Live data from Hacker News

Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

github.com

181–190 of 301 posts

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#182

My longstanding prediction that Gatekeeper will ever so slowly tighten so that people don't realise like a frog boiled in water is continuing to be true.

Apple does not support running other OS's on their hardware. This is bad in many senses but it is specially bad since it weakens competition and reduces incentives for Apple to improve their own OS, meaning it is bad even for their users in the long run. If you choose to buy hardware from apple, you must consider that you're encouraging a behaviour that is bad for everyone, including yourself.

Neither does any other hardware vendor, even the likes of Dell, Lenovo and Asus clearly state on their online shops that their laptops work best with Windows, even when something like Ubuntu or Red-Hat is an option.

Also they hardly ship any updates.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#183
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really bothers me that Apple removed any convenient shortcut to bypass Gatekeeper like the old Control-click [1] hotkey. Apple's relentless ratcheting of the difficulty/annoyance of Gatekeeper has just about pushed me over the edge to completely disable it, despite the risk. The ridiculous song and dance of "File is dangerous, delete it?"->No->Settings->Security->Open Anyway->"File is dangerous, delete it?"->No is…

Open Automator and make a droplet or service that runs `xattr -d com.apple.quarantine` on whatever file you give it. There’s a recursive option for xattr that I can’t remember but I add that one on too; I’ve unzipped stuff that had the flag and somehow ended up with hundreds of files I couldn’t open without GK prompts.

  xattr -cr 
Clears all attributes recursively.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#184
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, Linux laptops are getting better and better. I'm hopeful that by the time my M1 macBook Air gets slow enough to annoy me (maybe a year or two from now?), I'll be able to smoothly transition to Linux. I've already done it on the desktop!

> by the time my M1 macBook Air gets slow enough to annoy me (maybe a year or two from now?) It should be good for at least 5 years from now, if not more.

Before macOS 26 I would have agreed with you. But after Tahoe my M1 MacBook Pro feels a lot slower.

Funny, there's even some regression in layer backed NSView rendering where the app I'm working on is faster (in some aspects) in a macOS 15 VM than on bare metal under macOS 26.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#185
post #24

If I understand the issue correctly, it appears that this change primarily impacts casks on macOS. In fact it looks like it may only impact casks. Casks are used to install binary packaged software, often in the form of a dmg or pkg file on macOS. Most people I know are not installing too many casks, and most of the ones I've seen install signed binaries anyway. The important thing for me with this is that it doesnt…

Homebrew Project Leader here.

Yes, this only affects casks, not formulae, whether formulae are built from source or use Homebrew's bottles (binary packages) or bottles from taps.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#186
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who migrated from macports to Homebrew, I'd like to see a third option (or maybe re-investigate macports again to see what's changed recently). Homebrew's insistence on leaving OSes behind that they deem to be "too old" is becoming a problem as the years click by. One of the reasons to use third party software and a third party package manager is to avoid Apple's own insistence on abandoning old OSes. Home…

"Homebrew's insistence on leaving OSes behind that they deem to be "too old" is becoming a problem as the years click by" Indeed! I have a VERY usable Macbook Pro from 2015. Even with the newest version supported macOS version (11) Big Sur (which is still quite modern) it doesn't have any binaries for apps, which means it has to compile every single app and dependency. I managed to update to macOS 14 (with the help o…

[deleted]

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#187
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who migrated from macports to Homebrew, I'd like to see a third option (or maybe re-investigate macports again to see what's changed recently). Homebrew's insistence on leaving OSes behind that they deem to be "too old" is becoming a problem as the years click by. One of the reasons to use third party software and a third party package manager is to avoid Apple's own insistence on abandoning old OSes. Home…

"Homebrew's insistence on leaving OSes behind that they deem to be "too old" is becoming a problem as the years click by" Indeed! I have a VERY usable Macbook Pro from 2015. Even with the newest version supported macOS version (11) Big Sur (which is still quite modern) it doesn't have any binaries for apps, which means it has to compile every single app and dependency. I managed to update to macOS 14 (with the help o…

I went through the same experience with an old macbook. Switching to macports solved that problem.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#188

Homebrew is not really pro in any way: they force updates, deprecate old software that is still widely in use, the maintainers are always very combative and dont allow any discussions or other opinions. In the end it's a package manager for consumers that hand holds you and is not really useful in a pro context. I've been meaning to jump to macports anyway, maybe ill do it now...

As someone who migrated from macports to Homebrew, I'd like to see a third option (or maybe re-investigate macports again to see what's changed recently). Homebrew's insistence on leaving OSes behind that they deem to be "too old" is becoming a problem as the years click by. One of the reasons to use third party software and a third party package manager is to avoid Apple's own insistence on abandoning old OSes. Home…

Nix is sort of that third option, though I really wish there was a well-documented way to use it on macOS as purely a binary/source package manager. A lot of stuff I read online goes into setting up nix-darwin to manage desktop settings and etc. and I just don't need or want that.

That being said, if you haven't used MacPorts in years, I'd say it's worth the jump. I recall moving from MacPorts in the first place because Homebrew was faster and allowed for customising packages.

When I switched back to MacPorts again, it was because Homebrew had become slow and no longer allowed package customisation. Now, MacPorts is much faster and has the variants system for package customisation.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#189
post #86

Hehe, the classic rude and mean behavior from homebrew maintainers. I get their motivation to remove the flag. In fact, it has always been better to run xattr in postinstall, this way the binary is free from quarantine even after updates. But the way they communicate with people is unacceptable and just unnecessary.

Reading that discussion, I was very surprised at MikeMcQuaid’s reaction to xtqqczze’s concerns, which were calm, brief, and valid. In response, Mike was a dick. Maybe it’s totally understandable that being a maintainer for the biggest mac package manager conditions a knee-jerk asshole response in a person.

There's a misunderstanding here what the issue tracker is for in Homebrew. In some projects, it's for free-for-all discussion. That's great if those projects want to use it that way.

In this issue's case, you have someone in leadership (p-linnane) communicating that work needs to be done, a maintainer (carlocab) communicating what needs to be done to make this change. xtqqczze's attempt to get us to move backwards on an already made decision doesn't help anyone. We have a discussions forum (and, well, the rest of the internet) for discussion of the pros and cons of decisions made. There's no point maintaining the illusion that we're soliciting feedback or discussion on the issues tracker when we are not.

As to me being a dick: I've been maintaining Homebrew for 16 years. It's used by millions of people. My full-time job has never been doing so and I've never been paid a market rate for my work on it (not that I expect or perhaps even deserve so). My primary concern with Homebrew is keeping the project actually running. This primarily requires the time, energy and work of maintainers doing so in their free time. It also requires contributors who submit pull requests.

Go read through some merged pull requests some time and you will see moderately to very positive responses from me. That's because that's the work that keeps the project alive. It has almost died several times in the past and I've kept it going. You may think it hyperbolic but drive-by negativity by non-code-contributor users is the biggest existential risk to projects like Homebrew.

Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software

#190

Homebrew is famous for making life hard for users. It makes "design decisions" that often conflict with users' needs, all in order to live up to the personal preferences of the project leads. Personally I use asdf to manage my software on Macs. It too has also changed its design recently to become user-hostile (the command-line tool no longer prints the options for the commands, and it's full of bugs since a recent m…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN