• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    11 months ago

    Pick your poison: You can die quickly thanks to a barrage of privacy warnings, or you can die slowly by having to deal with privacy warnings every time you run a new app. Either way will kill you.

    That is a hilariously shit-tier take. Complaining about strict, OS-level privacy controls that actually show you what your software is trying to grab from your system? Lol. Lmao, even.

  • Rbon@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I hope no one at Apple takes this opinion seriously. The security of Apple hardware and software is one of its major selling points for me. The MINUSCULE amount of time it takes to click a button allowing permissions is very much worth the security and transparency it provides.

  • TherouxSonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Due to an extremely weird series of troubleshooting maneuvers

    The dude fucked up his own Mac and wants to blame Apple

    • SgtAStrawberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well not the first time I heard something like that.

      My favourite is when people download mod for games, and then blames the game devs for the mod braking stuff.

  • RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.ninja
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    That title makes me chuckle. He should go set up a fresh install of Windows and see what the default security experience is like. Mac OS makes it smooth and fast, and relatively unobtrusive in comparison.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Proper security requires some level of intrusiveness if you want functionality as well. It’s not possible to meet varying levels of required tradeoffs for different use cases without asking for informed consent to access restricted information or functionality with some regularity.

        Granularity is a good thing. Making users notice privacy violations is a good thing. Windows giving a generic “can this program make changes?” dialogue to every installation whether it’s extremely simple or basically a rootkit monitoring every process and memory access is a terrible, extremely insecure approach.

      • redballooon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Decades of OS development have shown that it’s better to ask user for permissions than letting software go rampant.

        goodbye yahoo! bar

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    In all honesty I’m split. There are times when it’s more hoop jumping than I want to deal with, but I’m also closer to a power user, and am capable of at least finding the information on the hoop jumping. The fact that by default, an average user gets spied on less is a good thing. The insane malware developers call anti-cheat on Windows is a far worse default as far as I’m concerned.