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

The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

cdfinder.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 214 posts

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#11

Post by flohofwoe »

pwinnski wrote: post #3

If you're going to rant about details, it helps to actually get the details right. For example, showing a screenshot that doesn't contain the word "malware" and then saying: > Using my application name and the word "malware" in one sentence is suggestive and extremely offensive by Apple. Does not fill me with much hope that the author is detail-oriented. I'll keep reading, and I know already that the notarizing proce…

The shown dialog box quite heavily implies that "NeoFinder" might be malware, and that the fault is with the application developer and not with Apple.

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#12

Post by duckworth »

pwinnski wrote: post #3

If you're going to rant about details, it helps to actually get the details right. For example, showing a screenshot that doesn't contain the word "malware" and then saying: > Using my application name and the word "malware" in one sentence is suggestive and extremely offensive by Apple. Does not fill me with much hope that the author is detail-oriented. I'll keep reading, and I know already that the notarizing proce…

technically not the exact word but malware is just a portmanteau for "malicious software", which is in the screenshot

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#13

Post by galad87 »

I wrote a little sh script to notarize HandBrake two (or maybe three) years ago, and that's was it. It's not rocket science. But like every new thing, it required a bit of time to read the documentation and to understand what's going on.

The plugin issue described in the article is probably related to the hardened runtime, so it's unrelated to the actual notarisation process.

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#15

Post by realusername »

meibo wrote: post #10
realusername wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally gave up, I treat all of their platforms as "legacy" and only port stuff as "best effort" similar to what I was doing with IE in the IE days (yes, that also includes Safari).

Recently getting into web development, getting things to look right on Safari has been such a pain... they really just work on Firefox and Chrome, but every time we deploy a new version, the one coworker with a Mac will message us about some arcane difference in behavior for certain CSS we're using on Safari. I wish we could drop it, but our Analytics disagree, sadly.

I hear you... I'm almost to the point of creating a second simplified version for legacy browsers (similar to Gmail's HTML view) and put a banner on the top to upgrade to some more modern browser. I just cannot guarantee that everything will work on their browser anyways.

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#16

Post by Causality1 »

pwinnski wrote: post #3

If you're going to rant about details, it helps to actually get the details right. For example, showing a screenshot that doesn't contain the word "malware" and then saying: > Using my application name and the word "malware" in one sentence is suggestive and extremely offensive by Apple. Does not fill me with much hope that the author is detail-oriented. I'll keep reading, and I know already that the notarizing proce…

Exactly what do you think "malware" is short for?

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#17

Post by eecc »

mmastrac wrote: post #7

Notarization has been a nightmare of a solution to a problem that isn't effective. You can get practically as much security by pushing malware signatures to the client without the massive privacy overreach of having Apple archive each and every bit of code that you generate for distribution. This is just Apple's overreach extended to the desktop. Excessive control that makes developer's lives hell while adding barely…

Yeah but that puts the burden of verification on Apple. This way the application author has to (legally) undersign their intentions.

Makes sense to me...

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#19

Post by maxwell »

meibo wrote: post #10
realusername wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally gave up, I treat all of their platforms as "legacy" and only port stuff as "best effort" similar to what I was doing with IE in the IE days (yes, that also includes Safari).

Recently getting into web development, getting things to look right on Safari has been such a pain... they really just work on Firefox and Chrome, but every time we deploy a new version, the one coworker with a Mac will message us about some arcane difference in behavior for certain CSS we're using on Safari. I wish we could drop it, but our Analytics disagree, sadly.

Yeah, it's a clear abuse of market power and is holding back the web. They have the resources to fix these issues, and seemingly choose not to, effectively taxing developers, who pass the costs on the consumers. So even well within the current bullshit "consumer welfare" standard: options go down, costs go up, with Apple's apparent "embrace / hold up / extinguish" strategy.

I'd love it if you could write up your experiences, ideally with those figures on Safari usage and citations to any relevant WebKit bugs, and send them over to Rep. Cicilline's office in Rhode Island.

I thought his office did a good job putting together these questions on anticompetitive behavior by Apple (who has since actually been fixing the protectionist issues that they gave obviously flimsy answers on):

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20190716/109793/HHRG...

Re: The Gates to Hell: Apple’s Notarizing

#20

Post by threeseed »

maxwell wrote: post #2

Apple devices are becoming increasingly unusable for developers. Fantastic opportunity for Linux apps to gain more dev resources, as anyone with a bit of foresight sees little future in macOS, iOS, Windows, or Android as development platforms.

This comment could have been written a decade ago and it was as laughable back then as it is today.

Developers do not dictate the success of a platform. Users do. And they don’t want Linux on the desktop.

Post reply on HN