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

11–20 of 392 posts

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

#11

Post by boudin »

OJFord wrote: post #10
alias_neo wrote: post #7

This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. In my day job, our Apple developers have spent years finding solutions to iOS restrictions around CallKit, Push Notifications and NSTodaysProblem, and those are just the things Apple has intentionally restricted…

> This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. Eh? Isn't that a description of the original complaint, and the 'a response' submitted here is from WireGuard creator/lead Jason/zx2c4 explaining much as you do the restrictions, bugs, and limitations he's tri…

I think he meant the author of the original blog post that zx2c4 is responding to.

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

#12

Post by notRobot »

OJFord wrote: post #10
alias_neo wrote: post #7

This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. In my day job, our Apple developers have spent years finding solutions to iOS restrictions around CallKit, Push Notifications and NSTodaysProblem, and those are just the things Apple has intentionally restricted…

> This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. Eh? Isn't that a description of the original complaint, and the 'a response' submitted here is from WireGuard creator/lead Jason/zx2c4 explaining much as you do the restrictions, bugs, and limitations he's tri…

Yeah, the parent to your comment is discussing Rachel's post, not Jason's response.

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

#13

Post by alias_neo »

OJFord wrote: post #10
alias_neo wrote: post #7

This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. In my day job, our Apple developers have spent years finding solutions to iOS restrictions around CallKit, Push Notifications and NSTodaysProblem, and those are just the things Apple has intentionally restricted…

> This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. Eh? Isn't that a description of the original complaint, and the 'a response' submitted here is from WireGuard creator/lead Jason/zx2c4 explaining much as you do the restrictions, bugs, and limitations he's tri…

Apologies, I indeed meant the original post to which Jason was responding.

By "response" I meant the response of the user to the WireGuard Mac app.

Again apologies, I somehow jumped a few mental hoops of my own when commenting.

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

#14

Post by stock_toaster »

schoolornot wrote: post #5

As a Mac admin VPP/App Store distribution is still quite finicky. I don’t understand why Apple has to flex and restrict NetworkExtension/VPN apps to Mac App Store. More iOS-ification of the OS.

I understand it to be an attempt[1] to prevent malware/adware from silently hijacking all traffic in the background.

[1]: reader decide whether it is a good solution or not

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

#16

Post by apple-sauce »

Honestly, I don't get it.

Apple makes big money from their ecosystem. Wireguard developer provides high-quality solution for free, helping to grow proprietary ecosystem, essentially helping Apple to make more money indirectly and directly (by giving 30% from donations).

In return developer gets tons of hate from users and from Apple itself in the form of delayed reviews, rejects and constant threat of violating some rule and getting dev account banned.

In my opinion, the only solution for this is to stop providing services for free and put a price tag on the app.

I understand, that developer is a kind, not-yet-burnt-out person who wants to be the world a better place by providing the free way to exchange information securely, but doing so for free for corporate ecosystem is clearly not sustainable, neither financially nor emotionally.

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

#17

Post by iso1631 »

This is a response to the Rachel by the bay blog post

https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2020/12/24/wg/

Personally I rarely use a mac, and don't do wg on demand, but one thing that did annoy me was being unable to set dns search domain, which wasn't mentioned in the blog post, but I believe is also caused by OSX deficiencies.

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

#19

Post by w0utert »

schoolornot wrote: post #5

As a Mac admin VPP/App Store distribution is still quite finicky. I don’t understand why Apple has to flex and restrict NetworkExtension/VPN apps to Mac App Store. More iOS-ification of the OS.

Reading through the explanation IMO the problem is not that Apple wants to force VPN apps to use frameworks and a distribution model they feel best fits their security/safety model. There are good arguments to be made for that. The problem is that the framework itself is just shitty and Apple should improve it.

This is one of the things I dislike most about Apple: even despite the high price I pay for their products and (subsequently) the astronomical profits they make, somehow they seem to be completely unable to simply address these kinds of problems as soon as they pop up and make everyone happy again. It's also in Apple's own interest to make sure VPN extensions can automatically update in case of potential security problems, no? So why they don't just throw enough resources at it to make it work really is beyond me.

There's a lot to like about Apple products but their culture towards addressing problems that affect their paying customers is becoming increasingly off-putting, especially since they have basically been printing money for over ~10 years now and have no excuses to not improve these kinds of things.

Post reply on HN