[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?

From: chad
Subject: Re: What would an "An Official" GNU Emacs Book look like?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:47:53 -0700

> On 28 May 2015, at 05:31, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
>> We really, really arent.  The link I sent you describes how to
>> install software that you write on a non-jailbroken, non-rooted,
>> fresh-from-the-store iOS device without having ever purchased an
>> enrollment in the iOS Developer Program.
> I still don't understand the distinctions you are making, but I get
> the impression this is an exploit, not a designed feature.  Could you
> tell me, straight out, whether that is so?

The software allows it. The UI does not enable it. Apple arguably
doesnt want people to do it, but does not make the software prevent
it (except temporarily, as a side effect of changing the implementation
details under their abstraction level). I dont know how to tell
whether or not you think that should not count in some way or other.

As I said from the beginning: It is absolutely possible, and has
been for a while, but the practical hurdles are real, and theyre
significant enough to persuade most people to just join the developer
program (which comes with over tradeoffs, of course). Effectively,
it works by signing the software yourself, and adding yourself as
a source that can sign software to the device. This technique is
common in modern internet infrastructure, where it is often confusing
and a frequent source of questions for new sysadmins, but de rigeur
for experienced ops.

If what you want to know is Does Apple *support* this operation?,
the answer is pretty clearly no, but they dont support installing
Debian on macbooks, either. If what you want to know is Does *Apple*
consider this to be an exploit?, as far as I know, youd have to ask


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]