4 ms·

I'm also thinking of just dropping macOS as a supported platform for Krita: https://krita.org/en/item/first-notarized-macos-build-of-krita/ https://krita.org/en

I'm also thinking of just dropping macOS as a supported platform for Krita: https://krita.org/en/item/first-notarized-macos-build-of-krita/ https://krita.org/en/item/first-notarized-macos-build-of-kri...

q3k 7y ago
Please do. Apple's behavior is not acceptable.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Seconded. The last time when I was forced to use a Mac laptop, I hated every minute of it... Not because it was smooth and worked well, but that I had less and less freedoms to manipulate the system.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    FYI, if you turn off SIP you can do quite literally anything. Rewrite random memory, install random unsigned kernel extensions, replace the kernel with a version you compiled yourself, the works. The only thing that has no built-in off switch is TCC ("this app would like permission XXX"), although without SIP the ability to nullify it with code is theoretically at your disposal. I wish someone would make a MacForge plugin...
    - q3k 7y ago
      I don't think the point isn't about you or me - we're perfectly capable of bypassing this (for now). The point is a) about Apple's hostility b) what to expect from your average macOS user as a developer (most will have no idea what SIP even is, and then telling them to disable SIP is borderline irresponsible).
      - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
        GP said that they as a user disliked using macOS because they "had less and less freedoms to manipulate the system." If GP wants more freedoms on their machine, GP should go ahead and grant their own wish. Regular software shouldn't run into SIP. It will run into Gatekeeper if the developer doesn't explicitly notarize/sign it, but I don't think it's irresponsible to tell users how to bypass Gatekeeper.
heavyset_go 7y ago
I develop about a half a dozen open source utilities, and own Macs. I read the writing on the wall and switched to Linux as my daily driver, because once you're locked in to a closed platform, it's easier to pay the toll than it is switch. I've unfortunately come to the same conclusion.
danShumway 7y ago
Apple won't court developers until they start losing apps. I think we're in a very, very narrow window of time where Apple is not popular enough that dropping them means apps are severely limiting user reach, but is still trying to push itself as a platform where creative things can happen -- a tool for graphic professionals. I'm cautiously supportive of this move, even though I use a Mac occasionally.
- Razengan 7y ago
  People are going to keep buying iPhones and iPads and Macs and Apple Watches and Apple TVs anyway. Then they'll discover the apps which are available for them. Your app can either be one of them or, unless you're massively popular, people aren't even going to know that your app is missing. If Krita goes, there's not going to be any shortage of painting apps for Apple devices.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Obviously there is a limit to how many apps you can lose without people abandoning your platform. Windows Phone failed largely for that reason, and Mac has historically suffered for its lack of game support. People don't just blindly buy devices, there is a threshold where they care about support. And also obviously, if literally only one app moved off of Mac, nothing would happen. So what's the threshold? If Blender stopped supporting Mac, would anyone here reconsider using them as a development platform? If Photoshop dropped Mac, would anyone here notice or make a purchasing decision based on that? Is it significant that Photoshop is being shipped for iOS now -- do we expect that professionals will take the platform more seriously because of that?
    - Razengan 7y ago
      > Is it significant that Photoshop is being shipped for iOS now -- do we expect that professionals will take the platform more seriously because of that? The point that you're trying to make and the point I'm trying to make is effectively the same: Apple platforms have no shortage of creative apps, have never had a shortage, and their library of apps and games is always increasing, not decreasing. If Krita abandons Mac, do you think it will hurt Krita more, or Apple, or users? What's more likely: Will people sell off their Mac and buy a PC just to keep using Krita, or would they rather find one of the many other painting apps available for Macs?
tachyonbeam 7y ago
It seems to me that Apple is shooting itself in the foot very hard with moves like this. At the end of the day, developers are creating value for your platform. If you treat them like shit, they will leave. A lot of teenagers who are learning to program right now are definitely not going to be able to pay $100 a year to distribute toy programs they're making for fun. Heck, a lot of adults developers won't pay that. Apple has just made Linux significantly more appealing for all of these people. I own a MacBook Air at home (and a Linux desktop). I know this will definitely motivate me to go back to a Linux laptop for my next purchase. This move isn't just hostile to users, it's hostile to developers, hostile to the people creating value for the platform.
- mrec 7y ago
  Even if you can easily afford it, the pay-to-publish model should be setting off warning bells. Vanity publishing has been a real thing for a very long time, and normally isn't something that people consciously want to be doing.
- sukilot 7y ago
  This doesn't make much sense. Notarization is for the benefit of users, not developers. To an aspiring young dev, the right-click-opening Mac user market offers more users than the Linux market. For a user, right-click-open is easier than installing Linux.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Please consider the third option: ignore notarization, and ask users to let the app through Gatekeeper.
Svoka 7y ago
Implemented notarization for Corona SDK without any problems. Honestly, no idea what the fuss is about.
- josteink 7y ago
  Apple is increasingly making it impossible to run software not approved by Apple on machines supposedly owned by those who bought them. That is, the owner is no longer in control of his machine, Apple is. And if the machine will no longer listen to its owner, can it really be said to be his? It’s all baby-steps, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. And for some people, that line was here.
  - dwaite 7y ago
    What is the increase here? Gatekeeper has been in place and has required a Developer ID since 2012.
Razengan 7y ago
1. You can ask your users to manually allow Krita to run without notarization. 2. Instead of dropping macOS support, why not charge Mac users? Since you've already paid the developer fee, why not move Krita to the Mac App Store? Tell users that it's a cost of supporting Catalina. 3. You could continue to offer an un-notarized legacy version for free. Abandoning your Mac users is more likely to just make them move to other apps. If you feel your userbase is not techie enough to know how to manually run un-notarized apps, they probably won’t be able to switch operating systems just to use your app either.

