6 ms·

We’ve been hearing that for years, yet it hasn’t happened. Apple seems to recognize the value of the Mac as an general computing platform.

banachtarski 6y ago
It keeps inching closer. You now have a unified arch between mobile and desktop. You were never officially able to cross compile before and now there’s yet another barrier. Phoned signing verification is another thing that is a precursor to distribution to Apple-only distribution.
p2detar 6y ago
Notarization was IMO the first big step towards this. To this day I have not heard anyone, neither devs nor users, wanting this feature. And to devs it has only costed misery and money.
- otterley 6y ago
  Customers, for the most part, don't even know or care it exists. But customers will find value in it when Apple is able to quickly disable malware if it proves necessary. As for developers... I mean, how much of a big deal is it, really? I looked at the documentation and it didn't seem like a huge hassle. It even looks like it is automatable in your CI/CD processes via `altool` and `stapler`.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Ah yes, the fear angle. "We need to restrict what you can do with your computer in order to keep you safe!" No thanks, I'll pass. I do imagine that some people would go for that bargain, but it strikes me as short-sighted.
    - otterley 6y ago
      You do realize that there are millions of satisfied Mac, iPhone, and iPad customers out there, right? The profits speak for themselves: clearly there is value both for freedom and for security. And it never was a binary question anyway. Besides, you can still run non-notarized binaries if you want to. The UI does make it difficult, but not impossible. If you want a totally open computer, that's fine (to the extent you don’t spread it via negligence), but everything has tradeoffs. If you're comfortable with the risk of malware, that's also fine; but not everyone is -- and certainly not the business world.
      - banachtarski 6y ago
        > Besides, you can still run non-notarized binaries if you want to. The UI does make it difficult, but not impossible. On ios and ipad (from your first sentence) you cannot.
      - hungryforcodes 6y ago
        That is fine. And now, because of this, many of us are now considering not having Apple in our tech future. And that is fine too.
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        You're making the assumption the "average buyer" knows anything about this issue, which is incredibly unlikely. Therefore, their buying decisions are not made based on it. I think a good goal would be to scream it as loud as possible and make sure people are buying it based on this dimension as well.
    - tgv 6y ago
      Up until now, you could change the settings to something dev friendly, while leaving them strict for people like my father, who clicks on things he shouldn't click on. It is not short sighted, it's a useful protection against malware. The only time he got in trouble was when he ran an installer, entered the admin password and installed one of these "protect your mac" apps that don't protect, but only pester you into paying a subscription. I had to remove that file by file. OTOH, the amount of shit my in-laws' PC went through is unbelievable. They no longer use it: they've got an iPad.
pedro2 6y ago
They’ll never do it. They just keep making stuff not private so you have to choose between security versus privacy. A well thought system would be able to provide both.
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  If that was true, they'd allow "Apps from Unknown Sources" on iOS like Android does.
- haunter 6y ago
  They'll do it, it's only a matter of time
heavyset_go 6y ago
Apple has programmed macOS to make it appear to users as if un-Notarized apps either don't work or are malicious. This is bad for users that download apps to solve problems, or to get work done, because then they can't those apps without having an expert tell them what the magic ritual to run un-Notarized apps is. If they don't have an expert around to show them how to perform the magic ritual, then they just think the apps are broken.
- otterley 6y ago
  Most mainstream apps are notarized already.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I think you're answering the wrong question?
    - otterley 6y ago
      Another commenter added more color, but what I was trying to say is that the scenario the parent poster described isn't a likely one for most Mac users.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    As a maintainer of a few open source Mac apps that are un-Notarized, this doesn't help users who download the apps to solve their problems but can't use them because of the roadblocks baked into macOS.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  I dunno. If you can’t confidently change a system preference back and forth, maybe you are very vulnerable to being hacked in general? So maybe it’s ok for Apple’s defaults, at least, to be restrictive? I just want a preference that allows me to turn all of this off.
  - fsflover 6y ago
posedge 6y ago
Something like that would be happening very gradually over time.
dilap 6y ago
The water is warm but it isn't boiling yet. All the infra is in place though, and the economic incentives are inevitably going to push Apple in this direction.

