6 ms·

Every OS does have their own signing system like this! That's how all the Linux package managers work.

nixpulvis 7y ago
I must be misunderstanding this then... if all I need to do is sign the binary with my GPG key (or comparable) then I don't see what all the fuss is about either! I was under the impression there's a process involved with Apple to approve these things. From: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... "Give users even more confidence in your software by submitting it to Apple for notarization" So it seems the "key" difference here is that while most Linux package managers seem to use GPG to sign based on the author's verification, here Apple is the trusted source, forcing application authors to bow down and submit to review (even if it's automated). Whereas for all GPG packages I just sign the same way, here my process is different, and Apple is forcing my hand. Don't get me wrong, I don't want users getting viruses or generally bad software any more than the next guy, but it seems out of place to rely on some specific Apple protocol to do this. Though, it doesn't surprise me at all that Apple wouldn't try to "play nice" in this space. Edit: further reading finds the following. "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later. Building a new app for notarization requires macOS 10.13.6 or later. Stapling an app requires macOS 10.12 or later." As a developer of some cross platform applications who happily doesn't know anything about Xcode (and plans to keep things that way) I'm upset by this.
- geocar 7y ago
  > I was under the impression there's a process involved with Apple to approve these things You're under the wrong impression. Think of it more like Google's certificate-transparency log. Apple will have a log of all applications distributed outside of the app-store and macs can consult this transparency log during installation and warn the user if (a) Apple has revoked the certificate because Malware has been detected or (b) the developer who made the software being installed doesn't have an email address. Users will still be free to ignore the error messages (just as they are on Linux and Windows). > As a developer of some cross platform applications who happily doesn't know anything about Xcode (and plans to keep things that way) I'm upset by this. I generally advise people to not get upset about things they don't understand and don't care to understand. It feels strange to me that I feel have to give that advice, but what else can I do? People might read your (well-written) comment and develop the same fears and hysteria you have about something they don't understand either, but care to, and that makes the world a worse place.
  - nixpulvis 7y ago
    > I generally advise people to not get upset about things they don't understand and don't care to understand. I wouldn't say I don't care to understand. In fact quite the opposite. If someone can explain to me how this process should work for applications that distribute to, let's say, 10 different operating systems I'd be all ears. But what fears and hysterias are you talking about? I quote Apple's own developer material, and complain about what it says. I don't want to deal with Xcode to package apps for macOS, sorry. And I find it somewhat oppressive to force communication upstream to Apple in order to run applications smoothly on their OS.
    - geocar 7y ago
      > I don't want to deal with Xcode to package apps for macOS, sorry. Then don't. > I find it somewhat oppressive to force communication upstream to Apple in order to run applications smoothly on their OS. Yeah, I know, but that's what packaging and releasing is. On Debian, you need to contact Debian (or a Debian packager) to make your application easy to install and run on Debian because the Debian expectation is that the user runs apt install myprogram to install it, and navigates to the menu and clicks on myprogram to run it. On Fedora, same same, but with Fedora (and it's rpm/yum/dnf). On FreeBSD, same same, but with FreeBSD (and it's ports, etc). And so on. About the only operating system where the user-expectation was you don't need to talk to anyone is Microsoft, and building the expectation into users that programs can "come from anywhere" is why we had so much malware and junk on Windows. This wasn't a good thing. I suggest you just get over this. It's better for macOS users, and it doesn't impact power users at all. > what fears and hysterias are you talking about? Look around this thread: It's chock full of fudding about how Apple is taking away their freedoms of some kinds, or there's a slippery slope, or that this somehow isn't 100% better for end-users (the people who buy Apple products). How is having a lot of people afraid about nothing a good thing? > If someone can explain to me how this process should work for applications that distribute to, let's say, 10 different operating systems I'd be all ears. I mean, I'm happy to teach you, but I don't work for free. What do I get out of it?
      - nixpulvis 7y ago

I must be misunderstanding this then... if all I need to do is sign the binary with my GPG key (or comparable) then I don't see what all the fuss is about either! I was under the impression there's a process involved with Apple to approve these things. From: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_your_app_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... "Give users even more confidence in your software by submitting it to Apple for notarization" So it seems the "key" difference here is that while most Linux package managers seem to use GPG to sign based on the author's verification, here Apple is the trusted source, forcing application authors to bow down and submit to review (even if it's automated). Whereas for all GPG packages I just sign the same way, here my process is different, and Apple is forcing my hand. Don't get me wrong, I don't want users getting viruses or generally bad software any more than the next guy, but it seems out of place to rely on some specific Apple protocol to do this. Though, it doesn't surprise me at all that Apple wouldn't try to "play nice" in this space. Edit: further reading finds the following. "Notarization requires Xcode 10 or later. Building a new app for notarization requires macOS 10.13.6 or later. Stapling an app requires macOS 10.12 or later." As a developer of some cross platform applications who happily doesn't know anything about Xcode (and plans to keep things that way) I'm upset by this.

geocar 7y ago
> I was under the impression there's a process involved with Apple to approve these things You're under the wrong impression. Think of it more like Google's certificate-transparency log. Apple will have a log of all applications distributed outside of the app-store and macs can consult this transparency log during installation and warn the user if (a) Apple has revoked the certificate because Malware has been detected or (b) the developer who made the software being installed doesn't have an email address. Users will still be free to ignore the error messages (just as they are on Linux and Windows). > As a developer of some cross platform applications who happily doesn't know anything about Xcode (and plans to keep things that way) I'm upset by this. I generally advise people to not get upset about things they don't understand and don't care to understand. It feels strange to me that I feel have to give that advice, but what else can I do? People might read your (well-written) comment and develop the same fears and hysteria you have about something they don't understand either, but care to, and that makes the world a worse place.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  > I generally advise people to not get upset about things they don't understand and don't care to understand. I wouldn't say I don't care to understand. In fact quite the opposite. If someone can explain to me how this process should work for applications that distribute to, let's say, 10 different operating systems I'd be all ears. But what fears and hysterias are you talking about? I quote Apple's own developer material, and complain about what it says. I don't want to deal with Xcode to package apps for macOS, sorry. And I find it somewhat oppressive to force communication upstream to Apple in order to run applications smoothly on their OS.
  - geocar 7y ago
    > I don't want to deal with Xcode to package apps for macOS, sorry. Then don't. > I find it somewhat oppressive to force communication upstream to Apple in order to run applications smoothly on their OS. Yeah, I know, but that's what packaging and releasing is. On Debian, you need to contact Debian (or a Debian packager) to make your application easy to install and run on Debian because the Debian expectation is that the user runs apt install myprogram to install it, and navigates to the menu and clicks on myprogram to run it. On Fedora, same same, but with Fedora (and it's rpm/yum/dnf). On FreeBSD, same same, but with FreeBSD (and it's ports, etc). And so on. About the only operating system where the user-expectation was you don't need to talk to anyone is Microsoft, and building the expectation into users that programs can "come from anywhere" is why we had so much malware and junk on Windows. This wasn't a good thing. I suggest you just get over this. It's better for macOS users, and it doesn't impact power users at all. > what fears and hysterias are you talking about? Look around this thread: It's chock full of fudding about how Apple is taking away their freedoms of some kinds, or there's a slippery slope, or that this somehow isn't 100% better for end-users (the people who buy Apple products). How is having a lot of people afraid about nothing a good thing? > If someone can explain to me how this process should work for applications that distribute to, let's say, 10 different operating systems I'd be all ears. I mean, I'm happy to teach you, but I don't work for free. What do I get out of it?
    - nixpulvis 7y ago