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

101–110 of 392 posts

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

#101

Post by eznzt »

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…

I blame Google. Had they made Android good, they would've crushed the iPhone eons ago.

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

#102

Post by comeonseriously »

zaarn wrote: post #68
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I can imagine that payment links can potentially be used as a loophole for selling unauthorized in-app payment items outside the store. But this is not the case here, nothing is sold, it's literally only a link to the project home page, https://wireguard.com/donations/ .

Simple solution, there are human reviewers for this kinda reason and if the rule is "Open Source Apps get a donation button" then not any random can loophole around. Heck, if both Apple and Google offered a solution by which you provide the source code to build, any necessary secret variables for the build and then it gives you those extra privileges, it would be nice. But that costs money the open source apps don't…

Apple could win a hole lot of points here by processing the donations themselves. The upside for them is that it would close the loophole.

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

#103

Post by segfaultbuserr »

comeonseriously wrote: post #98
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #31

> We faced rejections in submitting the app, because they decided to change their policy on the app having a link in the "About WireGuard" tool window to www.wireguard.com/donations/ (which they previously had allowed explicitly; now they want 30% or something) Last year Google started to ban donation links in FOSS apps, WireGuard was one of the first victims [0], completely removed from the store. I didn't know that…

So, is does this mean for a charity they take 30% also? For example, here's United Way for Chester County (wherever that is)[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/united-way-of-chester-county/i... They have a donate button (last image on right). Does Apple take 30% of all that is donated? If so, I find that to be repulsive. [0] I picked Unite Way because they're a large org, not because of any other reason.

Not sure about Apple, but I know Google has special treatments for formally registered 501(c)(3) orgs and they are allowed to seek donation directly without going through Google Play's commission.

Update: Apple Pay appears to have similar policies [0].

[0] https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/

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

#104

Post by jmnicolas »

comeonseriously wrote: post #89
webmobdev wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I made a donation to WireGuard last year, I'll be doing the same this year and I encourage others to "put their money where their mouth is" and show a little support Imagine, Apple even wanted 30% of any donations!! > We faced rejections in submitting the app, because they decided to change their policy on the app having a link in the "About WireGuard" tool window to www.wireguard.com/donations/ (which they previou…

That is how you become a $2 TRILLION company. Nobody gets a pass on giving up the cash.

There really is such thing than too much greed though.

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

#105

Post by Macha »

dang: What was the purpose of removing "Developer's" from the title? Previously it was 'Developer's response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”'.

Neither of these are the actual title, so that can't be the rule it was operating under, and the fact that it's a developer (as opposed to some other user or Apple/Wireguard fanboy/hater) does change the context, at least for me.

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #31

> We faced rejections in submitting the app, because they decided to change their policy on the app having a link in the "About WireGuard" tool window to www.wireguard.com/donations/ (which they previously had allowed explicitly; now they want 30% or something) Last year Google started to ban donation links in FOSS apps, WireGuard was one of the first victims [0], completely removed from the store. I didn't know that…

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by webmobdev »

pilif wrote: post #39
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple can't possibly get rid of kernel extensions - that's the only way to really extend a system in new and innovative ways (user-mode drivers are more like glorified serial-port applications). So much of Apple's platform today is made up of features that were only possible by extending the OS (e.g. Multi-Finder). Apple's going to have trouble if they keep on hindering the people that made their platform and support…

> Apple can't possibly get rid of kernel extensions they are though. It's getting harder and harder to get them loaded (on an M1 Mac, getting an extension loaded will require 4 reboots and a journey through the recovery environment). I'd say that within the next 2-3 macOS releases, kernel extension won't be loaded at all any more and only user-space APIs will be available for third-parties (including drivers). From a…

So essentially, macOS will become ios.

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

#108

Post by Macha »

webmobdev wrote: post #78
studius wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Apple isn't right on everything, they are a business, and they have the responsibility to decide what they will provide and what they won't. If they can't change X because it will screw over critical application group Y, then developers can complain as much as they want until they have some practical way to deal with that. If they were constantly screwing over Y, where Y was different depending on the problem,…

Yes, developers on Apple platform need to be more vocal with their criticism and, if necessary, even boycott their platforms to be heard.

These are people that are not Apple developers however, they're cross platform developers, and support Mac OS so long as the burden is not too great (or simply allow others to do the work of supporting Mac OS in some cases).

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

#109

Post by webmobdev »

hiq wrote: post #28
matlo wrote: post #20

Can you not release it as a .dmg, without going through the Apple Store? Love WireGuard btw

> That sort of suggests another question, though: why are we in the App Store at all? Because as far as I know, Apple only allows NetworkExtension-based apps to be distributed via the App Store, according to their developer relations guy [6], so we're locked in. And even if they were to change that someday somehow, and we went to standalone distribution, we would then have to support two parallel distribution channel…

They should abandon the app store.

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

#110

Post by contravariant »

JD557 wrote: post #21

In case the author is reading this, I recently started using Wireguard in Mac OS with the Mac app and the experience has been great. Not only is it much faster other VPNs that I used in the past, but compared to other clients (Forticlient and Tunnelblick), the overall experience feels much nicer, IMO. Thank you so much for your work!

Seconded. I can't comment on the Mac app but I have tried it on unix, windows and android and I'm extremely pleased that it allowed me to fairly easily create my own secure VPN that connects my home network laptop and phone.
Post reply on HN