Gatekeeper is just a travesty. I'm moving to Linux with the next laptop purchase.
Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
251–260 of 301 posts
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mentioned above you have to approve the binary two times (at least), being careful the first time because the dialog popup offers to remove the binary. Also since our product has some networking to do one has to mingle with firewall settings to allow the binary to do the networking.
I see, thanks!
this is completely false, compile a binary strip the signature and see for yourself.
AS requires code sign with adhoc, minimum.
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I am a dick, I guess that went without saying. I'll take critique from other maintainers who have done as much or more open source work for similar returns over similar time periods. Funnily enough, I'm friends with many, and they are supportive the vast majority of the time instead of critical. Maybe that's because they can relate and you cannot.
No one thinks they are a dick. But you are. At least in many instances as many of the comments here and elsewhere point out. I had similar experience trying to start a discussion about something in one of the Homebrew repositories. The fact that you have many friends who confirm your bias of not being a dick...means exactly nothing. You have people telling you your words made them perceive your comment as being arrog…
If you love Homebrew, maybe you might want to consider if repeatedly calling me a dick or arrogant/blunt is a particularly nice way to treat someone who spends their spare time building software you rely on.
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linking step isn't even required. You can download any existing binary and codesign it yourself with your local developer certificate. You can even overwrite the existing signature. I assume brew could even automate this, but are choosing not to for whatever reason.
If Homebrew auto-signed third-party code, that puts them on the line for the security of that code. The whole point of MacOS developer certificates is to increase the trustworthiness of the software you run on your machine. The trust comes from the formal relationship between Apple and the software developer, which includes a traceable financial transaction. If signed software proves to be malicious, attribution is t…
> The whole point of MacOS developer certificates is to increase the trustworthiness of the software you run on your machine.
Tim Cook is laughing all the way to the bank on that one
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple Silicon cannot boot Windows ARM That's totally up to Microsoft… they could done a licensing deal with Apple years ago to enable Windows ARM to run natively on Apple Silicon hardware.
Why does this need a licensing deal? Windows didn't need a licensing deal to run on commodity PC hardware back in the day.
Because computers don't boot the way they used to in the commodity BIOS era. The boot loader has to cryptographically check that it's valid operating system it's attempting to boot.
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is to say that Apple used to represent a sort of freedom to escape what used to be Microsoft's walled garden. Now it's just another dead-end closed ecosystem So you haven’t had a Mac since 2017, but you believe all of us using Macs are stuck in some walled garden? These comments are so weird. Gatekeeper can be turned off easily if that’s what you want. Most of us leave it on because it’s not actually a problem…
I have to agree. Number of times it’s prevented me from running software I wanted to run: zero. Number of times it’s stopped me and said the equivalent of “are you really sure?”: a handful, maybe once a year on average. And it’s not like I don’t use a gazillion third party apps and commands.
running VMs on apple chips has been rather difficult for me. other than that, yeah.
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally think $90 per year is reasonable and not 'milking' - I don't think it's large enough to suspect Apple making bank on this, but does represent a certain level of commitment from a dev and prevents users from spamming developer accounts. The only scenario in which I think it's excessive is broke student devs, not sure if there's a scheme to waive the fee for them. Not allowing regular folks to run unsigned…
I find it hard to believe that charging people is the only way to stop people people from making multiple/spam accounts. It seems like it's just the easiest and most profitable. And, if it is the only option, then why does an account that has been paying Apple $90 a year for a decade still need to keep paying them: it's seems unlikely to be a spam account at that point.
This is like the "why do i have to pay property taxes after i pay my house off?" for Apple™
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do something similar. I bootstrap all my new installs with brew cask https://github.com/fastily/autobots/tree/master/macOS/setup
Same here.
Probably easy enough to write a script that will iterate that list and run the proper xattr command to remove each from quarantine.
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to believe that charging people is the only way to stop people people from making multiple/spam accounts. It seems like it's just the easiest and most profitable. And, if it is the only option, then why does an account that has been paying Apple $90 a year for a decade still need to keep paying them: it's seems unlikely to be a spam account at that point.
This is like the "why do i have to pay property taxes after i pay my house off?" for Apple™
You’re right I shouldn’t have to. I already paid tax on the money to buy it and paid extra tax for the right to buy it, why the triple dip.
Re: Homebrew no longer allows bypassing Gatekeeper for unsigned/unnotarized software
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one thinks they are a dick. But you are. At least in many instances as many of the comments here and elsewhere point out. I had similar experience trying to start a discussion about something in one of the Homebrew repositories. The fact that you have many friends who confirm your bias of not being a dick...means exactly nothing. You have people telling you your words made them perceive your comment as being arrog…
If you love Homebrew, maybe you might want to consider if repeatedly calling me a dick or arrogant/blunt is a particularly nice way to treat someone who spends their spare time building software you rely on.
Your users don't owe you anything. Act "nice" and you'll get "nice" back. Act "blunt" and you'll get "blunt" back.