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

Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

blog.rustymoyher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 27 posts

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#3

Post by jevinskie »

mistercow wrote: post #2

I really just can't get over how bad this "you can't run unsigned apps" thing is for, well, everyone. It is a depressing thought that this might be the future of software.

At least we can turn it off... for now. Does anyone know what happens to your unsigned apps when you upgrade from a pre-ML OS X to ML? Do the programs that used to work suddenly fail? If so, that is a terrible UX!

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#4

Post by archgrove »

jevinskie wrote: post #3
mistercow wrote: post #2

I really just can't get over how bad this "you can't run unsigned apps" thing is for, well, everyone. It is a depressing thought that this might be the future of software.

At least we can turn it off... for now. Does anyone know what happens to your unsigned apps when you upgrade from a pre-ML OS X to ML? Do the programs that used to work suddenly fail? If so, that is a terrible UX!

They work just fine. The signing check is performed exactly once for new software. Once allowed, it's never checked again. As nothing on an upgraded system is "new", it works without ever showing a Gatekeeper prompt.

It's basically identical to the "You just downloaded this file from the web, are you sure you want to run it?" check built into Safari - the file quarantine system http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3662?viewlocale=en_US&loca.... However, this defaults to "No" for unsigned code, and "Yes" for signed code.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#6

Post by aioprisan »

it's fine for most people, allowing for only signed applications in an app store is a good thing for, you know, people like my siste or mom aka 99% of users. having some accountability and being able to trace an application back to a users/organization signing it is a long term win.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#7

Post by adventureloop »

mistercow wrote: post #2

I really just can't get over how bad this "you can't run unsigned apps" thing is for, well, everyone. It is a depressing thought that this might be the future of software.

It is even worse than that. I tried to edit a .tex file yesterday in TextEdit, launching from the command line with open -e. GateKeeper told me that the .tex file wasnt signed and could not be opened. This is a barrier even for very technical people.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#9

Post by Sanddancer »

aioprisan wrote: post #6

it's fine for most people, allowing for only signed applications in an app store is a good thing for, you know, people like my siste or mom aka 99% of users. having some accountability and being able to trace an application back to a users/organization signing it is a long term win.

The problem is that Apple is the one and only gatekeeper here. $99 for a lot of apps, like independent games made for a competition, is a very high barrier to entry. Were Apple to allow third party certificates, and/or use the existing ecosystem for software signing certificates, there would be a lot fewer issues with this.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#10

Post by jakejake »

mistercow wrote: post #2

I really just can't get over how bad this "you can't run unsigned apps" thing is for, well, everyone. It is a depressing thought that this might be the future of software.

You can also easily run unsigned apps by ctrl+clicking them and selecting "open". Once you do this once the app can be opened normally from that point.

Still I also worry that Apple may get rid of these workarounds in the future and wall off the garden further.

Post reply on HN