or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X sandboxing flaw casts doubt on upcoming Mac App Store requirement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OS X sandboxing flaw casts doubt on upcoming Mac App Store requirement

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
A newly-discovered security flaw in the sandboxing functionality of Mac OS X has prompted concerns over Apple's requirement that all applications submitted to the Mac App Store must implement sandboxing by March 2012. \t

Security research firm CoreLabs Research recently disclosed a potential vulnerability in Apple's desktop operating system, ArsTechnica reported on Friday.

Sandboxing provides a method for an operating system to restrict which system resources are available to an application. According to the security firm, vulnerabilities in the feature extend to the three latest releases of Mac OS X: Leopard, Snow Leopard and Lion.

"Several of the default pre-defined sandbox profiles don't properly limit all the available mechanisms and therefore allow exercising part of the restricted functionality," the vulnerability's description read.

In particular, an application without approved network access could send Apple events "to invoke the execution of other applications not directly restricted by the sandbox." The firm also noted that the issue resembles one reported by famed security expert Charlie Miller at the Black Hat Japan security conference in 2008. Apple apparently fixed the mentioned issue, but neglected to "modify the generic profiles."

Apple had originally required all submitted Mac App Store apps to support sandboxing by this month, but the company recently pushed the deadline back to March of next year.

"As of March 1, 2012 all apps submitted to the Mac App Store must implement sandboxing," Apple reportedly said in an email to developers, as noted by TUAW.

The Cupertino, Calif., company is implementing the policy in an effort to maintain security on the Mac App Store, but a number of developers have complained that the rule is overly restrictive. The recently revealed vulnerability has only added fuel to their cause, as some assert that the sandbox requirement is flawed because sandboxing itself is vulnerable.

Some have also taken issue with how Apple has handled the news of the vulnerability. Core notified Apple of the issue in September to allow ample time for it to address the issue before going public with the problem. According to the firm, Apple responded that it "does not see any actual security implications" because documentation for the NoNetwork sandbox profile does not actually promise that Apple events will be blocked.

Core replied that the vulnerability allows Apple events to eventually execute sockets-based networking, which is supposed to be blocked by the NoNetwork sandbox profile. Apple then agreed to modify its documentation to make note of the issue.

While the Mac App Store is only one option for adding software to a Mac, some critics of Apple's restrictions have voiced concerns that the company could move toward the iOS model. The App Store on iOS is currently the only legitimate source for applications on the mobile OS.

For its part, Apple has moved its own software onto the Mac App Store, even going so far as to launch Mac OS X Lion exclusively on the store in July. The company also released Final Cut Pro X in June only on the Mac App Store.
post #2 of 36
That's the trouble with OSes that allow IPC such as AppleScript, or entire other frameworks like Java: the whole thing just becomes a complicated mess for security. Why not have one OS-framework (Cocoa), isolated processes, and if that isn't enough to write your program, then you're not much of a programmer.
post #3 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That's the trouble with OSes that allow IPC such as AppleScript, or entire other frameworks like Java: the whole thing just becomes a complicated mess for security. Why not have one OS-framework (Cocoa), isolated processes, and if that isn't enough to write your program, then you're not much of a programmer.

Really!?
post #4 of 36
Oh, I guess it would be because Apple has until March to plug security holes. Should be enough time.
post #5 of 36
How is an imperfect implementation of a sandbox raise concerns over using a sandbox vs not using one at all?

Apple has several months to address the issue, and just like browsers/javascript/jvm/flash/etc there will be problems with the sandboxing technology, but the point is that it can safely be fixed and improved as problems are discovered because the whole model is about the developer stating what they expect their limits to be (even if enforcement isn't perfect) and the sandbox attempting to match that as closely as possible.
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axcess99 View Post

How is an imperfect implementation of a sandbox raise concerns over using a sandbox vs not using one at all?

False sense of security?
post #7 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

Really!?

