[spudlyo]

I thought the same thing as I was reading John Siracusa's review of Mountain Lion. My stomach sunk when I saw the default 'gatekeeper' options.

    [ ] Mac App Store
    [x] Mac App store and identified developers
    [ ] Anywhere

Seems likely at some point down the road the third option will no longer exist. My next project is getting Linux to run on an old MBP. I still love their hardware, but OSX is getting fuckin' uppity. I realize that this is just an attribute on a binary that you can set and unset, but still, the direction this is going seems clear to me. The further iOSification of OSX is driving me back to Linux on the desktop.

[bishnu]

It doesn't seem likely to me at all. In fact I think it's much more likely that you'll see THIS permissions system end up on iOS than vice-versa.

It's actually a fantastic security feature for the average user, so it doesn't worry me that much.

[spudlyo]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little... oh fuck it.

[radley]

I seriously doubt it. Can you imagine Adobe's Creative Suite in the Mac App store? Never going to happen.

[spudlyo]

Adobe's binaries are already signed, they're an 'identified developer'.

[ohhmaagawd]

what's wrong with "identified developers" only? You don't want to pay the $100 a year to be in the mac dev program?

[spudlyo]

What's wrong with Apple trying to control which binaries it will and won't let you run on its OS? Doesn't Apple always have your best interests at heart?

[Aloisius]

Political activists in China no longer able to anonymously release software?