Live data from Hacker News

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

lists.zx2c4.com

231–240 of 392 posts

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

#231
post #113
post #44

The iOS and macOS apps have been the biggest point of stress and frustration when building EteSync[1]. The API is buggy as hell and very limited (if at all available) and the review process is arbitrary and can cause updates to be rejected. You can never know if your workarounds will be accepted or rejected. Sometimes they can even get rejected in future app updates. The EteSync experience is subpar on Apple devices,…

> it's beyond me why would anyone willingly use an Apple product Final users don't see this mess.

Yes and that's not vendor specific for sure.

I occasionally look after a fairly large Windows WPF application which is half integrated with Microsoft Word and there are hundreds of lines of code dedicated to quite horrible workarounds for issues caused by API changes and weird ass behaviour. There are a lot of if statements for different Word versions as well.

For example: when saving a file "safely" (i.e. without weird ass side effects such as locking or document metadata corruption), if your word version is 7, 8, 9 or 10 you must use SaveAs2000 API call. If your word version is 11, 12 you must use SaveAs API call. If your word version is any other one then you need to use SaveAs2. This is entirely not documented past telling you that you are told not to call half of them and most of the reasons behind using them were discovered by taking the VSTO libraries to bits.

At the end of the day, the objective is to make sure the end user never sees the hell you had to go through and entirely takes your efforts for granted. They don't care and efforts to appeal to them are frowned upon, even if we whine and complain about it in our own circles.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it seems they do, eg. rachelbythebay stopped using Wireguard because of the mess.

It's funny because the reason anyone cares about this whole episode is that some people felt the need to play a white knight in the developer's mailbox. The smarter people will quit the Apple platform, and the dumber ones will quit the software whose creators refuse to put up with the Apple bullshit (plus some that try to put up with it but Apple arbitrarily fails their review anyway).

You're mixing up intelligence with morality, or something similar to morality. Just because some interfaces are bad and the company is anti-competitive doesn't mean using it is a dumb choice, you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

Perhaps it's an axiom that the open alternative is better in the long run, but that's too long a run to really care.

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

#233
post #215

Apple doesn't deserve to have such careful and detail-oriented FOSS developers like Jason, developing for their platform. He is genuinely wasting time in order to work around Apple's developer-unfriendly platform. Not that I should be telling devs where they should spend their time... but I feel like so much effort is being devoted to fix Apple's issues. > When I'm debugging these issues, I'll often times spend a few…

Completely agree. Apple has nothing but contempt for its developers, and treats them like indentured servants. "Oh it took 10 years to get your app working right? Well, it doesn't work right anymore after yesterday's patch."

That could be said for any platform these days. It's certainly not specific to Apple!

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

#235

FOSS developers should simply stop developing good software for Apple devices. The absolute opacity of Apple's technical policies and their arrogant i-dont-care/its-your-problem approach against developers are quite renewed in the community. This ends up costing a lot of development time to developers who mostly work for free, who struggle to reverse engineer or debug what happens on MacOS/iOS, and (like Wireguard's…

> I know that in the past 15 years lots of tech-savvy people have opted for Apple products because "they're still UNIX under the hood, and unlike Linux they just work out of the box". But being Unix-like DOES NOT mean to be developer-friendly! Apple is still an opaque developer-unfriendly company even if it provides you with a native bash!

That was true over 10 years ago (was certainly a big factor for me), but i'm not so sure it is for most people anymore. I remember back when I bought macs (more than 11 years ago now) they used to proudly advertise their "UNIX" certification and tout the BSD/Mach origins, I think this is when most of the original OS team was still there.

But today it seems to be one of the most neglected aspects of the system. Each time one of my colleagues with a mac tries to run one of my considerate bsd/gnu friendly scripts I discover most of their userland has not actually been updated in 10 years. I end up getting them to install brew and replacing every binary used in the script... and yet bizarrely things like ZSH suddenly pop up as the new default shell.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Apple has nothing but contempt for its developers, and treats them like indentured servants. "Oh it took 10 years to get your app working right? Well, it doesn't work right anymore after yesterday's patch."

That could be said for any platform these days. It's certainly not specific to Apple!

Microsoft broke a lot in the past few years when they got rid of their dedicated QA department(s) but they are very keen of fixing backwards compatibility issues. I can still run my desktop application that I compiled in 1998. Try that on a Mac.

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

#237
post #215

Apple doesn't deserve to have such careful and detail-oriented FOSS developers like Jason, developing for their platform. He is genuinely wasting time in order to work around Apple's developer-unfriendly platform. Not that I should be telling devs where they should spend their time... but I feel like so much effort is being devoted to fix Apple's issues. > When I'm debugging these issues, I'll often times spend a few…

I wish Apple would just integrate Wireguard into macOS itself. macOS has a built-in option for VPNs in the network preferences but it's shit like L2TP over IPSec.

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

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Apple has nothing but contempt for its developers, and treats them like indentured servants. "Oh it took 10 years to get your app working right? Well, it doesn't work right anymore after yesterday's patch."

That could be said for any platform these days. It's certainly not specific to Apple!

I guess Windows doesn't break their compatibility almost ever. Linux doesn't break user-space, but of course the libraries you depend on might change in a few decades.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Apple has nothing but contempt for its developers, and treats them like indentured servants. "Oh it took 10 years to get your app working right? Well, it doesn't work right anymore after yesterday's patch."

That could be said for any platform these days. It's certainly not specific to Apple!

Untrue, Microsoft is much much more open (yes it hurts to say that) in that regard.

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Felt like an enourmous waste of money and time. And it certainly was. But sometimes you have well-appreciated macOS users that you have not yet managed to convert out of it. In that case, instead of throwing away your money you can easily [0] install a Catalina vm inside linux or windows. With a quite small effort, you can readily check that your program compiles and runs on that shitty system. [0] https://github.c…

Is it legal? I thought you can run MacOS only on Mac hardware.

It's against the Terms of Service, which may or may not have legal implications based on where you are. However, Apple doesn't really give a shit unless you're going to profit off of it. The Hackintosh community has been around for ages and Apple doesn't do anything unless someone starts selling pre-installed Hackintoshes.
Post reply on HN