I've been hearing that for the past decade. With the exception of some reasonably deprecated technologies (32-bit support, etc...), to this day I'm able to run essentially all of the software on my Mac that I did back in 2010.
If and when Apple does prohibit the running of third party apps, I'll switch to another platform. Until then, this is all just FUD.
So yes, you can run the same software (mostly) as in 2010 knowing the workarounds. But as a consumer you are probably missing out on new, great software because developers wont pay the apple tax to make their stuff available. So you're already affected. It's not FUD, you're just not seeing the issue.
What "great software they're missing out of"? Who knows? That's my point! It increases the burden to distribute software for Macs, so as a consumer one's missing out on what could have been. My guess is lots of small open source software won't make easy to install distributions for Mac.
Apple doesn't really care that you can run it by using a bunch of workarounds if they have 99.9% control over all software distribution.
Come on. It’s literally five mouse clicks.
Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source.
> Why does it even matter if it's a usability nightmare if the user wants it they should be able to install it if it's open source
Sure. And users are able to install it... it's just a little hidden. My point is if you can't even figure that out then you probably can't figure out most OSS either. Most.
Being so dismissive of the user's wants is just Apple fanboyism.
I will agree that many OSS desktop applications don't have the most modern UI and are not as visually appealing as some paid-for apps. But in terms of usability, "beautiful" apps can be just as if not more frustrating than dated-looking ones.
There's especially often a lazy route to perceived usability that consists in just not providing many features. Of course, it's easy to create an easy to use application if it doesn't do all that much (like $20 mail clients that can't even do GPG - no thanks, I'll switch back to ugly, but perfectly usable Thunderbird).
still the real concern many have is, with the switch to ARM based processors will MacOS effectively inherit the restrictions of iOS
Apple had been transitioning to 64-bit for over a decade when they finally dropped 32-bit support. That transition period is more than reasonable.
What makes me sad is there is nowhere to switch to seamlessly.
The writing has been on the wall since gatekeeper was introduced, but we stayed because there is just no better option. Some options are viable, but require sacrificing a decent chunk of the comfort we have now. It's the eternal waiting for the "year of desktop linux" except we moved the goalpost to laptop linux, battery performance, commercial third party support etc.
The funny thing being that people who didn't have these frictions already switched and will say "just do it, it's easy". But we won't have a choice anyway.
And people like you and me can turn it off.
It's not at all clear that Apple will remove the ability to run unsigned binaries. As of now, it's FUD. That's all.
And, moreover, it's mostly FUD in places like this from people who hate Apple anyway.
Issues are on the implementation, with for instance the network calls on every command run if for any reason the CLI is not whitelisted.
Also I am not against iOS either, I just need an alternative for the tools that don’t fit the model, and that role is currently filled by macos. The more macos is iOSified, the less it fills that role.
I mean, sure, it might happen. But hasn't happened yet.