1) Download random shit from the internet at your own risk. If you're given a vast supply of safe software, and you choose not to use it, remember that you're a grown up and you should do what you like.
2) Nobody is objecting to walled gardens with no walls. Almost nobody, I should say; I've seen people tell Apple users that the fact that they are happy with the app store makes them bad in some way, but those people are shitheads. The reason to attack Apple is on behalf of their users, not some perverse brand nationalism.
If an Apple user can install whatever they want, and end their relationship with the Apple corporation at any time, that's winning. If the vast majority of Apple users decide that they value whatever contract (implicit or explicit) that Apple has made with them, and enjoy the relationship and the stewardship of the app store, that's a choice they're making as free people. And under the pressure of free people, the app store would have to improve anyway. I certainly have affection for what Debian does (and for everybody who wrote the software packaged in Debian.) Why shouldn't they feel that for Apple?
I misspoke, it's indeed a "garden", not a walled garden.
Linux users often rail against Apple's gardens, so it'd be dishonest to pretend otherwise. I should know! I've been a Linux user for 20 years now.
> If you're given a vast supply of safe software, and you choose not to use it, remember that you're a grown up and you should do what you like.
But lots of software in Linux isn't available in any repos. For example, games and stuff a typical mainstream user would expect. So Linux couldn't be turned into a "safe" mainstream OS unless it adopted a more diverse "app store", like macOS.
But this could very well be done by Windows, so it's not that one OS is "safe" or "safer" than the other. It's essentially a popularity thing.
> Download random shit from the internet at your own risk
And here we have it! Linux users "download random shit at their own risk" because they are not mainstream users; their needs are served by their distro's repo because their needs are different. If Linux was a mainstream OS, with the kinds of users that come with it, it would either have to turn into macOS or Windows. Either draconian measures (a single store where you can buy everything), or no measures at all (== malware).
Expecting people to "review the installer" is ridiculous.
1) Download random shit from the internet at your own risk. If you're given a vast supply of safe software, and you choose not to use it, remember that you're a grown up and you should do what you like.
2) Nobody is objecting to walled gardens with no walls. Almost nobody, I should say; I've seen people tell Apple users that the fact that they are happy with the app store makes them bad in some way, but those people are shitheads. The reason to attack Apple is on behalf of their users, not some perverse brand nationalism.
If an Apple user can install whatever they want, and end their relationship with the Apple corporation at any time, that's winning. If the vast majority of Apple users decide that they value whatever contract (implicit or explicit) that Apple has made with them, and enjoy the relationship and the stewardship of the app store, that's a choice they're making as free people. And under the pressure of free people, the app store would have to improve anyway. I certainly have affection for what Debian does (and for everybody who wrote the software packaged in Debian.) Why shouldn't they feel that for Apple?