Unfortunately the Unix part seems to be very underappreciated by Apple recently so I've already moved on again. I was an early adopter of macOS and have 'converted' many more mainstream users that still use it. But for me it's become too locked down.
15 years ago apple had people on stage bragging how there was only one version of OS X while Microsoft had countless versions of Windows (Vista Home, Vista Pro, Server, etc). I wonder if there should be a standard MacOS and a MacOS Pro that would be a relatively stripped down unix environment without all of the bloat thats been added on to MacOS recently…
I am still running and compiling the same open source software as I did 10 years ago and more besides. There have been a couple of rough transitions with the new security things, SIP, and whatnot. I disabled it for a couple of releases but now that’s not really a problem.
At first, it was Gatekeeper. Yeah, appeared in 10.8. Then notarization. Now, on M1 you need to sign your binaries ad-hoc or they won't run. Custom kernel extensions? No way.
It's like slowly boiling the water in which you sit. Little things, but one by one they accumulate into quite a lump of red tape, and Apple seems to drive home the point that a developer is a different caste than the user is, and there's some sacred knowledge that you should be in possession of, and update it every year for $99, so that you can program your computer. All the while the user is supposed to be clueless and in awe from this technological marvel the caste of engineers is bestowing unto them.
Oh, and Apple wants to be a bottleneck in each and every process connected to programming their computers. They also remind you that the machines you pay mad bucks for, you don't really own.
I like the pure Unix approach more, when the line between using the computer and programming it doesn't really exist, and where the system is basically your IDE too, and where you're going from being a user to being a programmer and back without really noticing. Mind you, it doesn't mean you have to go from one to the other, but when you want/need to, it's damn frictionless, and the system is as malleable as you want it to be.
For instance, with system integrity protection, a bad browser installer can’t wreck your entire computer.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/no-it...
If I wreck it, I know how to reinstall it and restore my backups, thank you very much.
I honestly thing the 'lock down' is so overblown.
Yes there's 'more hoops' - but you go through the hoop once. Seriously, if you're running a dev machine turning off 3, maybe 4, things once and never touching them again is hardly the biggest hurdle.
This is actually an experimental advantage over PCs, which you can brick if eg you erase the BIOS and backup BIOS.
Normally, and for normal users, the recovery mode is just a startup key combo away to re-image the machine.
Moreover, on x86, even if the internal storage is hosed completely, I can boot the machine off USB/Thunderbolt and have it live for years more. Try that with dead SSD in your new macbook. Talk anout e-waste problem and how „heroically” Apple is fighting it, too.
But M1 macs need the internal storage to work and be intact to boot even from external media. If the internal ssd on my intel mac or dell xps tablet (the soldered one, yep) dies, I boot from usb3.1 and keep on keeping on. The M1 Mac is a brick after that, except the new mac studio where the ssds are somewhat replaceable.
Having said that, I do roll my eyes whenever I come across the phrase "walled garden" when applied to the Mac in particular, especially when people stridently insist that the Mac is just a year or two away from being locked down like iOS. (I've been hearing that prediction for over a decade, and find it less likely than ever in the era of Apple Silicon Macs.)
If I want to make an app on my iPhone that I don't want to publish, I have to reinstall it every week, and can only install apps with network connections to apple, as apple gives my phone another 1 week permission slip to run code that I have written.
There are no more offline updates, no more offline app installs.
Also apple cares about privacy, except for privacy from apple. They transmit a shit ton of info all the time from their devices to the mothership and know effectively when and where you have been running apps on their computers constantly. They also do so unencrypted in some cases so anyone spying on the network can know too.
You are not the owner of an apple computer anymore, it's apple.
Ultimately in the end, if they really cared about giving their users ultimate ownership of their devices, they would. It would show up in the form of corporate MDM servers which make the ultimate certificate authority the corporate MDM server owner, and in personal cases you could launch and run your own or use Apple's.
Apple hasn't. They are game console computers and macOS is effectively legacy at this point compared to iOS.
If the Mac were a legacy, why are they spending so much effort on the Mac to bring them all to their own processors specifically designed for them?
Any day now…
Have you ever thought by making it hard for you to corrupt your Mac it also makes it hard for malware?
Apple fully supports installing Windows on x86 Macs and there are plenty of guides on installing Linux on x86 and Mx Macs.
Time moves on. If you want computing to be an adventure, that’s what Linux is for.
Apple wants to produce customer appliances, not entirely but mostly locked down in the name of security and smooth customer experience, and there seems to be a large market for these.
For example, I don't have a $99 developer certificate, and am not sure why I would want or need one.
You might complain about MAP_JIT but that's pretty important for security.
