I have no issues with signing applications and I heartily support it.
I have many (so many) issues with trusting apple to tell the world which applications are the 'trustworthy' ones, when they have proven time and time again that they will purposefully hobble their software/devices in such a way as suits their business models and bank balance.
As a life-long open source enthusiast who has been pragmatic around the existence and use of propriety systems, this entire situation is the straw that broke the camel's back. I won't give them any more of my money, regardless of how sexy the hardware is, because ultimately the Price is just too high.
"As a life-long open source enthusiast who has been pragmatic around the existence and use of propriety systems"
If you're boycotting Apple over this, you're no longer being pragmatic, you're being fanatic. Yes, Apple has closed platforms (iOS, iTunes, Mac App Store), but they aren't adding Macs to that list or doing anything else objectionable yet. If you were ok, you should still be. Macs are, and will continue to be, awesome Unix workstations that you can run whatever you want on.
Apple also has nothing to gain from completely closing off OS X. It would destroy their developer base and be really bad PR, with only potentially a bit of added revenue (and Apple is anything but financially desperate).
If you're pissed that Apple is merely capable of acting unethically, and you're going to boycott them because of that, then don't call yourself "pragmatic".
I'm hardly being fanatic and I'm not "pissed at apple for being capable of acting unethically". I simply don't trust them enough to act ethically, it's more of a resignation to that fact.
I have just reached the limits of what freedoms I am comfortable with relinquishing to Apple. Having to ask Apple for the permission to be able to write and distribute software that can actually be used on the majority of computers crosses that line for me.
I don't care if apple has anything to gain from closing OSX, because it has become too closed for me to consider it a serious option anymore. That wasn't always the case. I've loved all my macs, including this snow leopard MBP i am writing this on.
To boycott something would mean not buying something that you might have bought otherwise. 'as punishment'.. That's really not what is going on here. OSX has changed in ways that make it no longer meet my requirements for what a computing device needs to be, so i won't buy another one. that's all.
OS X is not becoming more closed in any real sense. As described so far, launching an unsigned app (or even one signed with a blacklisted key), regardless of system settings, will take at most one extra click. If that's your "pragmatic" definition of "too closed", then I can't imagine what you must think of Windows these days, especially with what's on the menu for Windows 8.
You said before : "If you were ok, you should still be."
I wasn't OK with it when they introduced the mac app store, I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store. Then the sandboxing restrictions and now the signature things.
I never wanted to play in apple's walled garden. It was fine when it was all the way over there on ios. But the walls are going up around OSX as we speak, and someday they might even remove the back gate, but at that point it will be too late.
Because you will already be living in a world where to get into the nickle-and-dime scam that is the mac app store, you need to bow to apple's wishes, which get even more erratic as it gets more powerful (see sandboxing).
For anyone who doesn't want to play on the app store they now have to now get 'certified' by apple that they are allowed to write software for the mac. If you don't play by those rules, you can expect your software to be widely ignored regardless of the quality or malware status.
And really, the operating system is so much less important than the browser these days.
Don't go blaming Apple for Growl's dick move, or anything else that is similar. Anything that was truly open-source still is, even if future versions have gone proprietary. (And by the way, you can still checkout the latest source code from Growl's mercurial repo.)
The Mac App Store sandboxing rules, while not perfect, are obviously a good thing. Complicated pieces of software should come with ACLs. I really don't want to trust Adobe's stuff to not mess up my system or phone home with all my data. As long as the option remains to acquire software elsewhere (which it will!), the sandboxing thing is nothing to complain about.
And why do you assume that Gatekeeper will be so much more effective than UAC at stopping unsigned software from running? It really won't be hard for users to learn to open an app through the context menu when Gatekeeper complains.
"I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store."
This has nothing to do with Apple.
"For anyone who doesn't want to play on the app store they now have to now get 'certified' by apple that they are allowed to write software for the mac. If you don't play by those rules, you can expect your software to be widely ignored regardless of the quality or malware status."
Sensationalist drama. The people who will be looking for software outside of the Mac App Store are the people who will know how to click to disable needing signing.
I wasn't OK with it when they introduced the mac app store, I got really unhappy with it when random open source tools suddenly disappeared offline and became $2 pay-to-play software on the mac store.
As described so far, launching an unsigned app (or even one signed with a blacklisted key), regardless of system settings, will take at most one extra click.
That's not how it seems to me. From what I can tell, "cancel" simply doesn't move it to Trash, it doesn't let you launch it.
> they aren't adding Macs to that list or doing anything else objectionable yet.
Ah, but they are asking me to cede power to them. To trust them with saying whether or not the majority of users can, by default, run software that I may write.
Sure, they haven't yet abused that power, but I find their asking for it to be a bit objectionable on its own.
"Apple also has nothing to gain from completely closing off OS X. It would destroy their developer base and be really bad PR"
That is the situation today. But a few years down the line, when the vast majority of apps are signed, we find ourselves in a completely different environment. One were it becomes possible to prevent untrusted apps altogether, because there's not that many of them, and it will help "protect" users.
They're doing this now, to create an environment where they can do more in future. This may not actually be their plan, but it strikes me to be a very likely outcome.
There will be OSX jailbreaks of course. But how many people are going to feel comfortable voiding their warranty on an expensive Macbook?
"The Price" being that you have to click the "Allow unsigned apps" radio button if you don't want the system to bug you again? That seems like a much lower price than the actual price of their hardware.
"...when they have proven time and time again that they will purposefully hobble their software/devices in such a way as suits their business models and bank balance."
I have many (so many) issues with trusting apple to tell the world which applications are the 'trustworthy' ones, when they have proven time and time again that they will purposefully hobble their software/devices in such a way as suits their business models and bank balance.
As a life-long open source enthusiast who has been pragmatic around the existence and use of propriety systems, this entire situation is the straw that broke the camel's back. I won't give them any more of my money, regardless of how sexy the hardware is, because ultimately the Price is just too high.