Yes, it's a trade off. You can pile features on top of features but don't expect security at the end of it. Security requires that you think of every single edge case before "they" do, and that is only realistic in an environment of max simplicity.
post #8 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Yes, it's a trade off. You can pile features on top of features but don't expect security at the end of it. Security requires that you think of every single edge case before "they" do, and that is only realistic in an environment of max simplicity.

And what does that have to do with "not being much of a programmer?" How do you go about building utilities that need access to things outside the sandbox?
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple responded that it "does not see any actual security implications"

Wasn't Charlie Miller that guy that Apple just kicked out of the iOS App Development program for demonstrating flaws within Apple's software? Or was it somebody else?

Regardless, the faux app that was put in to the iOS app store that was used to demonstrate how one could hack there way, leaves little confidence in Apples response that it "does not see any actual security implications"

Let's let Charlie Miller or who ever it was that Apple just kicked out of their iOS App Developer program decide!
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #10 of 36
So, because there's a potential flaw, the entire plan should be dumped? If that's the standard that is to be applied, no software would ever be written at all. In any case, just because Apple hasn't done something according to some 3rd party's timeline, or hasn't agreed with something some 3rd party claims, doesn't mean they aren't taking a look at it.
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Wasn't Charlie Miller that guy that Apple just kicked out of the iOS App Development program for demonstrating flaws within Apple's software? Or was it somebody else?

He was kicked out for violating the developer rules in submitting an app that ran undocumented code, and was created with potential malicious intent. Just because he says he never ran the code doesn't mean he didn't or wouldn't have.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

And what does that have to do with "not being much of a programmer?" How do you go about building utilities that need access to things outside the sandbox?

That doesn't even make sense. You don't access things outside your sandbox, you define your sandbox such that it gives you everything you need and nothing more. Do you even know the difference between app sandbox and universal App Store restrictions?
post #13 of 36
It seems to me that there are several issues in play here. First, there's a definitional issue -- how does apple want to define "sandboxing" for OSX? Second, there's the issue of a tradeoff between security and functionality in choosing that definition of "sandboxing". Third, there's the issue that unlike for iOS, OSX does allow apps that are not sandboxed.

Put these three issues together than you can have a bunch of people talking past each other.

It is not at all hard to imagine the practical utility of an AppStore application that can send AppleEvents to a non-AppStore application. And it's not at all hard to imagine the potential for bad things happening from a security perspective.

It seems to me that Apple has a tricky path to navigate in weighing these tradeoffs. And I'm sure we can expect attention-seekers to yell "security flaw!!" every time Apple chooses a tradeoff that favors functionality over security. But I congratulate Apple for being willing to navigate that tricky path. It's ultimately going to be a benefit to users to have better security (albeit not perfect) while still maintaining the higher level of functionality that we expect from OSX relative to iOS.
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Why not have one OS-framework (Cocoa), isolated processes, and if that isn't enough to write your program, then you're not much of a programmer.

I think the implication is that Apple is moving closer to only allowing you to install applications from the App store. If a programmer cannot write software and install it on a computer without Apple's approval, then that wouldn't be much of a computer.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think the implication is that Apple is moving closer to only allowing you to install applications from the App store. If a programmer cannot write software and install it on a computer without Apple's approval, then that wouldn't be much of a computer.

I disagree. I think Apple is mainly saying "if you want to have access to the MAS you need to Sandbox your app and if you want iCloud you need to sign your app"

Apple's smart in understanding that they don't want the type of security issues that are plaguing Windows. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

False sense of security?

Not so. No security measure is 100% impenetrable but that doesn't mean we throw caution to the wind. Sanboxing is very secure and we're better with it than without it although I am concerned about limiting the functionality in software for the sake of better security.

Personally I believe Apple should improve it's techniques in discovering rogue apps before they are placed in the Mac App store rather than this blanket approach which could impact the features we enjoy now in certain apps. I highly doubt Apple will eventually adapt the same app model in iOS for Mac OS X, meaning software can only be downloaded through the Mac App Store.
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #17 of 36
A sandbox is supposed to restrict a single process. The "flaw" does not allow the process restricted to access the network, it allows only the restricted process to communicate with another process that is potentially not restricted from accessing the network.

The whole point of sandboxing is that you run the vast part of a program in a non-privileged environment, such that if that binary of that process is compromised by malware or bugs, it cannot directly do any significant harm.

However, parts of a program may need network connectivity. The way to achieve that is not to ask for the entire program to have network privilege, the way to do this is to have a companion process that has network access privilege. The program for that companion process is kept small (and therefore relatively bug-free), and communicates by IPC with the main process to do the required network communication.

As such, not only is this no security flaw, it is working as intended and designed. At most one can blame Apple for having a potentially misleading documentation, which according to the article, Apple fixed. Done deal.

The point of sandboxing is not that it prevents all potential security issues, nor is it designed to be a security system in and by itself. It's only intended to contain the amount of damage a particular bug or exploit can have on the system. It's a second line of defense, not the primary security mechanism.

In this particular case, even if the process were compromised, all it can do is call a second process. For any damage to be done, that second process would have to be "complicit" in doing actual harm, i.e. two processes need to be compromised before any security implications start to arise, and that means a lot more obstacles for bugs and malware to overcome before damage happens.

Mission accomplished.
post #18 of 36
Macs are fully unix-compliant and used in education and research. Apple will not restrict all software to the Mac App Store. However, the MAS does give a reliable place to get trusted software, do updates, etc. Apple will improve their security model in time and as best it can. We certainly don't have self-replicating viruses and patch Tuesday's on the mac yet!
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post

Not so. No security measure is 100% impenetrable but that doesn't mean we throw caution to the wind. Sanboxing is very secure and we're better with it than without it although I am concerned about limiting the functionality in software for the sake of better security.

Personally I believe Apple should improve it's techniques in discovering rogue apps before they are placed in the Mac App store rather than this blanket approach which could impact the features we enjoy now in certain apps. I highly doubt Apple will eventually adapt the same app model in iOS for Mac OS X, meaning software can only be downloaded through the Mac App Store.

I think it's not a bad tradeoff to submit your app to sandboxing for the access to the App Store. Devs still get full unfettered API access if they want to sell from third party storefronts.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Devs still get full unfettered API access if they want to sell from third party storefronts.

Ah, there's an interesting point. People don't really have any reason to whine about the Mac App Store unless THAT stops being true.

I would raise a fuss about that, that's for sure. I don't even make OS X applications and I'd raise a fuss.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #21 of 36
Ben Franklin said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ...


This whole sand boxing movement that started with IOS and is now spreading to Mac and even Windows is a bit troubling. if someone makes an app that the gatekeepers dont like for whatever reason cant sell their apps to the majority of users...

For people who see no trouble with this I give you the case of Camera+ This application used teh volume button as a shutter, Apple pulled the app, destroying the developers ability to profit from their otherwise exceptionally cool application, then, like 9 months later in ios 5 we see volume button used as a shutter control! This kind of crap kills innovation because there is a risk of the platform owner killing your product and stealing it, not just competeing with it, but killing the competition completely!

I am not for government control and regulation, but really I think there needs to be a computing opennes regulation that basically states that consumers have the right to side load applications...that is users or owners of the phones or PCs cant be stopped by the maker from installing software that the device maker doesnt like.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #22 of 36
a greer

The Camera + issue had nothing to do with Sandboxing. The rule that it violated was a rule that developers cannot co-opt any of the hardware buttons with their software. Meaning if customers know those round buttons are for volume up and down a developer cannot change that relationship.

Apple indeed has relented on this policy with iOS 5 but that really has nothing to do with Sandboxing.

Oh and the Ben Franklin quote was

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

I'm not sure sandboxing is giving up an essential liberty. That's debatable.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

Ben Franklin said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ...


