you want to put it, Apple might fail to take care of the artists, designers, and musicians who have historically been a strong part of its user base. One consistent goal for the Mac has been to be a computer for people who don't want to learn how to use their computer. That could be interpreted to exclude designers, artists, musicians, and so on, because they use very sophisticated software tools with steep learning curves. It would be very easy to lose sight of the distinction between people who enjoy having a sophisticated understanding of their computer (nerrrrds! not a high value or high prestige market) and people who have to use sophisticated software to get their work done (artists, designers, directors, musicians -- a high prestige, trendsetting market.)
For me the distinction is this. If a feature is being taken from a consumer (e.g., me as a consumer), I say bummer and find a new hobby. No Apple remote and Front Row anymore? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
If I use a feature in a professional workflow and it disappears, then I want at the very least a big fat warning before upgrading, but it'd be better if nothing disappeared altogether; or alternatively, if I could stay on the older version.
The current trend with Apple is to radically drop features that are only used by <n% of users and to always require the latest OS for everything. You cannot sync contacts off a 32-bit Mac anymore because MobileMe is running out and Lion/iCloud is 64-bit only. And on my 64-bit machine, I only found out that iSync was gone after I upgraded and held a (replacement) dumbphone in my hand.
Or look at OS X server, which I am happy I didn't buy. The reviews on the MAS are devastating and I was wondering if it would ever rise from beta software quality. If you relied on OS X server, well joke's on you.
That said, I think 10.8 in particular is only 10.7 with lipstick to directly compete against Windows 8. (Notice even the version numbers?) But 10.7 did cause lots of damage.
Such as?
OSX Server gained a simple user interface mode but otherwise is basically the same thing and now it's only $50. Just install the Server Admin package. It's exactly the same as 10.6 You can do HTTPD, VPN, POP/IMAP mail server, net boot, software update server, DNS, DHCP, etc. From what I can tell all the same functionality is there. Maybe there are some small things missing?
iSync is a relic of a bygone era that hasn't seen any updates in many years. There are better tools available like The Missing Sync. This company focuses on making a really good tool for the small number of people who need it. Apple can't cater to every niche. If they can't do it right they shouldn't do it at all IMO.
Keychain syncing is one thing I would agree on. I found it very useful. I suspect it will be coming back in the future. Apple may not have been totally comfortable with managing the keychains of 100 million people quite yet.
I don't think these changes have anything to do with iOS-ification or whatever. They were going to happen either way.
Put another way, in 2009 at MacWorld there was unanimous consent among my fellow IT track speakers that anyone with non-trivial needs should be using Linux servers for Mac clients, due entirely to the obvious low priority of the server product. Making it a $50 app store add-on is the first step in simply acknowledging that Apple is really a consumer product company and unwilling to devote the significant resources needed to stay competitive in the traditional IT market.
I have been running Lion and do not feel that it makes my computer less of a workhorse. I dont think that ML will make it less of a workhorse. I see this update as adding a bunch of stuff, some of which will be useful to developers, and not removing anything that made me fall in love with my Mac as a dev platform.
Schools used Macs because they were cheap (for the schools). Creatives used Macs because the tools were better. 99% of the other Mac users used Macs because it was more consumer friendly than the business-oriented Windows. Apple has never been in the business of catering to business.
It also seems there's a trend here, with Apple bringing iOS increasingly into OSX and Microsoft bringing Windows Phone into Windows 8, the only operating systems which still are aimed primarily at computer users are Unix or Linux based.
The "Back to the Mac" line might be good marketing but massive over sell if viewed as literal truth. What they did was identify a few holes in the UI (for instance that you might not have every application you wanted in your dock but that going through your applications folder was a pain) and fill them with iOS-ish solutions.
But if you don't want them, you don't use them, they've not taken any of the old stuff away.
And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows. This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
Because you can organise them, group related stuff together and so on as opposed to having a single long list. I admit that I don't really use it (I prefer stacks in the dock) but it's better than the application folder.
> And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows.
Fair enough, I didn't really use Spaces previously so I'd not noticed the changes, though I'm not sure what you mean about the fade in. Mine transitions very quickly between spaces with no fade in.
> This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
Can you explain this? Simple and intuitive are good. How is that stupid.
In fact, other than the reverse scrolling behaviour (which would be easy to revert if I cared) I rarely notice any difference in behaviour between my Lion laptop and my girlfriend's Snow Leopard laptop.
Lion is great. Swiping between full-screen desktops is a huge productivity boost. Touchpad gestures instead of hotkeys to bring up Expose is awesome. Yes it's iOS-ified, but it takes the good things from iOS that fit naturally with the touchpad.
At the same time, the UNIX guts of OS X keep getting better. Grand Central is an awesome API that you can use from C. 64-bit support is almost seamless. You can swipe just fine between full-screen terminal windows. Xcode keeps getting less shitty, LLVM and LLDB keep getting better. Objective-C keeps seeing feature and performance improvements. The API's keep being improved.
People are afraid that the gains for iOS means losses for OS X, but all I've seen so far are gains for OS X, largely focused on revamping the UI to take full advantage of the multi-touch capabilities of modern Mac hardware.
Are you kidding? XCode 4 is one of the most unstable pieces of software that Apple has ever released. It crashes all the time and is borderline unacceptable as an IDE.
Check out: https://twitter.com/search/realtime/xcode%20crash
I love them both, but they are drastically different products and uses.
All I see is popular out-of-the-box iOS apps/features being brought to the out-of-the-box OS X experience.
What power users don't already have growl, dropbox, a dedicated notes app, a dedicated reminders app, an integrated chat client, etc?
These Mountain Lion features are only iOS-like inasmuch as iOS had them out-of-the_box, while OS X users looked to third parties to provide them. If you ask me, Mountain Lion sounds like a more reasoned approach to "bring what works about iOS to OS X" than misfires like "Mission Control".
I don't use it everytime I launch somthing (I use alfred for that), but to refresh my memory every now and then.
It doesn't work exactly like I would like it too, but it's not bad, and it's very out of the way if you don't like it.
It's like "Fanny". In the US, it's an inoffensive synonym for your buttocks. In the UK, it's a woman's vulva, so a bit more risqué.
iCloud document storage and Notification Center. Both of these are slated only for third-party apps from the Mac App Store. Many developers, though, have been maintaining non-Mac App Store versions of their apps. If this continues, such apps are going to lose feature parity between the App Store and non-App Store versions.
This will affect software from companies such as Adobe where custom installers are necessary and/or the economics of taking a 30% App Store hit is not necessary when they can already reach their customer base. The move strikes me as anti competitive.
That's a really bad choice. The corners are the click targets fastest to reach (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fittss_law ), and demoting searching in favor of 'reading messages that have popped up before' doesn't strike me as quite well-balanced.
Two fingers in SL:
* Scroll.
Two fingers in ML:
* Scroll
* or back/forward
* or Notification Center
I actually like it better -- I'm much more likely to activate notifications with a mouse, so I'd much rather have that be the "bigger" target.
iCloud seems to be moving things in that direction.