Live data from Hacker News

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

lists.zx2c4.com

291–300 of 392 posts

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

#291
post #273

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."

Also you're an open source and free project? If you want donations we're going to need a cut of that. Doesn't matter that you're providing our OS with functionality (for free) that we can't or won't create on our own.

Is this true? That can't be legal.

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

#292
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…

Is there a better platform? I don't think so.

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

#293
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple should be losing devs in favor of other better platforms, not the other way around. So far, good hardware, close-to-*ix-OS software, and penetration are kind of make them a hard competitor to beat. What other "better" platforms are you thinking about?

System76 is one: https://system76.com/ Edit: and don't forget that ElementaryOS gets you pretty damned close to the Mac UI experience. I personally prefer GNOME, which seemingly steals inspiration from across the industry, so it's different but also really slick (the use of Super/Winkey as both alt-tab and the launcher is genius).

Then you have to deal with a linux UI, which is a complete blocker for me.

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

#294
post #279
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…

> Apple should be losing devs in favor of other better platforms, not the other way around. So far, good hardware, close-to-*ix-OS software, and penetration are kind of make them a hard competitor to beat. What other "better" platforms are you thinking about?

think pads have pre installed fedora or ubuntu dells have pre installed ubuntu system76 was already mentioned with linux preinstalls. and for those wanting to go a step further into the boot chain (sans chip manufacturer blobs), there is purism https://puri.sm/products/librem-14/

personally, I've been really enjoying the Thinkpad 14s AMD - 8 core / 16 thread / 32gb of ram in under 3lbs, shame about the screen though.

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

#295
Couldn't a lot of the Apple pain be avoided simply by ditching the Mac App Store? It's not a requirement for distributing software on the Mac, so why deal with the pain, the limitations, the 30% cut, the slow approvals, if you don't really have to? The Windows Installer is distributed as an MSI, there's no reason the WireGuard installer for Mac couldn't just be distributed as a self-hosted .pkg.

Cisco doesn't host their VPN packages on the MAS either.

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

#296
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you're an open source and free project? If you want donations we're going to need a cut of that. Doesn't matter that you're providing our OS with functionality (for free) that we can't or won't create on our own.

Is this true? That can't be legal.

Yes, he says it right in the post. They had a donation link in the about section that Apple forced them to remove because the payments weren't going through the app store payment system where they get a cut.

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

#297
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a 2004 article about this by Joel Spolsky that can be found here[0]. Obviously it is a "tad" out of date (and I don't work on Windows so I can't comment on the situation right now), but it seems that at some point Windows cared deeply about backwards-compatibility.

[0]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...

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

#298
> I woke up this morning with my inbox lit up by netizens outraged

Wait, are there people reading random blog post about piece of software and deciding it would be a good idea to nag author of the software by retranslating someone other's opinion? Isn't that, how to say, inadequate?

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

#299
post #279
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…

> Apple should be losing devs in favor of other better platforms, not the other way around. So far, good hardware, close-to-*ix-OS software, and penetration are kind of make them a hard competitor to beat. What other "better" platforms are you thinking about?

Ye olde "Thinkpad + Linux" is unironically one of the best options around. I've owned 3 or 4 Thinkpads, and all of them run Linux like they were designed for it. Considering the security issues and hidden analytics in Big Sur, there are plenty of better platforms around. If you're looking to outright replace MacOS, KDE will mostly do the trick. It's super customizable, and contains all of the MacOS idiosyncratic staples (Global menu, dock bar, you get the point). With that, you get perfect Unix compatibility and software freedom, and you're only losing a few proprietary apps in the migration process.

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

#300
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Having a link to an external web page to receive donations [by a registered charity or a non-profit] is not considered a violation on the App Store" Which e.g. "PayPal@zx2c4.com" is not, clearly. The words you are missing are important. One of the reasons why I do not gift money to WireGuard developer(s) is that they have taken the steps to obscure where and to whom the money is going, which is in and of itself fi…

Only nonprofits are allowed to use in-app purchases on the App Store, while other apps must use Safari for fundraisers, read the guidelines in their entirety. > One of the reasons why I do not gift money to WireGuard developer(s) is that they have taken the steps to obscure where and to whom the money is going, which is in and of itself fishy. Just labelling something as 'donation' does not make it so. Your remark ab…

I actually read them, and they also happen to be quoted upthread.

3.2 Other Business Model Issues [list is not exhaustive] 3.2.1 Acceptable (vi) Approved nonprofits may fundraise directly within their own apps or third-party apps, provided those fundraising campaigns adhere to all App Review Guidelines and offer Apple Pay support. These apps must disclose how the funds will be used, abide by all required local and federal laws, and ensure appropriate tax receipts are available to donors. Additional information shall be provided to App Review upon request. Nonprofit platforms that connect donors to other nonprofits must ensure that every nonprofit listed in the app has also gone through the nonprofit approval process. Learn more about becoming an approved nonprofit.

3.2.2 Unacceptable (iv) Unless you are an approved nonprofit or otherwise permitted under Section 3.2.1 (vi) above, collecting funds within the app for charities and fundraisers. Apps that seek to raise money for such causes must be free on the App Store and may only collect funds outside of the app, such as via Safari or SMS.

It would appear that the current understanding is that if you are not a nonprofit, you don't fundraise within the app nor do you provide a link where you can transfer funds. If you are a nonprofit, you can register through the nonprofit program to use Apple Pay (which comes with actual checks of the status). This matches the intent every other point regarding payments, where soliticing money from within the app, even by way of link, is generally prohibited unless specifically allowed under one of the small list of exceptions. Remember when "reader" apps also had to remove links to purchase individual items and replaced it with, at best, "visit our website"? Same intent, same result.

As for fishiness, compare these examples: * Signal Technology Foundation is a registered nonprofit foundation, I can check if the money is going to development of Signal (it is). They even do it right by providing the EIN so it is trivial to check. * Mozilla Foundation is a registered nonprofit foundation, I can check if the money is going to the development of the browser (it is not). * WireGuard developers decided it is important for them to keep the information where their business is located private (this is what I am referring to as fishy: I would challenge you to find where that particular "Edge Security" firm is actually operating, as a company, or what zx2c4.com is beside a name that Jason used to tag some files and host a domain, and both are used as "this project is from") and to keep the profits.

See the difference? Two are genuine nonprofits entitled to donations, one is a business disguised as one (how much money that business makes is immaterial, it could be $1, it could be millions - I sincerely wish them the latter). Every developer has to make a living somehow - or at least recoup some costs, for FOSS projects - but this is not the way to go about it if you want to claim moral high ground over Apple.

Post reply on HN