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

321–330 of 765 posts

Re: Can't you just right click?

#321

Post by ttys000 »

rpdillon wrote: post #284
dmart wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. Regular users are not sufficiently computer-savvy to avoid being tricked into installing malware.

I mean, you're right, but I feel like the approach we're taking is that we have to cater to the least tech-savvy person that might every use the computer, even if that damages the experience for millions of folks that are tech-savvy. I really disagree with this this one-size-fits-all approach. It seems like a local optimum, at best. Of course, more tech-savvy users can always use a system that doesn't impose this on…

Apple needs to finish migrating their casual userbase off MacOS and onto iPadOS. Macs should be reserved for engineers and other technician oriented jobs in the various industries. That should be the delineation.

The industry tried to morph desktop computing into the world of Windows XP playschool friendly computing. Teach grandma for the 6th time how to click the start menu, etc.

That was a stopgap solution, and that era is over. We need to move all of those people off of computers and onto consumer-safe devices. Then restore desktop computing back to its originally intended audience, take off the bumpers and give unregulated access back to serious computer users who want to build important stuff, not get constantly nagged and prohibited from doing so.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#323

Post by userbinator »

Is this only for GUI applications? Admittedly I have not done much development on Macs, but have done some exclusively-command-line work post-Gatekeeper, and have never seen that dialog (or a textual equivalent) appear when running binaries I compiled and even copied across machines; from the Terminal.

Incidentally I have never run those binaries via the Finder either, so it makes one wonder where exactly this check is --- is it something Finder does when you open apps, or when GUI libraries are loaded, or something much lower-level in the kernel, like on an exec() call? I don't have a suitable machine around at the moment to check, but the need to right-click suggests Finder is doing this?

Re: Can't you just right click?

#324

Post by csande17 »

usrusr wrote: post #155
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…

Could that be turned into a little funding opportunity? "Here are the sources, here are the binaries, here you subscribe to get access to signed binaries that run without the scare quotes"

I've seen a couple projects do this by publishing a Mac App Store version. Completely identical to the open source release, but it pays the Apple tax to run without warnings, and it gets App Store-powered auto updates.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#325

Post by arczyx »

fizzled wrote: post #310

All of these people saying: switch to Windows, its better than mac! Have you really done that? REALLY? Because I work on Mac, Win10 and Linux every day. And Win10 doesn't even come close to the other two in terms of reliability, stability, and lack of unnecessary bullshit. I just don't understand who can make this claim that Win is better than Macos with a straight face. Maybe for gaming. Maybe. The cost/fps is clear…

>but I think a lot of people on this thread have never even used a mac for more than five minutes, let alone developed on one. HN monoculture is real.

I for one, use mac and develop on it for my job, and I like windows significantly more than mac. Dunno how many people here are like me, but I don't think this kind of assumption is fair.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#326

Post by rsfinn »

cytzol wrote: post #147
_qulr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, what kind of "viable software business" has trouble paying $100 a year? The issue isn't the money. The blog post was written in the context of the widely reported story of Apple threatening to terminate the developer account of Epic Games, which would prevent them from signing and notarizing their Mac software.

> The blog post was written in the context of the widely reported story of Apple threatening to terminate the developer account of Epic Games, which would prevent them from signing and notarizing their Mac software. This part is key. It shows that Apple's signing and notarising requirement isn't about money, nor is it about security. Epic broke the rules of the iOS store, and now they'll be forbidden from developing…

Can I offer an alternate viewpoint?

Epic didn't simply implement their own in-app purchase plan; they also remotely updated Fortnite to include it after it had passed app review (because Apple wouldn't have approved it, obviously). The whole point of app review is that Apple can assure its customers that apps are safe to run. Having apps that bypass the review by updating themselves subverts the whole process. You may not agree with the app review process, but it's clearly a feature that Apple regards as an important selling point.

Given that Epic has demonstrated a willingness to subvert the app review process, why should Apple allow such an untrustworthy developer to place its apps on any Apple platform?

(To be clear, Apple has said that they will gladly allow Epic back onto the App Store if they remove the private in-app purchase mechanism, so apparently Apple has not fully adopted this viewpoint -- at least, not yet...)

Re: Can't you just right click?

#327

Post by kumarvvr »

white-flame wrote: post #10

The fact that the standard model of computing is that applications are opaque machine code blobs that can access everything in your user permission space is the core problem in privacy and malware. Applications should see nothing but their executable jail, and whatever was intentionally allowed to them by the user (eg, Open file dialog giving the application an opaque file handle, etc, not carte blanche access to the…

The average user would be terribly confused by all this and would hardly bother to even analyze requirements that are asked by any app. They will simply allow everything.

More importantly, if they see something like a permissions screen, they will have a false sense of security.

And severe restrictions on the app, would hamper user experience. Code signing and developer ID are the most practical means to ensure quality software.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#328

Post by damnyou »

floatboth wrote: post #253
nathansoz wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows signing isn't centrally managed through Microsoft, which is an important distinction I think.

IIRC, the CAs Windows trusts charge absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, unless something has changed recently.

Certum seems to be reasonable for open source code.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#329

Post by _qulr »

rsfinn wrote: post #326
cytzol wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The blog post was written in the context of the widely reported story of Apple threatening to terminate the developer account of Epic Games, which would prevent them from signing and notarizing their Mac software. This part is key. It shows that Apple's signing and notarising requirement isn't about money, nor is it about security. Epic broke the rules of the iOS store, and now they'll be forbidden from developing…

Can I offer an alternate viewpoint? Epic didn't simply implement their own in-app purchase plan; they also remotely updated Fortnite to include it after it had passed app review (because Apple wouldn't have approved it, obviously). The whole point of app review is that Apple can assure its customers that apps are safe to run. Having apps that bypass the review by updating themselves subverts the whole process. You ma…

I would request that we please not rehash this debate here. It's been debated at length already elsewhere on HN. This is why I didn't mention Epic in my blog post, even though it's clearly the subtext.

The point of my blog post wasn't to defend Epic, but rather to explain how difficult it would be for a developer to continue distributing software on the Mac without a code signature approved by macOS. The frequent suggestion is that users could "just right click", but it's not that simple.

Post reply on HN