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

Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

lists.zx2c4.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 392 posts

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#311

Post by api »

j1elo wrote: post #215

Apple doesn't deserve to have such careful and detail-oriented FOSS developers like Jason, developing for their platform. He is genuinely wasting time in order to work around Apple's developer-unfriendly platform. Not that I should be telling devs where they should spend their time... but I feel like so much effort is being devoted to fix Apple's issues. > When I'm debugging these issues, I'll often times spend a few…

Apple has poorly documented APIs and locked down platforms and app stores.

Windows has decades of cruft and the OS itself is basically adware at this point with "recommendations" and shit showing up constantly, un-removable foistware, dark patterns to herd you into MS cloud, and loads of gratuitous telemetry. Windows drivers, driver signing, and installers are all horrors that can reduce one to a gibbering lunatic like the poor souls in Lovecraft's fiction. Networking is horrific too, and NTFS is slow.

Linux has fragmentation, fragmentation, fragmentation. There are at least three package formats, two or three inits (though I think we're converging on systemd in spite of its many warts), and loads of gratuitous distributions and sub-distributions and spins of distributions that have no reason to exist except for some minor holy war over some minutia or license holy wars. Oh and the most popular package formats, dpkg and RPM, are arcane nightmares from the pit of hell.

Every time I get mad at Apple I try working with another platform and realize Apple is not that bad. They all suck.

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#312

Post by vlakkx »

The_Colonel wrote: post #155
enriquto wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Anyhow, it does not mean that it is illegal, which was the original question. I guess most ToS are not enforceable in practice. The worst that may happen is that you "lose the warranty" of your macOS install and you cannot ask Apple for support. No big deal.

So I'm not an expert, but isn't it still simply pirating software? I mean what's the difference between this and pirating Photoshop for example?

The difference is that the cited shell script downloads software that the copyright holder himself makes freely available.

It is like downloading binary freeware.

The ToS are a separate issue, but I doubt they'd hold in Europe for example.

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#313

Post by AshamedCaptain »

vetinari wrote: post #245
literallycancer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your bank decides that your business is worth less to them than a compliance checkmark, that's on them. All my phones are rooted and it has never been an issue with any banking app I use. It's all about priorities. For some people, that's going to be the roman numeral name suffix dropdown in the registration form. For me it's the bank not telling me what I can do with my devices.

It is not just what the bank wants and pushes on its clients, because f them. At least in EU, they are pushed into it by PSD2 ("Payment Services Directive 2"). Even if you are happy with accessing the bank via browser on the computer, you are going to need the second factor for auth, and SMS isn't going to be it. Because it is pushed centrally, banks do not have a choice. Hence, you as a customer, won't have a choice…

Actually, the EU is being used as a scapegoat here (as usual). SMS is perfectly allowed by the directive. As would be even a old Google Authenticator-style OTP code which does not need any propietary software to work.

Banks are forcing you to run proprietary software on proprietary operating systems with draconian "security measures" that would make the latest DRM-enforcing-rootkit look like a children toy. They check whether your device is rooted, whether it has any non-Google-approved programs installed, whether Google Play notifications work, etc. And if you fail any of these checks, good luck using your credit card!

Open-source operating systems are basically dead in the water at this point, since failing to run these proprietary programs is not going to be a minor "I can't play this game" level- nuisance, but rather a life critical issue. And so far more and more banks keep enforcing these measures.

And for some reason there is no big outcry about this.

Even Korea's "all banks require ActiveX" situation was very mild compared to where we're going...

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#314

Post by pietrovismara »

j1elo wrote: post #215

Apple doesn't deserve to have such careful and detail-oriented FOSS developers like Jason, developing for their platform. He is genuinely wasting time in order to work around Apple's developer-unfriendly platform. Not that I should be telling devs where they should spend their time... but I feel like so much effort is being devoted to fix Apple's issues. > When I'm debugging these issues, I'll often times spend a few…

I can't believe great, generous people in their best intentions keep developing FOSS for a closed platform like Apple's.

Do they want a closed platform? Let's give it to them. Stop developing FOSS for Apple. It's a "market share" I'll happily give up (and I did already).

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#315

Post by saagarjha »

tw04 wrote: post #296
hetspookjee wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true? That can't be legal.

Yes, he says it right in the post. They had a donation link in the about section that Apple forced them to remove because the payments weren't going through the app store payment system where they get a cut.

It might be worth appealing that rule by claiming that the payment is a donation and optional.

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#316

Post by pietrovismara »

sneak wrote: post #247
Hamuko wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Apple would just integrate Wireguard into macOS itself. macOS has a built-in option for VPNs in the network preferences but it's shit like L2TP over IPSec.

I don't think Apple cares very much about personal VPNs, only corporate ones. The number of people who gate a mac purchase on the capability to speak WireGuard is tiny. I now only connect my macs and ios devices to the internet via external VPN router/firewalls on which I have root; I can no longer invest the time to hack macOS sufficiently to permit me to ensure that no unauthorized traffic is leaving it. This means…

> I can no longer invest the time to hack macOS sufficiently to permit me to ensure that no unauthorized traffic is leaving it.

> This means none of my iPads or iPhones have SIMs in them any longer

If you use Apple products for personal use: you sound like a masochist.

If you are forced to use them professionally: I'm sorry for you.

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#317

Post by drummer »

j1elo wrote: post #215

Apple doesn't deserve to have such careful and detail-oriented FOSS developers like Jason, developing for their platform. He is genuinely wasting time in order to work around Apple's developer-unfriendly platform. Not that I should be telling devs where they should spend their time... but I feel like so much effort is being devoted to fix Apple's issues. > When I'm debugging these issues, I'll often times spend a few…

My dearest Jason, please just stop wasting time on the closed crApple platforms with all the censorship these days. Your talents can be put to better use. If crApple users want to use wireguard, they can switch to linux or windows. In fact, this will benefit all of us.

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#318

Post by __turbobrew__ »

api wrote: post #311
j1elo wrote: post #215

Apple doesn't deserve to have such careful and detail-oriented FOSS developers like Jason, developing for their platform. He is genuinely wasting time in order to work around Apple's developer-unfriendly platform. Not that I should be telling devs where they should spend their time... but I feel like so much effort is being devoted to fix Apple's issues. > When I'm debugging these issues, I'll often times spend a few…

Apple has poorly documented APIs and locked down platforms and app stores. Windows has decades of cruft and the OS itself is basically adware at this point with "recommendations" and shit showing up constantly, un-removable foistware, dark patterns to herd you into MS cloud, and loads of gratuitous telemetry. Windows drivers, driver signing, and installers are all horrors that can reduce one to a gibbering lunatic li…

What about BSD? They tend to be less fragmented than Linux. The only showstopper for me with BSD is the lack of docker, but if you are happy not using docker or using jails instead BSD can be a good experience.

Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

#319

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

pilif wrote: post #162
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of software which runs on macOS that depends on kernel extensions: think about hardware accelerated operations in Photoshop, or how does Apple plan to support any PCI Express expansion cards in the Mac Pro line - or Thunderbolt accessories for their laptops?

Drivers will be and to some extent are covered by a user-space driver framework ( https://developer.apple.com/documentation/driverkit ) hardware accelerated operations will be covered by whatever drivers ship with the OS or can be written by DriverKit. The times when Photoshop has required kernel extensions to be loaded are long gone. The UX around kernel extensions has been very bad for years already (granted - just…

Compare the old IOKit docs and current DriverKit, ahem,"docs".
Post reply on HN