However, if you download a random program from the WWW and run it, it will be run _unconstrained_ in both OS X and Windows. Even if MS reduced their 33% cut to 0%, I’m still totally opposed to them controlling the distribution of my apps, which is tyrannical in and of itself. Until I have the absolute freedom to buy/sell/control indy applications outside of Microsoft’s store, I won’t even consider touching that platform. One of my biggest gripes with “metro” is microsoft’s greed. I would love to encourage the adoption of sandboxes, but not at the expense of freedom. Unfortunately venders are more interested in making security contingent on their locked down business models rather than enabling all users to benefit from better security.
Sandboxing is extremely valuable for running untrusted apps, ie those downloaded from the web. However, if you download a random program from the I think you are right on all counts. if you download a random program for the store, it is fully sandboxed and can barely touch any user files, not to mention system files. They also are trying to force their “application stores” model down your throats.Įxample: recent Windows and OS X versions support sandboxing for store programs only. It’s not (only) about treating owners like the enemey. For all we know, the next version may disable the on/off switch entirely. I agree, however my gut tells me that apple’s intention is to rope owners out and keep these privileges for itself. That way the administrator can selectively open trusted path ways in to their system. What would be nice in the next version is more granularity than a simple, huge ON/OFF switch. When we look at other platforms that were designed with sandboxing, even those that are not forcefully restricted, we do not witness anything like the malware epidemic that has tainted MS windows. MS repeated this mistake over and over again with win32s/activex. In other words, the windows security model doesn’t do enough to recognize the fact that apps are less trustworthy than users, and consequently we as users have very little protection from malicious apps – it has little to do with our trustworthiness. The reason windows users have had so many problems with security is because apps are assumed to have the same trust level as the user and malware takes advantage of this. We might point at windows and say “hey, the reason for malware is because users aren’t trustworthy”. And in the end, that corrupted open system doesn’t just harm the user anymore, but everyone else by fostering botnets and all sorts of other crime enabling behavior. They simply can’t be trusted with an “open” system. Same goes for Total Terminal, he is giving up on it and recommending you use iTerm2.Īnd it can be argued that the owners bring this on themselves. I have prepared a list of TotalFinder alternatives here. Those are good things, but you will have to let TotalFinder go at some point anyway.
Also operating system security hardening will probaly continue in future. It is increasingly more difficult to reverse-engineer Finder as new parts are being written in Swift. Also it is likely that in the next OS release after El Capitan TotalFinder won’t work at all. Do you really depend on TotalFinder workflows so much that you want to possibly lower your system security? Frankly, I’m going to stop active TotalFinder development because it is not economically viable to continue development for a small group of users who decide to disable SIP. Īt this point I want you to pause and ask yourself a question. Hopefully, the developer will find another way to do them.
0 kommentar(er)
