[coldtea]

>If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all.

Well, "unacceptable mess" are your words. It's totally acceptable to me that there could be issues on a feature / launch that need to be ironed out, unless we're talking about aviation software or pacemakers.

If we deemed "unacceptable" any misstep or early issue, we wouldn't even have fire, a relatively tried and tested technology, that still has its issues...

>No. I mean really very obviously no.

The question is not an absolut one.

You should read it "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests OVER any random app you might install or website you visit?".

Not to mention they don't even do the kind of tracking the original "sky is falling" post assumed they do: https://blog.jacopo.io/en/post/apple-ocsp/

As this post says, "Now that you know the actual facts, if you think your privacy is put at risk by this feature more than having potential undetected malware running on your system, go ahead [and disable the checking via /etc/hosts]".

>It's great that the author loves to exist within the limits and restrictions imposed by Apple, but don't expect me to go along with your Stockholm Syndrome and belittle me for differing.

The author is a security specialist, not some random dude. And he made his point with technical arguments, not hand waving.

[cle]

> You should read it "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests OVER any random app you might install or website you visit?".

For much of the software I use, the answer is no. I don't trust that Apple is acting in my best interests over GNU software, for example, not by a long shot. I don't even trust that I could understand if Apple is acting in my interests, because massive corporations like Apple have unparalleled resources they can use to obfuscate their intentions.

Is our best shot at trusting one another to delegate that trust to a notoriously non-transparent corporation with a laundry list of conflicts of interest, obfuscated closed-source software, and that's operated out of a country well-known for surveilling its citizens and citizens of other countries?

Personally I'm not anywhere near ready to accept that that's the best we can do, nor that it's something that we even should do.

[coldtea]

>For much of the software I use, the answer is no. I don't trust that Apple is acting in my best interests over GNU software, for example, not by a long shot.

Well, this is half-thought though.

First, most people don't use any GNU software or even know what GNU is. And they can and do trust all kinds of BS that they shouldn't (that's how computers get filled with malware crap).

Second, GNU in this context means nothing. GNU is an organization and an assorted set of licenses, not a program, and a program being associated with GNU says nothing about the safety of the program or not. The programs themselves could still be maliciously polluted with malware as have happened time and again, unbeknownst to the authors of the programs and those running the repositories.

>Is our best shot at trusting one another to delegate that trust to a notoriously non-transparent corporation with a laundry list of conflicts of interest, obfuscated closed-source software

Well, if you're against closed-source software you shouldn't be using macOS or Windows in the first place.

>and that's operated out of a country well-known for surveilling its citizens and citizens of other countries?

The latter is a political issue, and best solved at the political level. You don't get out of a surveillance situation just by using different programs, when the whole state apparatus, sites you visit, even ISPs, etc, is used for surveillance.

[8bitsrule]

Spin, spin, spin. I learned to distrust Apple's hardware after I bought my last (i)Mac. I've see no reason to think it or its software's gotten more trustworthy.

(The company that released the Apple II manual was trustworthy. That company was buried out behind the shed long ago.)

[amelius]

> (The company that released the Apple II manual was trustworthy. That company was buried out behind the shed long ago.)

When Woz left.

[alfonsodev]

But this thing frezzes your whole computer, it happen to me while switching internet providers, I could have worked perfectly fine offline, but I've lost hours, which I'm not getting back. I don't know if there has been an apology but I would like to see one.

Edit: By saying this I'm not endorsing OP exact words, but the failure is not a minor, besides hours of work lost, it was a major stress, as I though I would have to take the computer to repair, or replace it, and I can still manage, but many people can't afford it right now.

[userbinator]

The author is a security specialist

In other words, an authoritarian corporate shill, just like the vast majority of others in the "security industry" whom I've had the displeasure of meeting.

[AnthonyMouse]

> You should read it "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests OVER any random app you might install or website you visit?".

But it isn't that. That would be the argument for choosing to install apps through Apple's store, not for Apple preventing you from choosing to install apps through a competing store.

Because then it's not Apple vs. literally every random shady garbage app, it's Apple vs. some specific alternative store that you might very well trust more than Apple to be acting in your interest, e.g. F-Droid.

[sneak]

Apple has been leaking OCSP app launch data in cleartext for two years. This isn’t a Big Sur release glitch.