How fast is wireguard on windows? OpenVPN is fast on linux but disastrous on windows, you really have to tweak the settings to go beyond 5 MB/s and usually not much more.
Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
61–70 of 392 posts
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#62This 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…
> 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 towards macOS users.
So blame Apple for it - why do you blame the developers?
Apple wants you to forget that it is the developers that add value to a platform, and yet it charges them for the "privilege" of creating apps for their platform. And then they are openly and increasingly hostile to developers who do not conform to their business model and do not want to pay them or distribute the app through their app store - and thus they keep crippling API after API to make sure that the developers toe their line.
It is because of Apple's hostile attitude to developers that they no longer want to invest (or rather waste) their time on Apple platform.
Here's a real life example of an app that is now no longer viable on macOS because it doesn't suit Apple's goals - https://medium.com/tripmode/apple-started-hiding-the-traffic... ...
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#63Honestly, I don't get it. Apple makes big money from their ecosystem. Wireguard developer provides high-quality solution for free, helping to grow proprietary ecosystem, essentially helping Apple to make more money indirectly and directly (by giving 30% from donations). In return developer gets tons of hate from users and from Apple itself in the form of delayed reviews, rejects and constant threat of violating some…
Users demand it. You can't have a popular VPN app without Apple support (because at least one person in the org will have an iDevice), so you have to do it. I made another comment in this thread about my experience building EteSync. That's one of the more annoying parts about Apple being the gatekeeper to 40% of the US population (and in effect, to 100% of businesses). As a developer, you are just stuck with no way o…
Does the free and open source Wireguard need to be a popular VPN app? One benefit of being more popular is that they get more contributions, but given that they barely get enough contributions to fix macOS-specific bugs as it is, it's not clear that the benefit outweighs the costs.
Apple and Apple users respond to tangible consequences; appeasement doesn't seem to be working, and it doesn't seem to be benefiting the project either. Like OP said, it's magnanimous of the developer to do this but I don't think "users demand it" is a great justification, nor is it quite in the spirit of open source.
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#64Earlier 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…
agreed, as a developer i don't need an android device to test, just open a simulator and most things will work.
on the other hand you cant even compile for ios with a linux/windows pc.
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#65This 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…
>> if you’re not interested in spending it actually supporting macOS, don't market your project as a cross platform.
That is ironic, since for years I have seen "Cross Platform" to mean Win + Mac, and exclude linux users.
now that is Win + Lin due to how hostile the Apple Ecosystem is to anything "not invented by apple" and you want to blame the open source devs for that...
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users demand it. You can't have a popular VPN app without Apple support (because at least one person in the org will have an iDevice), so you have to do it. I made another comment in this thread about my experience building EteSync. That's one of the more annoying parts about Apple being the gatekeeper to 40% of the US population (and in effect, to 100% of businesses). As a developer, you are just stuck with no way o…
Oh you absolutely can. You'll lose 40% of your users, but for a free project, that shouldn't matter much.
Many apps (e.g. EteSync and WireGuard) are almost useless if they don't work for everyone within a certain group. A more extreme example is a messaging app. Will not having iOS support for a messaging app lose you 40% of your users? No, it will lose you 100%.
In WireGuard's case it's maybe less obvious than messaging, but if WireGuard doesn't work on macOS, it's enough to have one Apple user in your whole organisation in order to make it a non-viable solution.
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#67In case the author is reading this, I recently started using Wireguard in Mac OS with the Mac app and the experience has been great. Not only is it much faster other VPNs that I used in the past, but compared to other clients (Forticlient and Tunnelblick), the overall experience feels much nicer, IMO. Thank you so much for your work!
> Not only is it much faster other VPNs
IPSec is as fast as Wireguard. And there is native client in MacOS. As for bloated codebase, there is an OpenBSD iked rewrite.
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more. You're not paying for the app, or the service, those are free and you are simply making a donation. I can imagine that Apple may want to define 'FOSS' to some extent (donations need to go to a non-profit with a board, software needs to be licensed under one of the following licenses, etc), but there should be some room for supporting FOSS that is included in an App Store.
Yeah, I can imagine that payment links can potentially be used as a loophole for selling unauthorized in-app payment items outside the store. But this is not the case here, nothing is sold, it's literally only a link to the project home page, https://wireguard.com/donations/ .
Simple solution, there are human reviewers for this kinda reason and if the rule is "Open Source Apps get a donation button" then not any random can loophole around.
Heck, if both Apple and Google offered a solution by which you provide the source code to build, any necessary secret variables for the build and then it gives you those extra privileges, it would be nice. But that costs money the open source apps don't have.
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#69First off, what a level-headed friendly response from a developer who is clearly frustrated by Apple's bugs and policies. As someone who has had to support commercial software this is not easy to do consistently. Second, this has significantly tempered my lusting over the new M1 macs. I think I can be content with my ThinkPad's running Linux.
This worries me for a similar reason - I get requests to port some software I wrote over to the Mac from time to time, and the new M1 Mac Mini is cheap enough that I might have bought one to do this development. But I'm not keen to spend any money or time on an ecosystem which might be closed down in the future.
Aeah, how much more proprietary and strange are the Apple API's going to get? They'll have control over the entire vertical, and can put all kinds of undocumented crap right in the silicon.
Re: Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”
#70> We faced rejections in submitting the app, because they decided to change their policy on the app having a link in the "About WireGuard" tool window to www.wireguard.com/donations/ (which they previously had allowed explicitly; now they want 30% or something) Last year Google started to ban donation links in FOSS apps, WireGuard was one of the first victims [0], completely removed from the store. I didn't know that…
> when that button is clicked by, perhaps, only 10% of the users
10%? I think FOSS developers would be extremely happy if even 1% clicked on that kind of button. I reckon the actual stat is closer to 0.01%...
This is absolute scroogerism from our mobile overlords. We badly need a really-open alternative to the Google/Apple world of feudal taxes.