261–270 of 765 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at iOS, you need to pay for a developer account and the signed applications can't be distributed (otherwise they'll revoke your account) and have short-lived certs.
IIRC you don’t need to pay for an Apple dev membership to self-sign and run the app on your own device. They made this change a few years ago I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember RMS saying that the GPL was updated because one "obvious" freedom was not so obvious -- you could meet all the requirements of the GPL, without giving the right to RUN the software. GPL3 allows that. And looking backwards, apple shipped software that was GPL2, but would not ship software that was GPL3. As one example, bash and make all quietly stopped getting updates from apple when the GPL3 versions came…
What's in rootless.h?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to believe that this would be a cash grab. Even if there are 1M developers in the world, that's only $100M, which should not be worth the friction and cost to implement and maintain this scheme. Consider that Apple's most recent quarterly revenue was just under $60B. Apple made $260B in all of 2019; $100M is not even four hundredths of a percent. Developer time to build out the signing and notarization feat…
> As much as we all like to call out Apple sometimes for how they don't take good care of their developers, adding hoops for your developers to jump through is not a great idea. Why not? Apple has been pushing very hard lately to increase their 'services' revenue, by getting users to sign up for Apple Music, iCloud, etc. It makes perfect sense for Apple to force developers to jump through hoops, not because it makes…
I can definitely see it not really being about money, and more about leveraging their monopoly to push their own competing services.
I thought that a developer status will autosave me either from malware or from being babysitted, but then [1] happened. No matter how hard I tried to start that binary, OSX didn't allow me to do that. Damn OS which knows better, who do yo think you are? Did you see checksums, site certs, my competence, my willpower? I thought that it must be something with a build process that transmission uses, some signature didn't…
Being required to load your app every 7 days is such a major pain in the ass. Does anyone actually think that sideloading/self-signing is a realistic and viable way to build your own software stack (that can also be shared with other people) on an iOS device? It's obvious that this mechanism is only for development environments and the intention is that the app will eventually be signed with the $99/year version.
Perhaps the fine article has mischaracterized this behavior?
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…
Many (often cross-platform) apps are no longer signed, so they throw up this warning–I assume that users of these have long since learned that the warning is just something they need to bypass. macOS-native apps have largely adopted notarization and the fee that comes with it. Open source command line tools do not need to be notarized. Interestingly enough, it seems to be possible to notarize someone else's app , so…
If you check the code signature of a Developer ID signed app, you'll see the developer's name and Team ID from the signing certificate. This guarantees the app was signed by that developer, as long as the developer has kept their private key secure.
First you sign the app, then you upload it to App Store Connect for notarization. It's an "open secret" that Apple has allowed any Apple Developer Program member to submit any app for notarization, even if the app wasn't signed by them. Apple really wanted all apps notarized. Whether Apple will crack down on this practice in the future, who knows.
The notarization "ticket" is signed by Apple, not by the developer. I've heard of developers who discovered that someone else notarized their app. But nobody else can put their "name" on the app except the owner of the Developer ID certificate. If you Developer ID sign someone else's unsigned binary, you're presenting it to the world as your own. But that's not the case with notarization. Nobody except Apple knows who submitted an app for notarization.
I dont see any problem with this. If you don't feel comfortable doing this then you definitely shouldn't be running random code from the internet. I would take it a step further and force it to be run from the command line. Also, what kind of "viable software business" has trouble paying $100 a year?
Any open source developer? Do you know how much $100 is in Iran?
Much less than a Mac that you need to develop macOS software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember RMS saying that the GPL was updated because one "obvious" freedom was not so obvious -- you could meet all the requirements of the GPL, without giving the right to RUN the software. GPL3 allows that. And looking backwards, apple shipped software that was GPL2, but would not ship software that was GPL3. As one example, bash and make all quietly stopped getting updates from apple when the GPL3 versions came…
What's in rootless.h?
https://opensource.apple.com/source/X11/X11-0.40/xc/programs...
But that’s for Apple’s X server, so maybe Bash’s is different? But I couldn’t find anything about that in a quick google search.
Hold on a minute -- MacOS phones home every single time you launch an application? As a non-user of MacOS, this strikes me as utterly bonkers. You'd have to place a massive level of trust in the developers of your OS to accept this. And furthermore, surely the constant attempts to phone home have a negative effect on the user experience when the computer's network connection is missing or slow! Perhaps the fine artic…