q3k 7y ago

Please do. Apple's behavior is not acceptable.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Seconded. The last time when I was forced to use a Mac laptop, I hated every minute of it... Not because it was smooth and worked well, but that I had less and less freedoms to manipulate the system.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  FYI, if you turn off SIP you can do quite literally anything. Rewrite random memory, install random unsigned kernel extensions, replace the kernel with a version you compiled yourself, the works. The only thing that has no built-in off switch is TCC ("this app would like permission XXX"), although without SIP the ability to nullify it with code is theoretically at your disposal. I wish someone would make a MacForge plugin...
  - q3k 7y ago
    I don't think the point isn't about you or me - we're perfectly capable of bypassing this (for now). The point is a) about Apple's hostility b) what to expect from your average macOS user as a developer (most will have no idea what SIP even is, and then telling them to disable SIP is borderline irresponsible).
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      GP said that they as a user disliked using macOS because they "had less and less freedoms to manipulate the system." If GP wants more freedoms on their machine, GP should go ahead and grant their own wish. Regular software shouldn't run into SIP. It will run into Gatekeeper if the developer doesn't explicitly notarize/sign it, but I don't think it's irresponsible to tell users how to bypass Gatekeeper.

heavyset_go 7y ago

I develop about a half a dozen open source utilities, and own Macs. I read the writing on the wall and switched to Linux as my daily driver, because once you're locked in to a closed platform, it's easier to pay the toll than it is switch. I've unfortunately come to the same conclusion.

danShumway 7y ago

Apple won't court developers until they start losing apps. I think we're in a very, very narrow window of time where Apple is not popular enough that dropping them means apps are severely limiting user reach, but is still trying to push itself as a platform where creative things can happen -- a tool for graphic professionals. I'm cautiously supportive of this move, even though I use a Mac occasionally.

Razengan 7y ago
People are going to keep buying iPhones and iPads and Macs and Apple Watches and Apple TVs anyway. Then they'll discover the apps which are available for them. Your app can either be one of them or, unless you're massively popular, people aren't even going to know that your app is missing. If Krita goes, there's not going to be any shortage of painting apps for Apple devices.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Obviously there is a limit to how many apps you can lose without people abandoning your platform. Windows Phone failed largely for that reason, and Mac has historically suffered for its lack of game support. People don't just blindly buy devices, there is a threshold where they care about support. And also obviously, if literally only one app moved off of Mac, nothing would happen. So what's the threshold? If Blender stopped supporting Mac, would anyone here reconsider using them as a development platform? If Photoshop dropped Mac, would anyone here notice or make a purchasing decision based on that? Is it significant that Photoshop is being shipped for iOS now -- do we expect that professionals will take the platform more seriously because of that?
  - Razengan 7y ago
    > Is it significant that Photoshop is being shipped for iOS now -- do we expect that professionals will take the platform more seriously because of that? The point that you're trying to make and the point I'm trying to make is effectively the same: Apple platforms have no shortage of creative apps, have never had a shortage, and their library of apps and games is always increasing, not decreasing. If Krita abandons Mac, do you think it will hurt Krita more, or Apple, or users? What's more likely: Will people sell off their Mac and buy a PC just to keep using Krita, or would they rather find one of the many other painting apps available for Macs?

tachyonbeam 7y ago

It seems to me that Apple is shooting itself in the foot very hard with moves like this. At the end of the day, developers are creating value for your platform. If you treat them like shit, they will leave. A lot of teenagers who are learning to program right now are definitely not going to be able to pay $100 a year to distribute toy programs they're making for fun. Heck, a lot of adults developers won't pay that. Apple has just made Linux significantly more appealing for all of these people. I own a MacBook Air at home (and a Linux desktop). I know this will definitely motivate me to go back to a Linux laptop for my next purchase. This move isn't just hostile to users, it's hostile to developers, hostile to the people creating value for the platform.

mrec 7y ago
Even if you can easily afford it, the pay-to-publish model should be setting off warning bells. Vanity publishing has been a real thing for a very long time, and normally isn't something that people consciously want to be doing.
sukilot 7y ago
This doesn't make much sense. Notarization is for the benefit of users, not developers. To an aspiring young dev, the right-click-opening Mac user market offers more users than the Linux market. For a user, right-click-open is easier than installing Linux.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

Please consider the third option: ignore notarization, and ask users to let the app through Gatekeeper.

Svoka 7y ago

Implemented notarization for Corona SDK without any problems. Honestly, no idea what the fuss is about.

josteink 7y ago
Apple is increasingly making it impossible to run software not approved by Apple on machines supposedly owned by those who bought them. That is, the owner is no longer in control of his machine, Apple is. And if the machine will no longer listen to its owner, can it really be said to be his? It’s all baby-steps, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. And for some people, that line was here.
- dwaite 7y ago
  What is the increase here? Gatekeeper has been in place and has required a Developer ID since 2012.

Razengan 7y ago

1. You can ask your users to manually allow Krita to run without notarization. 2. Instead of dropping macOS support, why not charge Mac users? Since you've already paid the developer fee, why not move Krita to the Mac App Store? Tell users that it's a cost of supporting Catalina. 3. You could continue to offer an un-notarized legacy version for free. Abandoning your Mac users is more likely to just make them move to other apps. If you feel your userbase is not techie enough to know how to manually run un-notarized apps, they probably won’t be able to switch operating systems just to use your app either.