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

361–370 of 392 posts

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

#361

Post by kuschku »

pjfin123 wrote: post #359
enriquto wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We badly need a really-open alternative F-Droid is a thing

Is there an easy way to make F-Droid install updates automatically? I use both F-Droid and Google Play on my phone but manual updates are a huge usability pain.

That permission is only available to preinstalled system apps. If you have root, you can install the F-Droid System Extension and it'll do all it automatically.

Otherwise: send complaints to support@android.com (jk, there's no actual support)

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

#362

Post by ajsnigrutin »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #191
mondoshawan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your point? This kind of response completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of the drivers required to just run on modern hardware are closed source and that the vast majority of phones these days have their bootloaders locked.

> 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…

Samsungs are locked there?

Here in europe, you go to developer mode, check the OEM unlock button, reboot and hold some weird button combination while booting, phone asks you again if you want to unlock the bootloader, does a factory reset for security reasons, another reboot, and it's unlocked.

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

#363

Post by CGamesPlay »

My, what a very polite maintainer! It makes me a bit sad that I couldn't ever figure out how to submit my bug report to the WireGuard project (if I recall I had to sign up for a mailing list? but I just want to submit one bug, not become a maintainer). Although, perhaps that added friction is what saves Jason the energy to be so polite when a nasty blog article hits the front page :)

On the off chance this post is read, the bug report is simple: WireGuard for Mac doesn't respect /etc/hosts.

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

#364

Post by Skunkleton »

pkd wrote: post #322
todd8 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to simply upvote this comment, but I'm chiming in to agree with you because I want to complement Jason for being the kind of developer that I really respect. He provides a tool that so valuable to so many and does so while dealing with a difficult set of requirements imposed by Apple. His response to a frustrated user isn't defensive but helpful and informative. Jason sets an example that the rest of us d…

Precisely. Too often I see bad behaviour in open source communities justified with the lazy reply of "being nice does not produce good software" (multiple examples of this in yesterday's thread about suckless) and Jason's handling of this situation is a great refutation of that theory.

Going to chime in here as well. Jason's attitude here is commendable. I am going to add this to my collection of "things to read when I am unreasonably mad at something". Here is one from Greg K-H in case anyone is interested [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515566

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

#365

Post by Teknoman117 »

fluidcruft wrote: post #228
tenacious_tuna wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiya! Former mac native developer here, moving to a new company. My new corp gave me the option of a thinkpad running windows or a Mac, and I chose the mac just so I could have a sane terminal experience, UNIX-like tools, etc. I would vastly prefer to use Linux, but unfortunately that's just not an option for a company-issued machine at this juncture--and in my experience it's easier to spin up a VM on a Mac than a W…

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.

Compilation is the bane of my existence on windows. I have a few large cross platform projects (using CMake) I work on (at work), and the builds on Linux are a night and day difference. My 16 core Linux workstation does the build in like 80 seconds, and the same machine booted into Windows takes 15 minutes.

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

#366

Post by Izikiel43 »

lalaithion wrote: post #309
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.

In my personal experience, git crashes about 1 in 3 commands I run on windows. Haskell takes ~10 times longer to compile on a ~4 year old desktop windows machine than a ~6 year old mac laptop. And I usually spend hours trying to get simple tools installed, vs. minutes on macs.

> git crashes about 1 in 3 commands I run on windows.

I've been using git over 2 years on windows with no issues at all, it seems you have a buggy version?

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

#367

Post by presentation »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #103
comeonseriously wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, is does this mean for a charity they take 30% also? For example, here's United Way for Chester County (wherever that is)[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/united-way-of-chester-county/i... They have a donate button (last image on right). Does Apple take 30% of all that is donated? If so, I find that to be repulsive. [0] I picked Unite Way because they're a large org, not because of any other reason.

Not sure about Apple, but I know Google has special treatments for formally registered 501(c)(3) orgs and they are allowed to seek donation directly without going through Google Play's commission. Update: Apple Pay appears to have similar policies [0]. [0] https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/nonprofits/

Lol does that mean Ikea can sell on iOS without fees?

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

#368

Post by lmm »

andrekandre wrote: post #261
TwoBit wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A JIT is a major potential source of malware enablement and thus a security consideration.

applogies if its an ignorant question but, if the os had proper access protections, even with a buffer overflow or other exploits to an app itself, how can that enable malware just by having a JIT?

JIT requires bypassing exploit mitigations e.g. W^X. JIT doesn't make an app that's already been subverted any more dangerous than it would otherwise be, but it makes it easier to exploit the app in the first place.

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

#369

Post by pfranz »

goatinaboat wrote: post #358
tenacious_tuna wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiya! Former mac native developer here, moving to a new company. My new corp gave me the option of a thinkpad running windows or a Mac, and I chose the mac just so I could have a sane terminal experience, UNIX-like tools, etc. I would vastly prefer to use Linux, but unfortunately that's just not an option for a company-issued machine at this juncture--and in my experience it's easier to spin up a VM on a Mac than a W…

I chose the mac just so I could have a sane terminal experience, UNIX-like tools, etc. Well, that’s on you. You could have had WSL2 which is amazing.

While I think WSL is an option worth investigating, it is not the answer for everyone.

I jumped from XP to Windows 10 with WSL1 and had used Linux and macOS in between. It took me a few days to come across a bunch of pain points I was surprised had not changed; I do not like the install/uninstall scatter-shot method, monthly reboots for updates, control panels feel like archeology digging older UIs for settings, the window freezes and I cannot resize/minimize when the app is busy, I do not like Explorer or the windowing UI. PowerShell in practice seemed too verbose for interactive use and the learning curve/adoption was too steep to be productive (everyone else on the small team was writing BAT files). I got tripped up by odd things like offline documentation and you had to wrap it in a BAT file to automate it. I also don't like compiling stuff for Windows. I don't begrudge anyone who likes Windows, but I have a very strong preference for the other OSes. I might have some of those details wrong, but that's what I remember from the transition. I wished I had kept a diary because I forget a lot of it now.

WSL (admittedly v1) was a bit odd and hefty to install. The account/permissions and locations of files was awkward. I found myself ssh-ing into a Linux box to do a lot of things.

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

#370

Post by pfranz »

viraptor wrote: post #41
dcow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can be "cross-platform" in many ways. In practice if you don't run MacOS yourself, there's just no reasonable way to support MacOS at all. It literally costs hundreds of dollars to get a compatible test environment, while most other systems (including Windows) you can download and run a in VM for free. In practice if the MacOS support takes more than a quick headers / types update, it will likely need more care i…

> In practice if you don't run MacOS yourself, there's just no reasonable way to support MacOS at all.

I think this is the key insight. I tried to do a similar thing with Windows. The free VM expired every 30 days or so and bootstrapping a build environment each time (even just downloading it) sucked. The build environment is an outlier compared to macOS/Linux/Unix. I eventually ended up paying for Windows. I still couldn't test things like OpenGL inside a VM.

Post reply on HN