Never upload your ID. If that means not developing for a platform, don't develop for that platform.
While I do agree with an overall sentiment, you can't seriously think this is a viable solution for most developers, surely.
Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
211–220 of 299 posts
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> without disabling security features? With Gatekeeper turned off, you’ll still get a warning on first launch which you can easily click through. (Unless Apple changed something in the last few versions—let me know if that’s the case—but it would be out of character for them to remove a warning...) The “security feature” you don’t want to disable is precisely the thing you are complaining about, so I don’t understand…
> substantial amount of money from $99/year developer subscriptions You actually do get some value, you can file two DTS tickets [1] a year which are (supposedly) looked at by a real apple engineer. Assuming they haven't outsourced it, that feels worth about $100 considering how badly documented their APIs are. [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/technical/
It also gives you the option of entry into the WWDC lottery for a chance at 2 days at Apple Park. Good networking, food and vibes.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I looked the MS Store was just a sad catalogue of shovelware. Has it improved?
Depends how long ago that was. When it first came out you could only upload UWP apps and hardly anyone used it, in recent years they've relaxed it a lot (you can just publish EXEs and MSIs now, fees reduced/abolished) and I see a lot more open-source projects using it now.
I just had a look, for the first time in quite a few years. It does look a lot less dreadful than it did. There seems to be very little software for sale that is >$20 though.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what do you actually want? Give me the ability to choose what I trust. “You can either trust Apple and nobody else, even yourself, or you can trust literally everybody” is obviously not a good faith implementation of this. Apple excels at steering the narrative with false conflation and false dichotomy, I’d also remind you of the came-and-went secure boot debate, which Apple successfully steered into Apple owns the…
I don’t disagree with your post but I’m still unclear on how you envision gatekeeper should work. You want the ability to choose a different “authorities” that verify and sign binaries? That makes sense to me but is unlikely to relieve any of the issues in the post. Also what do you mean by “even yourself?” What would that option look like?
Right next to where Apple's root CA is, you add your own.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is that false dichotomy. You can turn off all protection, as you point out. So who Apple markets Neo's to isn't a factor. > Apple’s fault if nobody else decided to make their own trust repositories and the only alternative on the market is to have no safeguard at all. Does Apple provide a means for enabling third party trust systems, without disabling Apple's protections in general? If not, that is a serious pro…
If you can enable a third party trust system you completely open it up for abuse. If I put my threat actor hat on, I love your idea because now I have an alternative codepath to try and exploit (where you do store third-party trusted roots for code-signing/notarization evaluations that cannot be tampered with, how do you load them, verify them, etc), but now instead of having to dance around bypassing Gatekeeper, I c…
> There is no safe mechanism for introducing other roots of trust that is worth the effort.
Gee, if only Apple had a reason for implementing this entire feature for themselves…
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
10 seconds or 30 seconds, it's just too much friction to ask end users to do. I actually develop on a Mac, but I've written off Apple as a target system for hobby/open source projects. Between quarantine, code signing, and notarizing (which requires $99 a year), it's just not worth it. Good for Apple users if they like this shit--I'm just not going to bother with distributing to the platform anymore. macOS is slowly…
Are there any groups of open-source developers who have gotten together to share a group account and the $100 cost per year? Forming an informal-ish organization, with just enough formality to be a legal organization in whatever jurisdiction they live in, so that they're legit enough to satisfy Apple's requirements? Not trying to hide anything, just trying to pool resources in an open and above-board way. Or would Ap…
I pay Apple $100 a year and I'd be happy to sign anyone's open source project provided it looks broadly reasonable.
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple's contempt for backward compatibility This is absolutely correct. Instead of maintaining any sort of ABI and API stability, Apple offloads a constant burden of maintenance updates across thousands of developers, just to keep existing apps from breaking every year with a new iOS version. This takes time which could be spent in more productive ways such as fixing bugs, adding features, or developing new apps. I…
Contempt. use any apple device 2 updates back or more. you're screwed. You would accept this in no other place in life, except that apple gives it for free, and puts a 'security' sticker on the box. It's a racket. Planned obsolescence 2.0 - Users forced to update, update removes features, breaks working apps, breaks paid for ip ( literally removed from phones), apple blames the devs. bullshit.
It mostly works?
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#218I have been developing software for Macs and PCs as an Indie for 20 years now. I sympathize with the author of the post. You get the feeling that Apple thinks you should be grateful that they allow you to develop apps for their platform. The author didn't mention Apple's contempt for backward compatibility. Apple like to regularly nuke their entire developer system from orbit. Try running an app developed 10 years ag…
> Apple's contempt for backward compatibility This is absolutely correct. Instead of maintaining any sort of ABI and API stability, Apple offloads a constant burden of maintenance updates across thousands of developers, just to keep existing apps from breaking every year with a new iOS version. This takes time which could be spent in more productive ways such as fixing bugs, adding features, or developing new apps. I…
> iOS developers have to continuously update each game yearly simply to keep it working
This is usually not the case
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#219[dead]
Re: Distributing Mac software is increasing my cortisol levels
#220Any user who does not like Gatekeeper can turn it off on their machine in ten seconds by running this in a Terminal: sudo spctl —-master-disable People will say, no, that’s too big a hammer, it’s not safe… but then, like, what do you actually want? Either you keep Gatekeeper because you like the friction it introduces, or you don’t like that friction and you should go turn it off. Pick one, you obviously can’t have b…
[deleted]