As usual the anti-jailbreaker know nothing about their own devices. If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows.
Using a jailbreak to gain root access is the same as you on your Mac with admin rights.
You have the ability to install unlicensed software on your Mac right? Do you have to do it? It's a choice thing.
I guess you’ve never heard of Gatekeeper. See anyone whining about that anymore?
Gatekeeper is not comparable to the restrictions on iOS. It's functionally equivalent to the security setting on android which controls whether apps from outside google play are allowed.
Gatekeeper is not comparable to the restrictions on iOS.
I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.
Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.
Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself.
Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.
Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself.
Why do you crop to just the first option? Here is the full control panel.
Gatekeeper in OS X is no more or less restrictive than the "allow unknown sources" checkbox in Android. How is this feature at all comparable to the iOS restrictions, which essentially allow only the option corresponding to the first radio button? One of the main reasons for jailbreaking is to basically enable the third radio button. If iOS were to replace its current restrictions with Gatekeeper, most of the motivation for jailbreaking would dry up.
Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.
Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself.
It's there because businesses want it. Macs are used at schools and businesses and in order for IT people to protect its assets from lawsuits they use that button to enforce software compliance.
That lock is not the equivalent of Apple's lockdown on iOS device. Apple blocks the owner's ability to downgrade iOS and manage settings under the hood. Mac OS you can change preferences beyond the scope of the System Preferences as long as you're admin.
Jailbreaking isn't only about piracy, you can side-load apps without a jailbreak.
One of the reasons I don't have an iPhone because I want to own my device and chose which iOS I want and control the behavior of my device the way I see fit. Since I can't do it freely and I'm tired of jailbreaking. Android is a better fit for me. I don't have any pirated apps on my Android device. I don't need to pirate apps when there are plenty of free apps available that suit my needs.
It's there because businesses want it. Macs are used at schools and businesses and in order for IT people to protect its assets from lawsuits they use that button to enforce software compliance.
No, they already had that power.
That lock is not the equivalent of Apple's lockdown on iOS device.
See, now you’re changing arguments.
One of the reasons I don't have an iPhone because I want to own my device and chose which iOS I want and control the behavior of my device the way I see fit.
Because that option is the point of the service. Because that option is relevant to the argument.
But is more restrictive than OS X previously.
[...]
The original comment to which you responded with Gatekeeper was
Quote:
Originally Posted byVision33r
If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows.
where "the same protection scheme" refers to that of iOS where the user does not have a choice whether to allow apps from outside the app store. Gatekeeper is no way "the same protection scheme" because it gives the user that choice. To say otherwise would be to say that Android's system of disabling unknown sources by default is "exactly like" the iOS protection scheme. Besides, Gatekeeper is not much more onerous than the longstanding Linux practice of trusting only the distribution's software repositories by default. I don't understand why you keep bringing previous versions of OS X into this discussion. We are comparing software systems in the present.
Oh, never mind. You read the rest; you just don’t comprehend it.
The sentence
"If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows." refers to the specific set of restrictions on iOS. It does not say "If Apple were to make OS X more restrictive than before we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows." The example of Gatekeeper is relevant to this statement and not to the original one.
The sentence “If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows." refers to the specific set of restrictions on iOS.
‘Kay. That’s a given.
It does not say "If Apple were to make OS X more restrictive than before we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows."
No, that’s exactly what it says. In making OS X as restrictive as iOS, it is inherently being made more restrictive than before.
Gatekeeper is a step in that direction, as I said when this topic first came up. That you’ve ignored the part where I said that is interesting.
No, that’s exactly what it says. In making OS X as restrictive as iOS, it is inherently being made more restrictive than before.
No that's not exactly what it says. "OS X is as restrictive as iOS" implies "OS X is more restrictive than before" but not the other way around. The second statement can be true without the first statement being true. The original post requires the first statement to be true for people to switch. Therefore your example of Gatekeeper does not contradict that statement.
No that's not exactly what it says. "OS X is as restrictive as iOS" implies "OS X is more restrictive than before" but not the other way around. The second statement can be true without the first statement being true. The original post requires the first statement to be true for people to switch. Therefore your example of Gatekeeper does not contradict that statement.
Consider the statement "If the speed limit on roads were reduced to 15 mph to reduce the number of fatal collisions, people would quit driving cars and start riding bikes instead." The next day the speed limit is adjusted from 45 mph to 35 mph, and people are still driving a month later. Does this at all contradict the statement?
I think that comparing OSX and iOS is silly to begin with since, to me anyways, they seem to be functionally two different paradigms. I don't expect my iMac, my iPhone, my iPad, my Apple TV to all work in the same way. They're different. They're designed to be different. Thus I expect them to work differently.
Comments
As usual the anti-jailbreaker know nothing about their own devices. If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows.
Using a jailbreak to gain root access is the same as you on your Mac with admin rights.
