CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2024-09-30 3:40 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:29 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:37:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It has Unix within it, I grant that ...
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it has the legal right to use the “Unix” trademark, which is not
>>>>> quite what normal people mean when they say “It’s a Unix system, I know
>>>>> this!”.
>>>>
>>>> That's not really true, you can do anything with it ...
>>>
>>> Not quite. Apple is insisting on signed software now, so users of Open
>>> Source have to negotiate continual off-putting warnings about “untrusted”
>>> apps every time they try to install something.
>>
>> Not surprised.
>
>There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
>damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
>software is listed in the Apple Store though.

If they're pushing the Apple Store and digital signatures that hard, I
dare say both Winblows and macOS are obsolete, to people who want a
good computer. Linux has literally taken sole possession. (Think:
Copilot+.)

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 00:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On 2024-09-30 3:40 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:29 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:37:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It has Unix within it, I grant that ...
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it has the legal right to use the “Unix” trademark, which is not
>>>>> quite what normal people mean when they say “It’s a Unix system, I know
>>>>> this!”.
>>>>
>>>> That's not really true, you can do anything with it ...
>>>
>>> Not quite. Apple is insisting on signed software now, so users of Open
>>> Source have to negotiate continual off-putting warnings about “untrusted”
>>> apps every time they try to install something.
>>
>>
>> Not surprised.
>
> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
> damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
> software is listed in the Apple Store though.

Yeah, but it would obviously be bad to be forced to publish thru the App
Store
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-10-02 3:30 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 00:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
>> On 2024-09-30 3:40 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:29 this Monday (GMT):
>>>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:37:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has Unix within it, I grant that ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it has the legal right to use the “Unix” trademark, which is not
>>>>>> quite what normal people mean when they say “It’s a Unix system, I know
>>>>>> this!”.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not really true, you can do anything with it ...
>>>>
>>>> Not quite. Apple is insisting on signed software now, so users of Open
>>>> Source have to negotiate continual off-putting warnings about “untrusted”
>>>> apps every time they try to install something.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not surprised.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
>> damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
>> software is listed in the Apple Store though.
>
>
> Yeah, but it would obviously be bad to be forced to publish thru the App
> Store

Admittedly, but a lot of the people who buy Apple hardware do so because
they want to be safe from the kind of threats that exist in the Windows
world. They will stick to the software in the App Store to escape
potential problems. It's in their and the developer's best interests to
make the software available there.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 19:44 this Wednesday (GMT):
> On 2024-10-02 3:30 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 00:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>> On 2024-09-30 3:40 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:29 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:37:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has Unix within it, I grant that ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it has the legal right to use the “Unix” trademark, which is not
>>>>>>> quite what normal people mean when they say “It’s a Unix system, I know
>>>>>>> this!”.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not really true, you can do anything with it ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite. Apple is insisting on signed software now, so users of Open
>>>>> Source have to negotiate continual off-putting warnings about “untrusted”
>>>>> apps every time they try to install something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not surprised.
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
>>> damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
>>> software is listed in the Apple Store though.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, but it would obviously be bad to be forced to publish thru the App
>> Store
>
> Admittedly, but a lot of the people who buy Apple hardware do so because
> they want to be safe from the kind of threats that exist in the Windows
> world. They will stick to the software in the App Store to escape
> potential problems. It's in their and the developer's best interests to
> make the software available there.

Yeah, and thats good and all but it also lets them remove the option to
NOT go through the app store.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-10-03 11:30 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 19:44 this Wednesday (GMT):
>> On 2024-10-02 3:30 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 00:24 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>> On 2024-09-30 3:40 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 07:29 this Monday (GMT):
>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:37:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has Unix within it, I grant that ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it has the legal right to use the “Unix” trademark, which is not
>>>>>>>> quite what normal people mean when they say “It’s a Unix system, I know
>>>>>>>> this!”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not really true, you can do anything with it ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not quite. Apple is insisting on signed software now, so users of Open
>>>>>> Source have to negotiate continual off-putting warnings about “untrusted”
>>>>>> apps every time they try to install something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not surprised.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
>>>> damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
>>>> software is listed in the Apple Store though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but it would obviously be bad to be forced to publish thru the App
>>> Store
>>
>> Admittedly, but a lot of the people who buy Apple hardware do so because
>> they want to be safe from the kind of threats that exist in the Windows
>> world. They will stick to the software in the App Store to escape
>> potential problems. It's in their and the developer's best interests to
>> make the software available there.
>
>
> Yeah, and thats good and all but it also lets them remove the option to
> NOT go through the app store.

Yeah, but I doubt that Apple cares. They want people to go through their
store the way that Microsoft wants you to. The problem is that both of
their stores are loaded with absolute shite. If they can improve the
quality of what people will find when they're looking for software, I
doubt that anyone will mind that their favourite open-source app can
exclusively be acquired through it.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 12:13:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Yeah, but I doubt that Apple cares. They want people to go through their
> store the way that Microsoft wants you to. The problem is that both of
> their stores are loaded with absolute shite. If they can improve the
> quality of what people will find when they're looking for software, I
> doubt that anyone will mind that their favourite open-source app can
> exclusively be acquired through it.

