4 ms·

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

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.

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.