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

81–90 of 392 posts

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

#81

Post by webmobdev »

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 made a donation to WireGuard last year, I'll be doing the same this year and I encourage others to "put their money where their mouth is" and show a little support

Imagine, Apple even wanted 30% of any donations!!

> 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), and then after removing that ... Well, finally they approved the fix ...

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

#82

Post by enriquto »

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…

> 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

This is not bothering. This is a very fortunate situation. I hope this process happens faster!

What I don't understand is your point of view. It is not these sane developers who are "hostile" towards users. It is Apple who is callously hostile towards users and developers. By degrading the macOS experience, these developers are making the world a better place.

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

#83

Post by viraptor »

SSLy wrote: post #73
murphy1312 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can put OS X in a Windows or Linux hosted hypervisor, but the Apple doesn't want you to know about it.

You can, but it's illegal. You're only allowed to virtualise MacOS on MacOS host. You also have to obtain the system which as far as I can tell you can't buy anymore - you can only upgrade to.

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

#84

Post by SSLy »

viraptor wrote: post #83
SSLy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can put OS X in a Windows or Linux hosted hypervisor, but the Apple doesn't want you to know about it.

You can, but it's illegal. You're only allowed to virtualise MacOS on MacOS host. You also have to obtain the system which as far as I can tell you can't buy anymore - you can only upgrade to.

Just because something is unauthorized or breaks EULA (mostly void here in EU anyway) doesn't mean it's illegal.

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

#87

Post by cmeacham98 »

nuker wrote: post #67
JD557 wrote: post #21

In 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.

iirc, ipsec is considered somewhat of a security nightmare by modern standards, given that it difficult to fully understand and very easy to misconfigure in an insecure way. I would only recommend using ipsec over wireguard when legacy compat matters.

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

#88

Post by z3t4 »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #31

> 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…

IANAL - but I'm pretty sure the app platforms are breaking many laws here, not allowing people to freely donate. Like free speech, able to ask for help, freedom to do business, abuse of monopoly. They might be able to get away with a transaction fee, and a store fee, but they should not be able to censor text, links, etc. This is the new Mafia. If you don't play by their rules (theirs, not the law) your business dies!

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

#89

Post by comeonseriously »

webmobdev wrote: post #81
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 made a donation to WireGuard last year, I'll be doing the same this year and I encourage others to "put their money where their mouth is" and show a little support Imagine, Apple even wanted 30% of any donations!! > 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 previou…

That is how you become a $2 TRILLION company. Nobody gets a pass on giving up the cash.

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

#90

Post by philjackson »

webmobdev wrote: post #81
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 made a donation to WireGuard last year, I'll be doing the same this year and I encourage others to "put their money where their mouth is" and show a little support Imagine, Apple even wanted 30% of any donations!! > 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 previou…

The world's richest company. Absolutely unbelievable.
Post reply on HN