This whole sand boxing movement that started with IOS and is now spreading to Mac and even Windows is a bit troubling. if someone makes an app that the gatekeepers dont like for whatever reason cant sell their apps to the majority of users...

For people who see no trouble with this I give you the case of Camera+ This application used teh volume button as a shutter, Apple pulled the app, destroying the developers ability to profit from their otherwise exceptionally cool application, then, like 9 months later in ios 5 we see volume button used as a shutter control! This kind of crap kills innovation because there is a risk of the platform owner killing your product and stealing it, not just competeing with it, but killing the competition completely!

I am not for government control and regulation, but really I think there needs to be a computing opennes regulation that basically states that consumers have the right to side load applications...that is users or owners of the phones or PCs cant be stopped by the maker from installing software that the device maker doesnt like.

Camera+ is still one of the top apps sold on App Store. Scott Forstall sees it as a great idea, that's why they approved it 9 months later. You can't blame Scott Forstall, who is as close to Steve Jobs as you get. Charlie Miller violated the Terms of Use, and also pissed off Scott Forstall. He deserved to be banned, because he abused the trust Apple gave in him, no matter how genius he is. (He formerly worked for NSA where they used secure versions of NeXTStep during the old days.) I actually emailed Steve Jobs and advised him that how important Apple should work with Charlie Miller. And now he gave me this.
He's now banned for one year, but Apple reserves the discretion to reinstate him. Charlie Miller will still be important.

BTW, what happened to CloudGazer LOL? Does he still post here?
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronTed View Post

BTW, what happened to CloudGazer LOL? Does he still post here?

Seems he stopped around two months ago.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

Ben Franklin said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ...


This whole sand boxing movement that started with IOS and is now spreading to Mac and even Windows is a bit troubling. if someone makes an app that the gatekeepers dont like for whatever reason cant sell their apps to the majority of users...

For people who see no trouble with this I give you the case of Camera+ This application used teh volume button as a shutter, Apple pulled the app, destroying the developers ability to profit from their otherwise exceptionally cool application, then, like 9 months later in ios 5 we see volume button used as a shutter control! This kind of crap kills innovation because there is a risk of the platform owner killing your product and stealing it, not just competeing with it, but killing the competition completely!

I am not for government control and regulation, but really I think there needs to be a computing opennes regulation that basically states that consumers have the right to side load applications...that is users or owners of the phones or PCs cant be stopped by the maker from installing software that the device maker doesnt like.

Excellent post. It used to be that Apple was more open than others (e.g. the old school Windows vs. Mac thing in the 90s). Apple has become Microsoft. This is one reason I got an Android phone. I can do a lot of things iPhone can not, and even better, with no hacking around at all. Flash, free tethering, installing apps that are NOT in the app store, emulators, the list goes on. This is all without any rooting, jail breaking, etc. The way they are slowly turning OS X in to iOS is disturbing, and sad. I want to be able to do what I want with the stuff I own.

I am fine with all the security Apple wants to put in. But there should always be a way to allow the user to turn OFF any type of security. It should be ON by default. But if power users know where to look they should be able to execute whatever kind of code they want.

That whole Camera+ thing was literally what pushed me just days later to get a Droid. I'm so glad I did. And this despite the fact I have an iPad 2 with iOS 5 and am therefore familiar with iOS.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

That whole Camera+ thing was literally what pushed me just days later to get a Droid. I'm so glad I did. And this despite the fact I have an iPad 2 with iOS 5 and am therefore familiar with iOS.

We really don't know what actually happened. Clearly the developers of Camera + would have a good case to bring suit against Apple. I am just guessing, but it is likely that they were well compensated. Unless you can provide some links from the original developer to the contrary I would suspect Apple did the right thing and probably paid them for their innovation.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post


That whole Camera+ thing was literally what pushed me just days later to get a Droid. I'm so glad I did. And this despite the fact I have an iPad 2 with iOS 5 and am therefore familiar with iOS.

