331–340 of 424 posts
Two years ago I released a Mac app ( https://heyfocus.com/ ) that couldn't be in the MAS due to sandbox restrictions (tried 3 times—frustrating experience). I sat on it for an entire year because I was convinced nobody buys stuff outside of the AppStore anymore. A year ago, the project still had really good traction, so I decided to try to sell it directly as a test (using Paddle.com). Boy, was I wrong! TONS of peopl…
I used to have an app in the MAS but recently removed it and is using Paddle instead. There are so many things wrong with the MAS. Sandbox is the biggest complaint I have. I can understand it with the iOS to some degree. At least there they are constantly providing new features and hardware changes to help apps keep being innovative. To give an example of the Sandbox issue. We are using AppleScript for some of our lo…
Although I am happy that apps are moving out of the MAS (it is slow, updates are slow, no possibility to offer upgrade licenses), as a user, Sandboxing is something that I want for every possible application. The model where an app can e.g. touch your whole home directory should go.
Or any other kind of wild shenanigan Apple hasn't ever thought of.
Keep that stuff for mobiles.
If PCs also become grandma only territory, how will really interesting apps ever be developed? Interesting almost always involves "dangerous" somewhere along the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I am happy that apps are moving out of the MAS (it is slow, updates are slow, no possibility to offer upgrade licenses), as a user, Sandboxing is something that I want for every possible application. The model where an app can e.g. touch your whole home directory should go.
Really? If that model is so awesome, how can I ever implement a screen reader for Hearthstone? Or how can I implement a deck tracker for Hearthstone? Or any other kind of wild shenanigan Apple hasn't ever thought of. Keep that stuff for mobiles. If PCs also become grandma only territory, how will really interesting apps ever be developed? Interesting almost always involves "dangerous" somewhere along the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The latest Photoshop on Linux is quite attainable; I have CC running smoothly via VMWare Worksation 12 / Windows 7 (new versions of VMWare have DirectX/OpenGL and let you allocate GPU memory) ... but unfortunately that combines 2 proprietary solutions so guess it doesn't exactly fit your criteria.
So "Photoshop on Linux" means "Photoshop on Windows on Linux"... that's not really a solution. That's Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason Apple has always given is security. This is the reason they gave for not allowing third party access to the JIT version of the javascript engine. This doesn't make sense. You could disable the JIT, compile WebKit to native code, and ship it on iOS without the app requiring any more technical permissions. Apple just doesn't want you to do that for business reasons. If you want to maintain that it's a secu…
Your comment doesn't make sense. You've always been able to embed the renderer with non-JIT JavaScript. Now you can build an app with full JIT embedded, so saying they don't want you to for business reasons is obviously false. They do let you do it. The attack vector they're concerned about is to do with the JIT exposing access to shared memory. As for alternate engines, any such engine would need to include a JavaSc…
Apple's renderer. Not your own custom one.
> The attack vector they're concerned about is to do with the JIT exposing access to shared memory.
I don't know what "exposing access to shared memory" means. All applications that download data place potentially-hostile data into memory.
> As for alternate engines, any such engine would need to include a JavaScript engine, which immediately opens up vectors for attack.
Such as? Describe a specific attack that is prevented by forbidding interpreters of remote content.
> That's why the ability to download and execute code is restricted.
Downloading and interpreting code is something that even a PDF viewer does. Why is that not restricted?
> now, thanks to a robust and secure cross process communications framework, many restrictions that were supposedly 'for business reasons' have been lifted.
But not the restriction on alternate Web engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason Apple has always given is security. This is the reason they gave for not allowing third party access to the JIT version of the javascript engine. This doesn't make sense. You could disable the JIT, compile WebKit to native code, and ship it on iOS without the app requiring any more technical permissions. Apple just doesn't want you to do that for business reasons. If you want to maintain that it's a secu…
You're free to do exactly that. Nothing stops you from publishing a web browser that renders static HTML. But the only way to include a JS interpreter is to use the Apple-provided WebKit. Language interpreters are forbidden to download any code from the internet, so you cannot use JS found on a web page in your own interpreter.
That would not remotely be a practical Web browser in 2015.
> Language interpreters are forbidden to download any code from the internet, so you cannot use JS found on a web page in your own interpreter.
Which is a business decision.
I don't understand why this is controversial; it's well-established that many of the iOS restrictions are business-related. Note that I'm not even arguing here that those business-related restrictions are a bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You would think that at least people would be able to turn off such a thing with apps they knew were ok. But no." If you allow that, then "Amazing Super Awesome Free Desktop Calendars" is going to ask for it as well.
It already can. You don't need to go through the MAS to download and install an app on your Mac. What I am talking about is if I am downloading something from the MAS. If I am using an app and it pops up first time with the spinning gear I should be able to hide the spinning gear for that specific app. I find it absurdly ironic that such a powerful system doesn't give me that simple ability.
You will always see the gear in the menu bar if you are using Automator.
Not having the spinning gear just because app came from MAS implies a whole level of trust that Apple probably isn't ready to afford. But again I have no idea about Apple internal design mentality.
I think the issue is that sometimes the spinning gear doesn't go away after the script completes confusing users. This is an OSX bug not anything to do with the Mac App Store.
The worst part about this is all the problems are easily solved if Apple simply put the resources into it. * The actual MAS store app itself is a horrible piece of garbage wrapping a bunch of web views. Just make it a real native app and rewrite it. * Sandboxing is great, but there will always be things that fall outside the sandbox. Have a "Power User / Developer Tools" category and associated checkbox in iTC that s…
> Have a "Power User / Developer Tools" category and associated checkbox in iTC that says "My app needs to opt-out of these parts of sandboxing". Put those apps through a much more strenuous review process. I disagree with this. I like the sandbox constraint; i don't mind opting out of the app store if my needs necessitate dropping the sandbox. I also think the interface of the app store is the least of its concerns.…
Strict sandboxing is not a good fit for the Mac.
Also what's wrong with Apple and their approach to software lately ? Have they become just a hardware and accessories company? Chris Pirillo gave a great talk about all the issues with the upfront statement that Android Marshmallow runs better on older hardware then iOS 9 on theirs (20min): http://youtu.be/n5iuR8pKBfQ
I dumped OSX and installed Debian on my iMac a couple months ago because Apple's software has just sucked the last few iterations, and if it weren't for Capture One and LightRoom I'd be running OSX on my MBP, too.
If it doesn't get better soon, my next phone is going to be an Android.
I used to have an app in the MAS but recently removed it and is using Paddle instead. There are so many things wrong with the MAS. Sandbox is the biggest complaint I have. I can understand it with the iOS to some degree. At least there they are constantly providing new features and hardware changes to help apps keep being innovative. To give an example of the Sandbox issue. We are using AppleScript for some of our lo…
Although I am happy that apps are moving out of the MAS (it is slow, updates are slow, no possibility to offer upgrade licenses), as a user, Sandboxing is something that I want for every possible application. The model where an app can e.g. touch your whole home directory should go.
That's what I've never understood about the Sandbox policy. Those apps will still be shipped... they're just another level removed from Apple's oversight. And it's not like iOS, where not allowing those apps ensures that 99.9% of users will never ever see those apps.
Gatekeeper helps with this to a degree, but why not just allow them in the Mac App Store?