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

511–520 of 765 posts

Re: Can't you just right click?

#511

Post by coldtea »

enriquto wrote: post #378
coldtea wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any automatic way to tell your software apart from malware? Because that's part of what this mechanism tries to provide...

> Is there any automatic way to tell your software apart from malware? There is no universally agreed-upon definition of malware. One man's operating system is another man's malware. For me, an operating system that "calls home" for each new executable you compile is a crystal clear case of malware. In the case of this article, then, the only malware in question is macOS.

>There is no universally agreed-upon definition of malware.

Doesn't have to be. Just the common user's definition is OK.

>For me, an operating system that "calls home" for each new executable you compile is a crystal clear case of malware. In the case of this article, then, the only malware in question is macOS.

Which is neither here, nor there.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#513

Post by coldtea »

mcv wrote: post #469
mistersquid wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I publish checksums on my website and people trust that I am not malicious. Users who know how to verify checksums know how to work around unnotarized Mac apps.

It would be nice if the OS automatically verified these checksums. That would have been a nice OS X feature, but instead Apple ignores the verification process that already exists and invents their own, with themselves in control.

>with themselves in control.

That's the whole idea to protect from malware. You don't want the software publisher (which could just as well be a malware publisher) in control.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#514

Post by tialaramex »

andyzweb wrote: post #509
tialaramex wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the offer is open to any person . This is so that other people with copies of the program can fulfil their obligation by passing on the offer too. So maybe you make one GPL program specifically for Bill, you give it to Bill, and you write Bill the offer, never expecting him to care about the source code. Six months later a teenager from a country you didn't know existed sends you an email - and the teenager wou…

I believe the offer is for anyone you’ve distributed the program to. So if it was Bill who shared a copy of the program with the random teenager it would fall upon Bill to provide him with the source and not you.

Nope. The GPL expressly says "to give any third party". It's done this way on purpose.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#515

Post by zaarn »

ralfd wrote: post #479
Rebelgecko wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're competent enough to install software, they just don't explore a lot in the UI. If they can't figure out how to do something with what's in front of them, they have a tendency to assume it can't be done. In other words, if they click on an app and the only options are "Move to Trash" and "Cancel", they're going to assume that their only options are moving the app to the trash or cancelling

Which is the intended goal as they will never install malware.

And no open source software either unless the authors cough up the apple tax.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#516

Post by blauditore »

To me, this is a lazy solution by Apple. It's easy to keep a whilelist of apps that were manually reviewed (for money!) and just block everything else, leaving out anyone who's not willing to join the club (or cannot afford it) out in the rain.

A more appropriate approach would be to use an actual malware detection system, similar to what AVs to when checking binaries (check fingerprints etc.). AFAIK this is what Windows does, and it's way more inclusive.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#517

Post by Hackbraten »

saagarjha wrote: post #400
enriquto wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any automatic way to tell your software apart from malware? There is no universally agreed-upon definition of malware. One man's operating system is another man's malware. For me, an operating system that "calls home" for each new executable you compile is a crystal clear case of malware. In the case of this article, then, the only malware in question is macOS.

Plus like this little thing by a guy named Turing…

If an Apple engineer were to compile a variant of Apple’s notarization algorithm where ok means no and no means ok, would the resulting binary notarize its own source fed into it?

Re: Can't you just right click?

#518

Post by matsemann »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #435
matsemann wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you are able to, many others are not. So it's a hassle for those developing independently to distribute their software to the masses. So yes, you can run the same software (mostly) as in 2010 knowing the workarounds. But as a consumer you are probably missing out on new, great software because developers wont pay the apple tax to make their stuff available. So you're already affected. It's not FUD, you're just…

What are these many others, and what issues do they run into? And what great software are they missing out of? You're making a bunch of statements without providing examples or sources.

"These many others" I'm not providing examples of are exactly what the article is about. Didn't think I would have to rehash that...: Most people don't know that you can run untrusted programs with right click, or will even dare doing it.

What "great software they're missing out of"? Who knows? That's my point! It increases the burden to distribute software for Macs, so as a consumer one's missing out on what could have been. My guess is lots of small open source software won't make easy to install distributions for Mac.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#519

Post by matsemann »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #426
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…

Like all other legitimate software on MacOS; they get a developer account and distribute it via the app store. For years, Windows got laughed at by EVERYONE because there was so much malware on it - in part because of its laissez-faire approach to letting the user install anything from anywhere. Mac went for the closed garden approach and there's hardly any malware, adware, scareware or whatever -ware you can think o…

> Like all other legitimate software on MacOS; they get a developer account and distribute it via the app store (...) I mean come on, it's only $99.

So small utils and stuff, smaller open source projects etc. are not legitimate? Or should they shell out $99 extortion fee to have the pleasure of giving stuff away for free? This is just one of thousands cuts that will kill traction for Mac software.

Re: Can't you just right click?

#520

Post by wjdp »

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…

I publish a CLI app for many platforms, including osx, on GitHub. Using the cross-compile feature of Go it just spits out a binary that Macs can run from a Linux build host. I don't own a Mac so don't see what my users do.

Does this change affect running unsigned binaries from the terminal?

Post reply on HN