> I can't really think why anyone would think Apple would lock down macOS.
Because they keep introducing new security features that get progressively more annoying to disable. Have you looked at how difficult it is to modify system files these days?
Because they keep introducing new security features that get progressively more annoying to disable. Have you looked at how difficult it is to modify system files these days?
I perceive a level of anti-Apple bias in HN threads, I don't think it's imagined, but more prevalent is the power user bias of people who have advanced knowledge of computer systems and want a superuser machine off the shelf.
To me, the fact that you call them "security features" and not some pejorative euphemism is a bit of a capitulation.
This is just one of the things that you can do; I've occasionally patched system libraries, replaced resources, and so on depending on what I've wanted to do.
Given how everything else you talked about could be turned off. Do you think that would be a better default? to allow system libraries and such to be altered? and that the protection would need to be explicitly turned on instead?
Yes, very. It's not like the toolchain really cares which version of XNU it's running on.
> Given how everything else you talked about could be turned off. Do you think that would be a better default? to allow system libraries and such to be altered? and that the protection would need to be explicitly turned on instead?
I liked what they did in Catalina, where you could remount the rootfs as writable. What they have in Big Sur is too much; you have to restart every time you want to modify anything and it is not possible to change anything after booting.