You have the ability to install unlicensed software on your Mac right? Do you have to do it? It's a choice thing.
I guess you’ve never heard of Gatekeeper. See anyone whining about that anymore?
Again, admin ? root. You guys don’t seem to get that.
I guess you’ve never heard of Gatekeeper. See anyone whining about that anymore?
Gatekeeper is not comparable to the restrictions on iOS. It's functionally equivalent to the security setting on android which controls whether apps from outside google play are allowed.
I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.
Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.
Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself.
I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.
Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.
Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself.
Why do you crop to just the first option? Here is the full control panel.
Gatekeeper in OS X is no more or less restrictive than the "allow unknown sources" checkbox in Android. How is this feature at all comparable to the iOS restrictions, which essentially allow only the option corresponding to the first radio button? One of the main reasons for jailbreaking is to basically enable the third radio button. If iOS were to replace its current restrictions with Gatekeeper, most of the motivation for jailbreaking would dry up.
Why do you crop to just the first option?
Because that option is the point of the service. Because that option is relevant to the argument.
But is more restrictive than OS X previously.
“How is something that is exactly like something else comparable to something else?”
That’s your question.
As would most of the software quality, security, and experience.
I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.
Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.
Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself.
It's there because businesses want it. Macs are used at schools and businesses and in order for IT people to protect its assets from lawsuits they use that button to enforce software compliance.
That lock is not the equivalent of Apple's lockdown on iOS device. Apple blocks the owner's ability to downgrade iOS and manage settings under the hood. Mac OS you can change preferences beyond the scope of the System Preferences as long as you're admin.
Jailbreaking isn't only about piracy, you can side-load apps without a jailbreak.
One of the reasons I don't have an iPhone because I want to own my device and chose which iOS I want and control the behavior of my device the way I see fit. Since I can't do it freely and I'm tired of jailbreaking. Android is a better fit for me. I don't have any pirated apps on my Android device. I don't need to pirate apps when there are plenty of free apps available that suit my needs.
It's there because businesses want it. Macs are used at schools and businesses and in order for IT people to protect its assets from lawsuits they use that button to enforce software compliance.
No, they already had that power.
See, now you’re changing arguments.
One of the reasons I don't have an iPhone because I want to own my device and chose which iOS I want and control the behavior of my device the way I see fit.
Enjoy that nonsense, then. To each his own.
Because that option is the point of the service. Because that option is relevant to the argument.
But is more restrictive than OS X previously.
[...]
The original comment to which you responded with Gatekeeper was
where "the same protection scheme" refers to that of iOS where the user does not have a choice whether to allow apps from outside the app store. Gatekeeper is no way "the same protection scheme" because it gives the user that choice. To say otherwise would be to say that Android's system of disabling unknown sources by default is "exactly like" the iOS protection scheme. Besides, Gatekeeper is not much more onerous than the longstanding Linux practice of trusting only the distribution's software repositories by default. I don't understand why you keep bringing previous versions of OS X into this discussion. We are comparing software systems in the present.
Gatekeeper is no way "the same protection scheme" because it gives the user that choice.
So you missed the rest of the post, then.
Oh, never mind. You read the rest; you just don’t comprehend it.
So you missed the rest of the post, then.
Oh, never mind. You read the rest; you just don’t comprehend it.
The sentence
"If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows." refers to the specific set of restrictions on iOS. It does not say "If Apple were to make OS X more restrictive than before we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows." The example of Gatekeeper is relevant to this statement and not to the original one.
The sentence “If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows." refers to the specific set of restrictions on iOS.
‘Kay. That’s a given.
No, that’s exactly what it says. In making OS X as restrictive as iOS, it is inherently being made more restrictive than before.
Gatekeeper is a step in that direction, as I said when this topic first came up. That you’ve ignored the part where I said that is interesting.
No, that’s exactly what it says. In making OS X as restrictive as iOS, it is inherently being made more restrictive than before.
No that's not exactly what it says. "OS X is as restrictive as iOS" implies "OS X is more restrictive than before" but not the other way around. The second statement can be true without the first statement being true. The original post requires the first statement to be true for people to switch. Therefore your example of Gatekeeper does not contradict that statement.
Talk about insanity.
Talk about insanity.
Consider the statement "If the speed limit on roads were reduced to 15 mph to reduce the number of fatal collisions, people would quit driving cars and start riding bikes instead." The next day the speed limit is adjusted from 45 mph to 35 mph, and people are still driving a month later. Does this at all contradict the statement?
Consider that the sentence in this case hasn’t been completed yet.
I think that comparing OSX and iOS is silly to begin with since, to me anyways, they seem to be functionally two different paradigms. I don't expect my iMac, my iPhone, my iPad, my Apple TV to all work in the same way. They're different. They're designed to be different. Thus I expect them to work differently.