FWIW the biggest hoop an ordinary user would ever have to jump through on macOS is right-clicking an unsigned app bundle on first use to authorize it; which I've had to do on plenty of FOSS apps. This is not a problem, IMO - it is reasonable for the system to say "hey wait a second this app is new or different" and give you the opportunity to check twice before you jump. Code signing and notarization are things you only ever need to worry about if you want to distribute apps and not make your users right-click. Windows has similar problems with SmartScreen, except you can't even buy a code signing certificate to reliably make the problem go away, and Microsoft does an arguably better job at hiding the "no seriously this is just a FOSS app that hasn't jumped through all your hoops yet" option than macOS does.
Which leads to two outcomes: either you learn to right click everything and one day it’s going to be malware, too, or you „spctl --master-disable” and make the system turn a blind eye, and a drive-by zero-click kind of malware finds its way in.
Or, if you are not really familiar with intricacies of software distribution in Apple’s ecosystem, there’s a third outcome: you believe Apple and for you, all FOSS is dangerous malware.
Mind you, UAC nagging on Windows has the same problem, and sudo conditions you into just giving your computer password away left and right. I don’t know if a good solution exists, except maybe that you have to learn to not let your guard down in certain situations.
> At first, it was Gatekeeper. Yeah, appeared in 10.8. Then notarization. Now, on M1 you need to sign your binaries ad-hoc or they won't run.
You are confusing the local software development with the global software distribution.
Anyone is free to install development tools, compilers and toolchains, compile and run anything locally on an OS X, just like on any other UNIX system, including Linux. Gatekeeper and the notarisation enforcement, which are a default but can be neutered, address a common use case of «my mom/little sister/grandfather/etc has downloaded and installed a seemingly useful app from a dodgy website that has excreted a ransomware that now demands a payment to give their data back, or leaked all of their contacts/personal data, or slowed their computing device 100 fold down». OS X does give lay users a way to turn checks off, including the system integrity protection, and shoot themselves in the foot if that is what they want.
In fact, I would like to be able to selectively apply an even more, higher, restrictive security profile to any app, including to the ones available through Apple's own app store. Who can tell what potential spyware / trackware a 500+ Mb WhatsApp download from the official Apple app store contains within? WhatsApp desktop client is a mediocre (feature wise) messenger that is not even as feature rich as the 85Mb Telegram desktop download is. And I, for one, don't have the capacity to reverse engineer and manually inspect every single WhatsApp download/update for my own peace of mind and sanity, and I would also presume that very few people even from around here can. Anything coming out of FaceBook nowadays should be considered trackware and needs to be airgapped with the utmost diligence.
Even the business/enterprise software is ridden with all sorts of trackers. Citrix Workspace client, for example, installs three "telemetry" helper processes that phone home non-stop.
> Custom kernel extensions? No way.
Yes way. They just have to be signed for same reasons as third party apps. See https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/sec8e454101b/... for details. I was recently scrubbing the file system off some legacy components and noticed, with a lot bewilderment, what extra 'useful' USB drivers a 4G MiFi device I had purchased over a decade ago installed at the 1st connection attempt. I, for one, don't need those 'niceties' to sneakily creep into any of my file systems or lurk around.
In fact, OS X has become more GNU Hurd since 10.15 like by pushing kernel extensions into the user space instead, which reduces chances of the kernel crashing due to a bug in a random extension. More kernel stability and security? I say yes to both, albeit your mileage may vary.
Which is my freaking point exactly: you are being constantly reminded that despite having paid mad bucks for the hardware, Apple still owns it, snooping over your shoulder, giving you slaps on the hand if you dare „misuse” what they gave you.
Yes, you can. You seem to have never used Trusted Solaris implementing the B1 TCSEC level and running on the certified hardware where all system objects are labelled and MAC is enforced at the kernel level. That is an example of a much more locked down system, which you are conjuring up OS X to be but the OS X is nowhere near to being that locked down nor controlled.
The real trouble with the system hardening, however, arises at the network level where the traffic is fully encrypted, and it is impossible to tell whether a network connection, say, WhatsApp has established to 'external.fbsb1-1.fna.fbcdn.net' or to 'scontent.fams1-2.fna.fbcdn.net' is a legit one, or it is used for tracking the user. It is impossible to harden that further and is a unfortunate side effect of the use of the encryption.
App sandbox profiles can still be hardened further by anyone, not just by Apple at a whim; see https://reverse.put.as/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Apple-Sand... and https://paolozaino.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/maximum-security... for details.
Otherwise, since OS X is a UNIX implementation, therefore it can be scrubbed off of undesired features, if a need be:
- SIP can be disabled.
- Gatekeeper can inactivated peacefully (or via brute force by setting appropriate host entries to 0.0.0.0 in /etc/hosts).
- Deemed to be illegit or nuisance services can be scrubbed off via /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Frameworks/LaunchServices.framework/Support/lsregister.
- The rest can be unloaded and disabled via the routine application of launchctl.
