Arguably this whole thing wouldn't happen if these apps were distributed and updated via the OSX app store. If that's the future you want, it's largely already here.
You can check a setting in OSX to make it so.
Who decides what software to regulate. Do I need a permit to install Python ?
I don't want to regulate software. I want people to have something to lose if they make a decision that has a large impact.
> Arguably this whole thing wouldn't happen if these apps were distributed and updated via the OSX app store. If that's the future you want, it's largely already here.
I don't understand this point.
> Who decides what software to regulate.
Who decides any laws or regulations?
> Do I need a permit to install Python ?
Does you installing Python have potential consequences for large numbers of people or could it cause a significant amount of harm?
Why do you take the most extreme possible position and apply it to me? Is it that difficult to argue against a sensible one?
I don't understand this point.
The core of this issue is an insecure updating mechanism for desktop apps. You can argue for security sake, users may opt to only use the official Apple app store or the official Microsoft store. In this case instead of having a random startup manage the update process, you have a couple of multibillion dollar companies.
I'm trying to figure out what exactly you want to happen here. Would you essentially make it a legal to distribute software without a permit ? Would distributing certain software require a permit ?
If you want to run your company using vetted software and limit your developers to only use a small list of approved software. You can do that. I've worked in such environments. You can lock down the corporate firewall. The point is choice.
It's completely different if you basically want a regulatory agency which will decide what software people are allowed to build.
Outside of work I like to use niche Linux distros. If I accidentally wipe my vacation photos during the install process, that's a risk I took. I don't have a right to complain that I destroyed my own data and blame it on software largely built by volunteers.
However I don't disagree completely. If you want to build a hardened fork of Linux with software vetted by your private certifying authority, that could be a good market. If all engineers working on your custom fork need to be "licensed" by a privately run organization, that is also fine.
I just wouldn't want the State to do this.
I’d argue no.
Let the private sector regulate this. If you want to use an extremely locked down OS with a small handful of apps, go right ahead.
The State has no role in this.
I guess if you can prove negligence you can sue.
This will never work in a global economy. If you outsource the software you're just begging companies to find someone making 15$ the fall guy.
Sounds pretty bad. Your manager tells you to do something stupid or your fired. You do so, and when it fails they blame you and your software engineering license is revoked. You can't find a job and now get to live in a homeless shelter.
Meaningful fines for companies is the only way to fix this.
Maybe... For some sensitive things like location data an expensive permit should be required. But this needs to be a corporate responsibility, not an individual one.
In your scenario bad companies are going to ruin the lives of their employees by making them risk their licenses.