The store was the reason for dropping iPhones from the project. The app
allowed emergency responders to have an overview of what was happening in
their jurisdiction, report status changes, and do a few other operations.
It was not meant for distribution to the general public, and would only
have information for a specific site. Officer Friendly would have the
credentials to view information from Podunk PD. The total distribution
would have been in the low hundreds.

The apk could be side loaded on Android devices, probably by the site
radio tech if the officers weren't savvy enough. For Apple we had to jump
through the store hoops. After several attempts we gave up.

Okay, this was a special case but I'm sure there ware other proprietary,
limited distribution apps that ran into the same problem.

Microsoft's UWP was an attempt to channel everything through the store. I
don't know if MS ever officially declared it dead but they moved on to the
App SDK and dropped the store requirement although placing an app in the
store can be an advantage for some.

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:
>CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 19:44 this Wednesday (GMT):
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
>>>> damage of malware. Open-source will probably work as long as the
>>>> software is listed in the Apple Store though.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but it would obviously be bad to be forced to publish thru the App
>>> Store
>>
>> Admittedly, but a lot of the people who buy Apple hardware do so because
>> they want to be safe from the kind of threats that exist in the Windows
>> world. They will stick to the software in the App Store to escape
>> potential problems. It's in their and the developer's best interests to
>> make the software available there.
>
>Yeah, and thats good and all but it also lets them remove the option to
>NOT go through the app store.

The more Apple does to alienate tech people, the better, in my view.
The more M$ pushes Copilot+, the more bloated Windows gets, the more
cheesy macOS gets, the more you need Linux, we win. We already are.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:24 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
> damage of malware.

The Linux distros manage this by signing the distribution packages, not
the installed binaries. Also they make it easy for users to add third-
party signing keys (and repos) to the package-installation system.

In short, there are ways to do it that are not actively hostile to Open
Source.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:12 this Thursday (GMT):
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:24 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> There's nothing wrong with signing software if you want to limit the
>> damage of malware.
>
> The Linux distros manage this by signing the distribution packages, not
> the installed binaries. Also they make it easy for users to add third-
> party signing keys (and repos) to the package-installation system.
>
> In short, there are ways to do it that are not actively hostile to Open
> Source.

Isn't GPG open source?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 11:29:08 -0400, -hh wrote:

> ... the manufacturer's dilemma is when should
> they continue to provide a design feature when its differentiation (&
> thus, price it can command) has dwindled? Especially when it blocks
> offering some other design element that has greater consumer demand?

See also “disruptive technology” -- when some new technology comes along
that the existing players in the market cannot, or will not, adopt,
perhaps because they see it as a threat to their business model, or even
their existing customers see it as a threat.

E.g. Free software versus proprietary -- look at Microsoft’s “Linux is a
cancer” campaign.

> For example, laptops have overtaken the market versus desktops because
> consumers now prefer that form factor. But ... this was enabled by
> technological advancements which have resulted in "state of the shelf"
> laptops to have computational power that was "good enough", such that
> one doesn't need the last 10% of performance that one could get with a
> tower.

Those technological advancements only came about because there was a
profitable market in which to sell them--otherwise, the vendors would not
have bothered to invest in that technology. The margins in laptops were
higher than desktops, which is why vendors put more effort into them. And
they were able to sell the idea of portability to users, to get them to
buy them, which fed back positively into the process.

I don’t think laptop margins are quite what they were any more. So the
vendors have to find something else more profitable to sell. Hence the
push into smartphones and tablets. A new one now is handheld gaming.

>> In short, there is no substitute for a versatile, configurable
>> workstation-class machine. Apple has completely walked away from this
>> market.
>
> That's a business decision, not necessarily a technological one.

There’s a difference?? Technology only exists to solve a problem: it’s not
something you buy for its own sake. At least, not normal people.

Le 30-09-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On 28 Sep 2024 09:50:16 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> In fact, Mac OS is a Unix system derived from BSD.
>
> macOS is a system (one of the few left) entitled to use the “Unix”
> trademark. That doesn’t necessarily make it a “Unix” system in the sense
> as commonly understood by many people.

For the trademark Linux isn't a Unix. One old version of debian has
been certified POSIX. But it's very old and Linux isn't certified
anymore. So the only way to say that Linux is a Unix is in the common
sense, not officially. And in the same way MacOS is a Unix derived from
BSD. Like it or not. One doesn't speak about liberty bu about technical
insides.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 04 Oct 2024 21:25:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> So the only way to say that Linux is a Unix is in the common sense, not
> officially.

That “common” sense is often denoted by saying “*nix” rather than “Unix”.
Also that avoids the trademark issue.