61–70 of 765 posts
Nit: I believe stapling is supposed to fix this issue.
This makes me wonder how open source is supposed to work on macOS. People seem to become more and more aware of it and even enterprises that insisted on support contracts can see that they can't get around open source completely anymore. Meanwhile Apple is removing the ability for me to have a pet project without paying an Apple tax. If the message were completely transparent, something like "The developer didn't pay…
It seems like the right balance. As the author says: > As a Mac developer, it's nearly impossible to run a viable software business when this is the first-run experience of new customers. You'll never get any new customers! This is why every Mac developer I know signs up for Developer ID and ships only signed, notarized apps. It would be financial suicide to do otherwise. If you have hung your shingle out to make a p…
I don't need to many money on my side projects. I do, however, want to help people. If I can't help people on a Mac because of the install friction, then it isn't worth my effort to create a MacOS port of my software at all.
This makes me wonder how open source is supposed to work on macOS. People seem to become more and more aware of it and even enterprises that insisted on support contracts can see that they can't get around open source completely anymore. Meanwhile Apple is removing the ability for me to have a pet project without paying an Apple tax. If the message were completely transparent, something like "The developer didn't pay…
It seems like the right balance. As the author says: > As a Mac developer, it's nearly impossible to run a viable software business when this is the first-run experience of new customers. You'll never get any new customers! This is why every Mac developer I know signs up for Developer ID and ships only signed, notarized apps. It would be financial suicide to do otherwise. If you have hung your shingle out to make a p…
I still believe that Gatekeeper is a blatant cash grab and not a legitimate security feature. $100/year to avoid a scary warning about how your app is definitely a virus? It's like a protection racket.
Developer time to build out the signing and notarization features is not free, and running the notarization servers in a highly-available manner is also not free. As much as we all like to call out Apple sometimes for how they don't take good care of their developers, adding hoops for your developers to jump through is not a great idea.
So I think in some ways Apple really does it for the security aspects, and also probably just because Apple likes to maintain rigid control over their experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
macOS ships with a quite strong and granular capability-based security model with its sandboxing mechanism (at least, when it works and is applied correctly). The feature is there, advanced applications already make use of it, but it is difficult to get arbitrary applications to adopt it (its inner workings are declared SPI after all) and it is not really exposed to the user at all except via App Sandbox, which is fa…
What does SPI stand for?
I dont see any problem with this. If you don't feel comfortable doing this then you definitely shouldn't be running random code from the internet. I would take it a step further and force it to be run from the command line. Also, what kind of "viable software business" has trouble paying $100 a year?
Any open source developer? Do you know how much $100 is in Iran?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is bubbling up because apple recently revoked Epic's certificate (sorry if that isn't quite the right term) and these are now the steps required to run Fortnight on Mac.
I think people are mostly bitching about iOS, since it will be impossible to run the game on iPhones and iPads anymore at all.
Can anyone confirm if I am recalling this correctly?
I still believe that Gatekeeper is a blatant cash grab and not a legitimate security feature. $100/year to avoid a scary warning about how your app is definitely a virus? It's like a protection racket.
Especially when it comes to privacy protections, where every user's standard for privacy is going to be unique.
I still believe that Gatekeeper is a blatant cash grab and not a legitimate security feature. $100/year to avoid a scary warning about how your app is definitely a virus? It's like a protection racket.