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

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#11

Post by aioprisan »

Sanddancer wrote: post #9
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.

who else should be the gatekeeper on their own platform? $99/year is not a lot.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#12

Post by st3fan »

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.

There is actually something else going on here. I have never seen the 'this app is damaged' error and I think it is because Flash creates those 'Projectors' in some incompatible way.

Unsigned binaries are really not an issue. People who know what they are doing can completely turn the check off, or you can leave it on simply 'command-click and choose open' once to add the app to the whitelist. I do this all the time.

But really 'this app is damaged' is something different. I think the apps start working as a side-effect of code signing that masks the real issue here.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#13

Post by maaku »

aioprisan wrote: post #11
Sanddancer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

who else should be the gatekeeper on their own platform? $99/year is not a lot.

For some people (students, hobbyists), it is.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#14

Post by deathchill »

Sanddancer wrote: post #9
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.

I thought that as it works currently you can sign up as a free developer and generate certificates so your apps can run on ML.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#15

Post by Sanddancer »

aioprisan wrote: post #11
Sanddancer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

who else should be the gatekeeper on their own platform? $99/year is not a lot.

/I/ should be the gatekeeper on /my/ device. Apple's all or nothing approach means that for hobbyist usage, or internal app distribution, etc, you still have to pay that $99/year, even if it's not going into the regular ecosystem.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#16

Post by Adirael »

adventureloop wrote: post #7
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.

The first thing I did after installing ML was disabling GateKeeper, problem solved. Signed apps are a good idea for "illiterate" people, it prevents them from installing malware and spyware.

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#17

Post by Flow »

Sanddancer wrote: post #15
aioprisan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who else should be the gatekeeper on their own platform? $99/year is not a lot.

/I/ should be the gatekeeper on /my/ device. Apple's all or nothing approach means that for hobbyist usage, or internal app distribution, etc, you still have to pay that $99/year, even if it's not going into the regular ecosystem.

You know /YOU/ can turn it off on /YOUR/ device, right?

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#18

Post by jrockway »

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.

Why? Someone will just set up a web service to sign any app for free. (AFIAK, they aren't publishing revocation lists.)

Re: Signing apps for Mountain Lion without Xcode

#19

Post by Sanddancer »

Flow wrote: post #17
Sanddancer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/I/ should be the gatekeeper on /my/ device. Apple's all or nothing approach means that for hobbyist usage, or internal app distribution, etc, you still have to pay that $99/year, even if it's not going into the regular ecosystem.

You know /YOU/ can turn it off on /YOUR/ device, right?

Yes, I know it can be turned off. However, there's no way to import 3rd party roots into gatekeeper. That's what I meant by all or nothing.
Post reply on HN