So none of Google's transgressions have bothered you to the same affect as Apple stating that they want consumers to know volume buttons ...actually increase/decrease volume and making sure 3rd parties comply.

Google can scan neighborhoods and basically trample over consumer privacy with impunity.

Nay ...I think you've had a bone to pick with Apple for quite a bit longer and were just looking for a scapegoat.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #28 of 36
For those with access to it, I highly recommend watching

https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2011/?id=203

and

https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2011/?id=204

before spreading further FUD about sandboxing.
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That doesn't even make sense. You don't access things outside your sandbox, you define your sandbox such that it gives you everything you need and nothing more. Do you even know the difference between app sandbox and universal App Store restrictions?

Um I don't think you understand the limitations of the App Store and what the OP meant by "utilities". You cannot write utility software for the MAS because you don't have access to any number of things like, but not limited to, the raw device file or any location the user has no permission to access. Ever needed to run DiskWarrior? Well you can't get if on the MAS for a reason. Ever wanted to buy Parellels or VMWare on the MAS? So sorry, too bad. You're telling me that you can write a hypervisor in Cocoa, sandboxed for the MAS? Driver software that needs direct access to hardware? GOOD LUCK.

Unless Apple adds about two dozen more entitlement the MAS will become a place to buy random games and Apple applications that conviently don't have to be sandboxed (most likely because the Xcode dev team shat themselves when somebody asked if they could put Xcode in a sandbox).
post #30 of 36
I'm going to be anal and correct some statements here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Flash

Getting axed. Security Nightmare and Performance Hog. Please pay more attention

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

free tethering

I have free tethering on my iPhone 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Installing apps that are NOT in the app store

To which Android Malware has appeared in droves. Both Apple and Android's strategies have upsides and downsides, but security should always be on the top of the priority list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

emulators

Granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

the list goes on.

No it doesn't. Thats pretty much it.


Emulators are the only thing you've mentioned that have no alternative for the iPhone - but, really, that is not much of a selling point. Both systems are on par with each other, they just have different ways to achieve the same result.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

slowly turning OS X in to iOS is disturbing, and sad.

So an App store and a grid of Applications is OSX turning into iOS? Strange, it just looks like extra functionality on top of what is already there to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

I want to be able to do what I want with the stuff I own.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Allow the user to turn OFF any type of security

Quick question - Why!?
Three qualifications in computing have failed to let me see the logic in that sentence. Optional components can already be turned off on OSX, but allowing the user to turn off ANY security measures is just insane. If the application you are using needs some crucial security measure switched off in order to work correctly then the developer needs shooting point blank.

Either that or you badly worded your sentence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

But if power users know where to look they should be able to execute whatever kind of code they want.

I can do that already without turning anything off and without using any "power user" tools. A terminal window and a keyboard is all you need. I could turn my iMac into an email server right here, right now if I wanted without the need for OSX Server.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

That whole Camera+ thing was literally what pushed me just days later to get a Droid. I'm so glad I did. And this despite the fact I have an iPad 2 with iOS 5 and am therefore familiar with iOS.

I am up for renewal on 1 december and will definately begoing to droid at that time...most likely the new Galaxy || on att as I have to keep them so i dont lose my unlimited data.

I may well be selling my iPad 2 to get the money for the new phone but I will not be selling my iphone 4...its going one of a few family members who think the iphone is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and compared to the moto flip phones they had before the iphones they use now, they are right.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

I am up for renewal on 1 december and will definately begoing to droid at that time...most likely the new Galaxy || on att as I have to keep them so i dont lose my unlimited data.

I may well be selling my iPad 2 to get the money for the new phone but I will not be selling my iphone 4...its going one of a few family members who think the iphone is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and compared to the moto flip phones they had before the iphones they use now, they are right.