banachtarski 6y ago

It keeps inching closer. You now have a unified arch between mobile and desktop. You were never officially able to cross compile before and now there’s yet another barrier. Phoned signing verification is another thing that is a precursor to distribution to Apple-only distribution.

p2detar 6y ago

Notarization was IMO the first big step towards this. To this day I have not heard anyone, neither devs nor users, wanting this feature. And to devs it has only costed misery and money.

otterley 6y ago
Customers, for the most part, don't even know or care it exists. But customers will find value in it when Apple is able to quickly disable malware if it proves necessary. As for developers... I mean, how much of a big deal is it, really? I looked at the documentation and it didn't seem like a huge hassle. It even looks like it is automatable in your CI/CD processes via `altool` and `stapler`.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Ah yes, the fear angle. "We need to restrict what you can do with your computer in order to keep you safe!" No thanks, I'll pass. I do imagine that some people would go for that bargain, but it strikes me as short-sighted.
  - otterley 6y ago
    You do realize that there are millions of satisfied Mac, iPhone, and iPad customers out there, right? The profits speak for themselves: clearly there is value both for freedom and for security. And it never was a binary question anyway. Besides, you can still run non-notarized binaries if you want to. The UI does make it difficult, but not impossible. If you want a totally open computer, that's fine (to the extent you don’t spread it via negligence), but everything has tradeoffs. If you're comfortable with the risk of malware, that's also fine; but not everyone is -- and certainly not the business world.
    - banachtarski 6y ago
      > Besides, you can still run non-notarized binaries if you want to. The UI does make it difficult, but not impossible. On ios and ipad (from your first sentence) you cannot.
    - hungryforcodes 6y ago
      That is fine. And now, because of this, many of us are now considering not having Apple in our tech future. And that is fine too.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      You're making the assumption the "average buyer" knows anything about this issue, which is incredibly unlikely. Therefore, their buying decisions are not made based on it. I think a good goal would be to scream it as loud as possible and make sure people are buying it based on this dimension as well.
  - tgv 6y ago
    Up until now, you could change the settings to something dev friendly, while leaving them strict for people like my father, who clicks on things he shouldn't click on. It is not short sighted, it's a useful protection against malware. The only time he got in trouble was when he ran an installer, entered the admin password and installed one of these "protect your mac" apps that don't protect, but only pester you into paying a subscription. I had to remove that file by file. OTOH, the amount of shit my in-laws' PC went through is unbelievable. They no longer use it: they've got an iPad.

pedro2 6y ago

They’ll never do it. They just keep making stuff not private so you have to choose between security versus privacy. A well thought system would be able to provide both.

AntiImperialist 6y ago
If that was true, they'd allow "Apps from Unknown Sources" on iOS like Android does.
haunter 6y ago
They'll do it, it's only a matter of time

heavyset_go 6y ago

Apple has programmed macOS to make it appear to users as if un-Notarized apps either don't work or are malicious. This is bad for users that download apps to solve problems, or to get work done, because then they can't those apps without having an expert tell them what the magic ritual to run un-Notarized apps is. If they don't have an expert around to show them how to perform the magic ritual, then they just think the apps are broken.

otterley 6y ago
Most mainstream apps are notarized already.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I think you're answering the wrong question?
  - otterley 6y ago
    Another commenter added more color, but what I was trying to say is that the scenario the parent poster described isn't a likely one for most Mac users.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  As a maintainer of a few open source Mac apps that are un-Notarized, this doesn't help users who download the apps to solve their problems but can't use them because of the roadblocks baked into macOS.
whiddershins 6y ago
I dunno. If you can’t confidently change a system preference back and forth, maybe you are very vulnerable to being hacked in general? So maybe it’s ok for Apple’s defaults, at least, to be restrictive? I just want a preference that allows me to turn all of this off.
- fsflover 6y ago

posedge 6y ago

Something like that would be happening very gradually over time.

dilap 6y ago

The water is warm but it isn't boiling yet. All the infra is in place though, and the economic incentives are inevitably going to push Apple in this direction.