- Security policies can be amended via fiddling with spctl.
Yes, all of the above is tedious, and it will break all vertically integrated Apple services and official app store updates, but it will give one a sufficiently 'clean' OS X install. If that is not enough, one can install Linux, NetBSD or OpenBSD to run whatever they please.
> If Apple Almighty hasn’t thought about your use case, it may as well not exist. There are two modes: either Apple nannying your systems like the overly attached yiddishe mame, or a mad ex breaking up with you, but also ripping out the locks from your doors before they go.
> […] Apple still owns it, snooping over your shoulder, giving you slaps on the hand if you dare „misuse” what they gave you.
You are misrepresenting a unsubstantiated strong personal opinion or a vague, generic, hand waving for a collection of facts that do not support such an opinion, for none of that actually exists. Apple is certainly not:
- Baby sitting my own or my colleagues OS installs; nor
- Does it slap me on the wrist for running anything I want out of my own moderately wild zoo; nor
- Does it care about the network traffic that passes through.
And Apple certainly does not own the laptop I have purchased from them; you might have a valid case with iPhones, iPads or Apple TV's but personal computing devices produced by Apple are not an example of such an instance.
Lastly, what might be a bug or a misfeature for you is a feature or a conscious compromise (that one has willingly accepted) for some.
Part of the reasons for locking down is 'security' (though a lot of it is so easy to bypass through Apple's own backdoors that it seems to be more form than function). Which makes some sense from the user's point of view. Part of the reasons is DRM for Apple's services. Apple TV, Music, App store, iOS apps. I don't care about that but there is not much I can do about it on their hardware. Soon we'll have a new category Apple will want to lock down the system for: the CSAM detection. Of course Apple will be hell-bent on preventing people trying to tamper with that. It will come with its own host of protections, which I bet will even be active when SIP is off.
Right now there are already a bunch of folders which the root user can't even read. Try running a "find / 1>/dev/null" as root and you'll get a nice list of folders Apple considers too sensitive for the user even to look at.
The problem is not security. The problem is Apple enforces security without the user being able to override their choices. There is no way to make modifications to system files and "bless" them so it will still boot after the next update. You have to do it every time. There's no UI for such features at all. Apple forgets that I'm the owner and admin of my system and doesn't give me the keys to manage it.
It's fine for their new targeted audience which is mainstream users with a large disposable income. It's not great for power users with a unix background like myself. I lament that macOS has moved away from supporting my usecase because I did enjoy it for many years.
But now I'm happier with FreeBSD with KDE. I really enjoy being able to trace a problem right down to its cause again. I love all the customisation options again.
I don’t know, from my experience just building and running works fine. As hoc signing is something the tool chain does. I don’t write kernel extensions so I cannot really comment on those (though I have a couple of them installed as a user and there was no significant hassle). The worst annoyance I’ve seen is having to authenticate every now and then to attach a debugger to a process.
> there's some sacred knowledge that you should be in possession of, and update it every year for $99, so that you can program your computer.
Programming your own computer has no red tape, the difficulties start when you want to distribute binaries, if you don’t want your users to have to right-click once. You can get compilers and things from xCode, Homebrew or MacPorts and they work without you having to pay anything.
> I like the pure Unix approach more, when the line between using the computer and programming it doesn't really exist, and where the system is basically your IDE too, and where you're going from being a user to being a programmer and back without really noticing. Mind you, it doesn't mean you have to go from one to the other, but when you want/need to, it's damn frictionless, and the system is as malleable as you want it to be.
Yes, it’s nice. But my ose of MacOS and Linux are not very different in that regard (true, I spent quite a bit of time customising xfce, which was fun). Also, to be a bit realistic it does not really work with end users in general. For a mass market OS, the fewer footguns the better.
"Why We Have to Make UNIX Invisible."
https://www.usenix.org/blog/vault-steve-jobs-keynotes-1987-u...
But there's many more issues, I've gone into them before (I used to be a Mac admin) but I don't want to bring it all up again
Current macOS (and Debian >=11) has a non-standard sshd_config modification that does "Include /etc/ssh/sshd_config.d/*". Although placement early in the config file means some things cannot be overridden.
Current "sudo" on macOS also supports this via "#includedir /private/etc/sudoers.d". (the # has been swapped for @ in upstream sudo).
This neatly sidesteps the need to diff / re-apply changes on a SW update.
It won't work foor all cases either. I just want to have the ability to make modifications and sign or bless them somehow with a system admin key. Root is not enough, for understanable reasons. What is possible is to modify offline (through recovery) and then 'bless' my changes. But this reverts after every reboot.
There should be a toolchain where I can make legitimate modifications in a secure manner to system files. Like every other OS has. There should be some kind of user key to sign modifications with. Apple has just ignored this whole toolchain and replaced it with a "just trust us" blanket.