I think you're going to regret it. I lost my iPhone 3GS and got myself a Samsung Galaxy Ace, and guess what? The animation on the phone was never smooth. It's always jerky. The apps are basically crap compared to the iOS version. If you're going to run a lot of apps and love the smooth experience only available on iOS devices, I suggest you keep your iPad or get a iPod Touch instead. Just use the Droid as a phone and nothing else. Not even surfing simply because the browser is always jerky when you pinch and zoom it.

IronTed
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronTed View Post

I think you're going to regret it. The animation on the [Galaxy Ace] was never smooth. It's always jerky. If you love the smooth experience only available on iOS devices Not even surfing simply because the browser is always jerky when you pinch and zoom it.

I remember back in the day. Of, uh, Android 1.6. When that was new.

I was testing out some of them in some store and was confused at just how horrible the interaction was. So I thought, "It must be the hardware. These morons use sub-par hardware, and that's why my first-gen iPhone works better than these do at performing simple tasks."

And a couple months later, I installed Android 1.6 on my iPhone to test it out.

And it sucked so much. So frigging much.

I'm not contesting your point or anything; just adding to it. It's not the difference in hardware that makes all Android phones absolutely suck, it's the software.

I'll bet that a few years from now, someone somewhere will manage to hack iOS onto an Android phone. And it'll run so dang well.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

I'm going to be anal and correct some statements here






Terminal, really. I use a Mac because I do NOT want to f*ck around with Terminal. Power users should be able to turn anything off they want, without mucking around in Terminal. I find GUI much faster than terminal, just in case you were going to say it is "faster" for real power users. Hiding a GUI control somewhere is sufficient enough to prevent grandma from accidentally turning off all security. This is just my opinion. A large user group study would perhaps be needed, with statistical analyses, to in fact verify whether my opinion works out in reality. But for now I'm just going with my gut feeling on this.

And it's why I bought an Android. I want to do what I want, without f*cking around with UNIX crap.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Terminal, really. I use a Mac because I do NOT want to f*ck around with Terminal. Power users should be able to turn anything off they want, without mucking around in Terminal. I find GUI much faster than terminal, just in case you were going to say it is "faster" for real power users. Hiding a GUI control somewhere is sufficient enough to prevent grandma from accidentally turning off all security. This is just my opinion. A large user group study would perhaps be needed, with statistical analyses, to in fact verify whether my opinion works out in reality. But for now I'm just going with my gut feeling on this.

And it's why I bought an Android. I want to do what I want, without f*cking around with UNIX crap.

But Android is Linux - so you're still not getting away from the "UNIX" stuff.

I was reluctant to learn the terminal interface as well, but once you get to know it, the terminal is nothing short of amazing. There are quite a few thing within the terminal that would be rather inneficiant via a GUI - a command that requires many opening arguments or specific output formats, for example, is much quicker and better served via a terminal interface. You also has to factor in its efficiency with system resources - what with the lack of a GUI. If you use MS Windows then I would understand why you would think the terminal is useless, because the terminal in windows is utterly useless - UNIX/LINUX/OSX is an entirely different story. Though, of course, your line of work determines the importance of the terminal. For me it's vital for my job!

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Terminal, really. I use a Mac because I do NOT want to f*ck around with Terminal. Power users should be able to turn anything off they want, without mucking around in Terminal. I find GUI much faster than terminal, just in case you were going to say it is "faster" for real power users. Hiding a GUI control somewhere is sufficient enough to prevent grandma from accidentally turning off all security. This is just my opinion. A large user group study would perhaps be needed, with statistical analyses, to in fact verify whether my opinion works out in reality. But for now I'm just going with my gut feeling on this.

And it's why I bought an Android. I want to do what I want, without f*cking around with UNIX crap.

You can't reasonably ask for ultimate flexibility and then reject the existing solution because you don't want it. The solution you seem to be asking for has never existed and probably never will because the effort to cover the rest of to command line tools with GUIs just isn't worth it financially for the micro-niche of users that might actually want them. There just plain isn't a big enough market to make the development and maintenance plunge for that.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X sandboxing flaw casts doubt on upcoming Mac App Store requirement