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

Can't you just right click?

lapcatsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 765 posts

Re: Can't you just right click?

#101

Post by npunt »

tracker1 wrote: post #17
cuddlybacon wrote: post #6

This feature is at about the right spot for me. It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.

My answer to that was chromebooks.

Chromebooks are definitely one way to solve it. The Apple ecosystem is also pretty fantastic for family though - iMessage, Photos, Safari etc.

Personally I'd prefer family to be on iOS than MacOS, there's even less rope to hang yourself with there.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#102

Post by xenadu02 »

badsectoracula wrote: post #83
cuddlybacon wrote: post #6

This feature is at about the right spot for me. It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.

Well, yes, until you get to the point where (as the article shows) you cannot run unsigned applications on Apple Silicon. How much more slippery does this slope needs to get?

I think you've misunderstood the article. Ad-hoc signing is absolutely supported on Apple Silicon Macs. You don't need Apple's permission to build your own software on your machine, nor to distribute it to others.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#103

Post by saagarjha »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #96
saagarjha wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, this just means all binaries need codesign --sign - run on them before they will run. You don't need to pay to do this, so it's a minor annoyance rather than Apple centralizing control of app distribution.

Why wouldn't a malware author just... do that?

Malware authors frequently sign their applications with valid Developer ID certificates. This change is not something that would keep them out and I strongly suspect that was not the goal when it was made.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#104

Post by _qulr »

cuddlybacon wrote: post #6

This feature is at about the right spot for me. It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.

> This feature is at about the right spot for me.

The issue is not whether expert users can run unsigned software, the issue is whether unsigned software will even be written and distributed by developers. Perhaps some free software, but it's not a viable way to distribute paid software.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#105

Post by badsectoracula »

xenadu02 wrote: post #102
badsectoracula wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, until you get to the point where (as the article shows) you cannot run unsigned applications on Apple Silicon. How much more slippery does this slope needs to get?

I think you've misunderstood the article. Ad-hoc signing is absolutely supported on Apple Silicon Macs. You don't need Apple's permission to build your own software on your machine, nor to distribute it to others.

I understood it perfectly, which is why i wrote "you cannot run unsigned software" instead of "all software must be notarized by Apple".

Re: Can't you just right click?

#106

Post by CodeMage »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #79
CodeMage wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, do you know how much $100 is in Serbia?

I spent years homeless. There are sometimes homeless developers in the US. You don't have to actually go asking snarky questions about wage rates in other countries to make the point that, for some people, that's a meaningful barrier, even for the software industry. If that's the point you want to make, there are much better ways to make it.

I can't speak for @aaomidi who made the original comment. I can tell you that my own reply wasn't snarky. I simply pointed out that Iran isn't the only country in the world where the value of $100 is much different from its value in the United States. It seemed counterproductive to the discussion to get hung up on Iran's special status, so I mentioned a country I happen to know quite well.

I don't think there's anything wrong -- or snarky -- with pointing out that there are whole countries out there where each and every developer would have as much trouble coughing up the necessary $100 as you would have had during your years of homelessness.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#107

Post by badsectoracula »

saagarjha wrote: post #94
badsectoracula wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, until you get to the point where (as the article shows) you cannot run unsigned applications on Apple Silicon. How much more slippery does this slope needs to get?

To be clear, this just means all binaries need codesign --sign - run on them before they will run. You don't need to pay to do this, so it's a minor annoyance rather than Apple centralizing control of app distribution.

Yes, which is why i wrote "you cannot run unsigned software" and the part about slippery slope.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#108

Post by tech234a »

LeanderK wrote: post #95
koyote wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone whose elderly parents run Windows and have never run 'any executable that any website tells them to download', and I myself have not seen a website that gives me a random executable in over a decade: Out of curiosity, how often do your parents encounter the dialog in the article?

I really don't know how they end up with this, but my grandparents run windows and regularly have some kind of malicious advertisement installed. It's a not easy to keep their computers clean.

Perhaps installing an adblocker would help?

Re: Can't you just right click?

#109

Post by ccmcarey »

marcuskaz wrote: post #59
wtracy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Apple's documentation: > There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker. This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs So, the sky isn't falling yet, but it is reasonable to be conce…

> This new behavior doesn’t change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs This irks me, I don't know why. Maybe because calling it an Apple policy is something that can be changed. I consider it more a right that I can run arbitrary code on my computer. So yes, I would agree, quite reasonable to be concerned.

Everyone knows the direction they're heading in, so this wording comes across as .. we know you're lying, you know you're lying.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#110

Post by xenadu02 »

lucb1e wrote: post #2

This makes me wonder how open source is supposed to work on macOS. People seem to become more and more aware of it and even enterprises that insisted on support contracts can see that they can't get around open source completely anymore. Meanwhile Apple is removing the ability for me to have a pet project without paying an Apple tax. If the message were completely transparent, something like "The developer didn't pay…

Please note that Apple's linker will automatically ad-hoc sign binaries if you aren't using a signing certificate so there is no impact to package managers or any other forms of building software to run locally. Xcode already automatically opts such software out of GateKeeper checks when built from the UI. Similarly adding Terminal to the Developer Tool category in System Preferences will do the same for anything you run or build there.

I should also note directly launching the binary inside the App bundle from Terminal bypasses the UI dialog. The assumption is you know what you are doing in that case.

Post reply on HN