Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

lists.zx2c4.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 392 posts

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

#341

Post by viraptor »

jaywalk wrote: post #198
viraptor wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't expect EULA to be enforced (will you pay for my lawyers/fine if it is?), you still need a copy of the system which you can't buy directly. You're left with unauthorised copies if you don't have any MacOS hardware and the same question - would you cover my legal costs?

You can download MacOS directly from Apple for free.

How do you legally download Big Sur without having an existing Mac machine? I thought that option was gone for some time now. A quick search doesn't bring up good solutions.

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

#342

Post by vaduz »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #332
vaduz wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fe…

I'm confused. Wireguard and Jason/zx2c4 are not a non-profit, nor do they advertise as one. Why are you making it sound like he is doing something nefarious? The argument for the ruling being bad is: the app links to the wireguard webpage (not within the app) which contains information on how to donate. That's like if in my app, I linked to my twitter profile, and my twitter profile contained a link to donate to me.…

If you are a business, wth a few defined exceptions ("reader", multiplatform, _physical merchandise from outside of the platform_ etc.), you accept payments through Apple Pay, don't direct people to your website to to send you money regardless how you decide to call it and pay Apple the cut they desire. FOSS developers are still businesses, not charities, much as we like to pretend otherwise - and "tips", "donations", "patronage" and similar verbiage does not change that.

If you are an actual nonprofit, you get to ask for donations both via app and your website and have Apple not take the cut.

Don't like it - don't deploy on the platfrom, but if you persist you will soon run out of platforms. Note that particular point has also caused WireGuard to be delisted from Google's Play Store before so it should not come as a suprise to anyone (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389).

Note that some of those distinctions are legal - where I am, I need to know if I am gifting you money or donating to a nonprofit to report it on the tax record (and I certainly need to know if I were to get my own limited company to "donate"), as going above certain limits makes _me_ liable for tax on gifts as well, including reporting who the recipient is. "I sent that money to a random functional email PayPal@zx2c4.com I can't say much about" does not cut it. Yes, Jason might be at the other end of it - but as is, it fails the smell test compared to other FOSS projects. Simple as that.

Can we go back to discussing why Apple is bad due to their ever changing APIs, general disregard for backwards compatibility and for that matter general compatibility with anything else and not one of the few things in the whole process that make sense? Or, for that matter, why Google effectively making GMS and locked bootloader a requirement for corporate and/or finance apps is ensuring that in many areas the existence of unlocked devices/alternative AOSP distributions is and will remain a fig leaf purely there to avoid being considered the one true dominant player?

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

#343

Post by birdman3131 »

literallycancer wrote: post #214
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that the vast majority of phones these days have their bootloaders locked. I don't know if that is actually still true. Back in the day nearly every phone in the US was bootloader and carrier locked. Now basically every phone is carrier unlocked and anything besides Samsung can have the bootloader unlocked very easily. I guess Samsung phones are the most common but there are certainly many other options that are mo…

This seemed unlikely since S10 is maybe the most mainstream flagship phone but it appears that Samsung does indeed make it painful to take control of your device: https://topjohnwu.github.io/Magisk/install.html#samsung-syst... Many manufactures make it easy to unlock and root your device (shout-out oneplus), but many others do try to make you brick it if you try doing anything out of the ordinary. Like the HMD rebran…

Oneplus requires you to wipe your phone to root it. Add to this that there is no way to backup the phone without rooting it.

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

#344

Post by m-p-3 »

1-6 wrote: post #323
Ensorceled wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm wondering if my next work computer will be something different after almost 20 years of working on NeXT/Mac OS X/MacOS because I'm not sure general development will continue to be viable on the M1s. Spent another weekend moving my wife over to a new Windows machine ... not interested in that environment.

I'm being silly here but what if the Raspberry Pi became beefier over time? That would be a great platform.

I cross my fingers for a well-performing and open-source-hardware RISC-V CPU.

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

#345

Post by searchableguy »

turtlebits wrote: post #305
fluidcruft wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that Windows Subsystem for Linux has been amazing on Windows and just keeps getting better. I've also never noticed any difference in spinning up VMs. But anyway I get keeping with familiar tools but, I just disagree that MacOS is a better or even "sane" terminal platform. All the ancient GNU tools Mac ships and BSD-style "but Posix!" pedantry drives me up the wall.

I have not used a current version WSL, but it was terrible when I tried it. Could not find files saved in the WSL terminal in explorer (I understand that is a limitation). The was so much unknown going on in the "integration" that I wished I just used a VM and took the perf hit instead of digging to figure out where Windows was mounting the FS and figuring out permissions. I have no desire to look at WSL ever again.…

> Could not find files saved in the WSL terminal in explorer (I understand that is a limitation). The was so much unknown going on in the "integration" that I wished I just used a VM and took the perf hit instead of digging to figure out where Windows was mounting the FS and figuring out permissions.

