This was perhaps the biggest reason I moved to Linux full-time about a year ago. I just got sick of not being able to write software and have people use it. The solution might be an "I trust this author" VS Code style dialog and that's it, but even that misses the mark a bit. I've been having a blast building on Linux and miss almost nothing about macOS. And the things I do miss I write programs for [1][2] and give them to people. Who would have guessed that would ever be so hard.
Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
181–190 of 299 posts
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many cases of signed & notarised software that pwned users.
Sure, but the more barriers there are the better because it still reduces the number of threats. That’s why people choose to rent walled gardens. Otherwise, Linux would have higher adoption even among our crowd. If you really value freedom over everything else, I don’t see value in putting bad bandages over closed platforms. Might as well just switch to an open one.
> because it still reduces the number of threats. That’s why people choose to rent walled gardens. Otherwise, Linux would have higher adoption even among our crowd.
I seriously doubt that's the reason, compared to Linux not being the default and Microsoft having spent years sabotaging it.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't code signing even harder/more expensive on Windows?
The extended validation code signing certificate you need to avoid having your installer blocked by Windows SmartScreen is quite a bit more expensive. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48946680/how-to-avoid-th...
This changed a couple years ago. EV certificates no longer get a free pass.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/package-and-d...
> EV certificates no longer bypass SmartScreen. Years ago, signing files with an Extended Validation (EV) code signing certificate would result in positive SmartScreen reputation by default, but this behavior no longer exists. EV certificates may matter for enterprise procurement, but they no longer impact SmartScreen behavior. Paying a premium for EV solely to avoid SmartScreen warnings is no longer justified.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I decided to get into this subject in my comment before I edited it out because I thought it would be too much of a tangent/ruffle too many feathers. But, yeah, macOS power users these days seem to spend a lot of time criticizing the OS and the company and never seem to just switch to something else. Apple is the 4th most popular PC manufacturer on the market. You can use something else. It's not a monopoly, nor a du…
I can charitably believe this comment is not disingenuous, however, there are effectively two options, which are Windows and macOS, regardless of three manufacturers making more Windows machines than Apple at number four with Mac. I would call it an effective duopoly
There are effectively two options if you dismiss Linux a priori.
Which yes, many people do. There are plenty of people who have no desire to try Linux. And if you're a developer then you have to consider those people, because many of the people who use your software are the type with no desire to try Linux.
But there are fewer and fewer reasons not to try Linux, and that group of "I'd never use Linux", while still large, is slowly shrinking. I'd argue that Microsoft is doing more than Apple is to push people into reconsidering Linux (and, often, discovering that it's actually pretty good these days, and that your techie friend whom you call all the time to help you with Windows is actually happy to help you with your Linux questions instead).
But slowly, over time, it's making less and less sense to dismiss Linux a priori.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#185Any user who does not like Gatekeeper can turn it off on their machine in ten seconds by running this in a Terminal: sudo spctl —-master-disable People will say, no, that’s too big a hammer, it’s not safe… but then, like, what do you actually want? Either you keep Gatekeeper because you like the friction it introduces, or you don’t like that friction and you should go turn it off. Pick one, you obviously can’t have b…
10 seconds or 30 seconds, it's just too much friction to ask end users to do. I actually develop on a Mac, but I've written off Apple as a target system for hobby/open source projects. Between quarantine, code signing, and notarizing (which requires $99 a year), it's just not worth it. Good for Apple users if they like this shit--I'm just not going to bother with distributing to the platform anymore. macOS is slowly…
Are there any groups of open-source developers who have gotten together to share a group account and the $100 cost per year? Forming an informal-ish organization, with just enough formality to be a legal organization in whatever jurisdiction they live in, so that they're legit enough to satisfy Apple's requirements? Not trying to hide anything, just trying to pool resources in an open and above-board way.
Or would Apple categorically reject an application like that?
I don't develop on Macs myself so I wouldn't know where to start looking, but I can't help but wonder if that would be a viable answer for many people who don't want to pay $100/year to give software away for free. Get twenty people together and $5/year doesn't feel like too much.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#186checkout fastlane.tools, you can automate signing/distribution
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#187It seems like running with sandbox-exec should remove pretty much all the potential for an app to cause harm… is there a reason why it’s not the default, especially for these certificate-less apps?
I believe that at least app-store apps are already ran in some sort of sandbox.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what do you actually want? Give me the ability to choose what I trust. “You can either trust Apple and nobody else, even yourself, or you can trust literally everybody” is obviously not a good faith implementation of this. Apple excels at steering the narrative with false conflation and false dichotomy, I’d also remind you of the came-and-went secure boot debate, which Apple successfully steered into Apple owns the…
I don’t disagree with your post but I’m still unclear on how you envision gatekeeper should work. You want the ability to choose a different “authorities” that verify and sign binaries? That makes sense to me but is unlikely to relieve any of the issues in the post. Also what do you mean by “even yourself?” What would that option look like?
You could like, just trust a single binary. Have a button right there in the popup that already shows up.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#189This is exactly the sort of paternalism which drove me away from the Mac in ~2015, after I'd been using Apple hardware for thirty years. It's just too much hassle for a casual developer; I'm stuck on the belief that it is my computer, not Apple's, and I should be the one deciding what I can do with it.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t disagree with your post but I’m still unclear on how you envision gatekeeper should work. You want the ability to choose a different “authorities” that verify and sign binaries? That makes sense to me but is unlikely to relieve any of the issues in the post. Also what do you mean by “even yourself?” What would that option look like?
You could like, just trust a single binary. Have a button right there in the popup that already shows up.
Maybe “Gatekeeper Light” hidden under advanced settings would satisfy everyday users + the technical crowd
For plenty of users, a button right there in the popup is almost the same as no Gatekeeper for most scenarios, but if we can handle it why not let us