True but the other point mentioned in the article: - giving automatic access to Finder automatically leading to that app getting FDA access without appearing in the list - is very counterintuitive I think.
Intuitive to a end-user, perhaps not (but why are they modifying those settings anyway? Well behaved apps don’t ask for FDA), but for a developer or power user it should be. If I allow Terminal.app FDA it means that any executables it hatches have FDA, or else it would be super confusing if you give it FDA and then wonder why nothing seems to have changed.
> but why are they modifying those settings anyway?
This is exactly the Apple attitude that bothers me. The idea that a user shouldn't be messing with settings. This is why they remove them as much as they can.
But sometimes there's a good reason to want to change something. Apple's vision isn't always right for everyone. And some users just have more complex needs. Imagine telling an Arch Linux user 'why would you want to change settings anyway?' :) It would break the entire idea behinds the that distribution.
In this case they do even offer the setting (so even Apple see the need for it) but it's not very transparent what it does.
PS: I'm not saying the arch method would work for Apple of course ;) But I am saying that what is configurable should be well documented, and that Apple should probably have a bit more configurability in my opinion.