You can explore the files stored inside wsl partition by going to \\wsl$ using file manager.

You can now also mount an external drive formatted as ext4 directly.

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

#346

Post by api »

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #318
api wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has poorly documented APIs and locked down platforms and app stores. Windows has decades of cruft and the OS itself is basically adware at this point with "recommendations" and shit showing up constantly, un-removable foistware, dark patterns to herd you into MS cloud, and loads of gratuitous telemetry. Windows drivers, driver signing, and installers are all horrors that can reduce one to a gibbering lunatic li…

What about BSD? They tend to be less fragmented than Linux. The only showstopper for me with BSD is the lack of docker, but if you are happy not using docker or using jails instead BSD can be a good experience.

I like it, but the fact is that not many people use it and the ecosystem is small. That makes it hard to convince more people to use it due to difficulty hiring, staffing, getting answers on forums, etc.

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

#347

Post by searchableguy »

tenacious_tuna wrote: post #248
hundchenkatze wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should give Windows Subsystem for Linux a try. It's what I'd choose in your scenario. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-environment/ove...

I actually have been trying this recently! I've been using VS Code via SSH into a WSL2 container running on my windows box and it's been going surprisingly well.... but that was after a moderate amount of effort to get WSL2 working to begin with, which was partially complicated by my past efforts of getting WSL1 to do similar behavior. I'm also not 100% confident NewCorp's IT would be kosher with me spooling that up.…

> that was after a moderate amount of effort to get WSL2 working to begin with, which was partially complicated by my past efforts of getting WSL1 to do similar behavior.

Could you explain more?

I know installing and switching to WSL2 isn't as straightforward on windows stable. Is that what you are referring to?

If so, on insider - you can run wsl --install and it will work.

If not running wsl2 by default, wsl --set-default-version 2

I think they could make it easy to onboard users by setting better defaults and decreasing friction.

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

#348

Post by WorldMaker »

tandr wrote: post #279
j1elo wrote: 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?

Linux? It's as close to *ix as you can get without time traveling to ancient AT&T sites and beholding original Unix boxen. Good hardware exists, even if it takes more effort to learn how to source it. Penetration shows Linux is about the same minority Desktop OS as macOS is in general (even if statistics among Developers is sometimes lopsided).

Windows? Microsoft hate and distrust aside, they are a company founded for Developers, by Developers and in general the "Developers, Developers, Developers" mantra still resonates through the halls and they try to make life easy as they can for developers. (They publish debugging symbols of the entire OS just about, as a specifically referenced point elsewhere in this thread, which affected the specific complaints of the article. Even all of the "developer unfriendly" complaints about their more recent platforms/SDKs/toolkits have mostly been walked back or are still in the process of evolving.) Just as with Linux systems, plenty of good hardware exists even if it is harder to find. WSL1 and WSL2 provide a bunch of options for how "close to *ix" you want to get. It's hard to beat Windows on penetration, because it is still the majority OS for most of the mainstream world.

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

#349

Post by Klonoar »

saagarjha wrote: post #330
wscott wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even to the syscall level, like the MAP_JIT flag to mmap() https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en... not optional and requires special app entitlements to enable. So you are not going to write portable code that has a JIT without apple-special code.

And that JIT has additional considerations on Apple silicon, where there is specific hardware that needs to be taken into account: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apple_silicon/port...

I ran into another quirk with MAP_JIT recently, but going the other direction in time.

If you supported an older platform (High Sierra, which up until recently was... valid...), you would need to explicitly _not_ pass MAP_JIT into mmap there. It makes total sense once you find the bug, but it was also an easy one to overlook.

Tracking that down was kind of annoying.

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

#350

Post by Klonoar »

dcow wrote: post #22
alias_neo wrote: post #7

This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations. In my day job, our Apple developers have spent years finding solutions to iOS restrictions around CallKit, Push Notifications and NSTodaysProblem, and those are just the things Apple has intentionally restricted…

I love Jason’s response and think it carries the right tone and is delivered near flawlessly. It’s clearly frustrating to deal with Apple’s platform lockdown, and he captures such in a professional and rational manner. Bravo. What bothers me is that I’ve experienced an increasing number of maintainers of supposed cross platform projects simply not care about macOS anymore to the extent that they’re openly hostile tow…

You know, I thought I was the only one who felt this way - but it is really annoying.

I help out on an open source emulator/game project and wound up becoming the de-facto "Mac guy". I don't mind it, but I do find myself annoyed with the people who deride the platform for not being either Windows or Linux.

Post reply on HN