Re: Linux advocacy

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