Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

sigpipe.macromates.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#811

Post by ithkuil »

ken wrote: post #777
throwaway851 wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but would a typical user know or care if the app they downloaded from a web site was sandboxed and would otherwise have been approved by the App Store if it was submitted there? And if not, how could someone like John Gruber make that claim of safety on anything other than iPhone and iPad? Taking the Zoom example on a parent thread above, look at what happens when you’re installing a Zoom client on the Mac witho…

This just doesn't seem like a terribly difficult problem. Web browsers have figured it out. Any webpage that isn't served over SSL says "Not Secure" right at the top. I can think of a dozen ways which the OS could prominently display "Not Secure" for non-sandboxed applications, in a way that wouldn't preclude or hinder users from using such applications if they really wanted to.

I wonder what's a decent way to do this with a CLI app

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#812

Post by pjmlp »

ghayes wrote: post #805
kevinh456 wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was nothing "unannounced" about it. Notarization was introduced at WWDC 2018 and announced as required at WWDC 2019. Every macOS developer should have been aware of this requirement. It was a special project for my apps.

I believe the concern here is that this is affecting not just macOS developers, but all developers who use macOS. That's an important distinction.

Developers who use macOS as shiny GNU/Linux replacement are only getting what they deserve, they should have supported Linux OEMs to start with.

Those that show up at FOSDEM, carrying their beloved macBooks and iPads while pretending to be into FOSS.

I use Apple devices knowingly what they are for, not as replacement for something else.

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#813

Post by pjmlp »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #720
roenxi wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote isn't at all relevant to technical decisions though. Eg, there is enforcement that a program can't arbitrarily access any RAM it likes on the same machine. That is trading freedom for security and it is a good trade. And there isn't really an argument against gatekeeping software - users as a body don't have time to verify that the software they use is secure. I'd be shocked if the median web developer even…

Of course it's relevant! Software is a form of expression. Apple controls what types of expression are allowed on your phone. A developer made a game depicting bad practices at FoxConn. Apple removed it for "Objectionable Content"[1]. How is this inherently different from Apple saying you can't use your iPhone to read a certain book? Apple's restrictions also make it easy for authoritarian governments to ban software…

Not at all, you are always free to buy computers, phones and tablets from other vendor.

Don't go buy Apple and then cry in the corner that you aren't getting the right set of toys to play with.

I use Apple devices and fully support don't having random app uploading my stuff into the world.

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#814

Post by pjmlp »

jerryzh wrote: post #804
ibeckermayer wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t they have their walled garden App Store and also allow me to install other app stores? It’s an authoritarian usurpation of the spirit of property rights. I should be able to decide for myself what software to run on my hardware, Apple HQ’s opinion should be irrelevant.

Why would any developer even want to release their app in walled garden when they can do whatever they want by releasing elsewhere?

Usually on the walled garden they get paid.

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#816

Post by pjmlp »

nrclark wrote: post #809
saila wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been doing software development on macOS/OS X for quite some time now and the consumerization aspects don't bother me. I install almost everything I need via Homebrew, from software libraries to desktops apps, and the fact that there's an App Store isn't particularly relevant (although I do use it for consumer apps now and then). I'm trying to think of how macOS is so different from 10/20 years ago. What's missi…

Do you write much system-level software? I feel like Apple's changes don't affect the XCode crowd much - but under the hood, things are slowly getting worse for command-line developers. How about when Apple removed /usr/include in its entirety from Mojave? Or when they decided to make the root filesystem read-only? Or when they removed the ability to permanently disable the "only run verified apps" option? Or when th…

By writing system level macOS software, although I think you mean old style POSIX UNIX stuff.

Here is a thing, already with NeXTSTEP, UNIX support wasn't never something worthwhile looking for, NeXTSTEP was used for its Objective-C tooling and frameworks, like Renderman and Improv.

The UNIX stuff was just a solution for having a quick ramp up for their OS development, and just like Microsoft with Windows 3.1 NT, to have a tick in the box when selling to the government,

Their famous commercial against Sun, hardly touches on UNIX like development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGhfB-NICzg

You aren't going to see a CLI on that NeXTSTEP screen.

Just like the SDK is all about Objective-C related stuff, even the device drivers were written in Objective-C.

https://www.nextop.de/NeXTstep_3.3_Developer_Documentation/

The only fouls here are those that keep giving their money to corporations instead of supporting Linux OEMs, as Microsoft cleverly discovered.

In fact, had either A/UX not been discontinued or Microsoft seriously supported their POSIX personality, Linux would never taken off, as the same crowd would be happily using these systems.

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#817

Post by john_alan »

drvdevd wrote: post #760
saagarjha wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It checks that executables have been notarized by Apple? I can't say I really think notarization is great, but I think it's clear from their perspective how it would be beneficial?

Sure. But as Brendan Gregg pointed out in his comment - doing this at the level of exec() on a UNIX-like OS is ... a questionable technical choice to say the least. What’s the Linux equivalent of “notarization”? I’m not sure. Of course there’s probably more than one answer to that - let’s just taking signing packages as an example. In theory Apple could put their weight behind vetting some of the popular open source…

Watching the notarization video from WWDC last year they explicitly said it wouldn’t affect command line apps.

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#819

Post by delian66 »

austincheney wrote: post #712
userbinator wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to look at it is that Apple is making it harder to run the system in an insecure fashion. You may not agree with that decision, but I certainly appreciate how Apple is looking out for the safety and security of the user. "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." (Yes, I know the original intent was slightly different, but that old saying has gotten a lot more vivid recently, as companies a…

The original quote from Franklin was about liberty not freedom . A suttle but vitally important distinction as freedom requires security where liberty does not. If you sacrifice freedom for security you still at least have security, as in a despotism, but if you sacrifice security for freedom you have neither. Conversely if you sacrifice liberty for security you have less liberty without any increase in security just…

In despotism, you do not have security either - the despot can do whatever he wants to you or to your family.

Re: MacOS Catalina: Slow by Design?

#820

Post by pjmlp »

drvdevd wrote: post #760
saagarjha wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It checks that executables have been notarized by Apple? I can't say I really think notarization is great, but I think it's clear from their perspective how it would be beneficial?

Sure. But as Brendan Gregg pointed out in his comment - doing this at the level of exec() on a UNIX-like OS is ... a questionable technical choice to say the least. What’s the Linux equivalent of “notarization”? I’m not sure. Of course there’s probably more than one answer to that - let’s just taking signing packages as an example. In theory Apple could put their weight behind vetting some of the popular open source…

Apple OSes never were about CLI, pre-OS X you didn't have a CLI as standard OS feature.

Selling UNIX underpinning was just a marketing move for willing to betray GNU/Linux and BSD in name of a better laptop experience, instead of helping OEMs selling their stuff.

Something that NeXT also did against the Sun workstations market.

On Linux side of the this kind of security measures never work, because the moment someone introduces something like this, the distribution gets forked.

It works on ChromeOS and Android, because it hardly matters to userspace that Linux is the actual kernel, Google could embark (and it is actually) in a kernel replacement project and most stuff would just work.

Post reply on HN