3 ms·

How can "notarization" be advertised as anything else than locking down the platform towards absolute uselessness in the name of security? Not going to use Mac

How can "notarization" be advertised as anything else than locking down the platform towards absolute uselessness in the name of security? Not going to use Mac OS, period. Mac users also can say goodbye to F/OSS on their platform, unless Apple themselves release signed versions of apps for the command line and web servers, DNS servers, file servers and the like. Which they're not going to do as can be seen in the outdated (as in 10-20 years old) versions on Darwin ports.

fierarul 6y ago
I literally paid Apple $99 so I can give its users for free an Open Source app. The free developer account does not allow you to notarize apps. And Apple gives no free passes to open-source apps. Everybody must pay. I'm still debating if I'll renew the certificate.
- m_st 6y ago
  Windows dev here. Not to disagree with you, but I also have to buy an Authenticode certificate just to sign my assemblies so that Windows doesn't show a scary popup when the user starts my application. Ah, and I also have to buy another certificate for HTTPS so that the browsers don't show a scary popup when the user opens my website.
  - fierarul 6y ago
    Yes, my app is Java so I would also have to pay for a Windows cert. I have none right now and would love to not feel so attached to the $300 a fancy cert would be. For HTTPS I manage with LetsEncrypt. Wouldn't that work for you?
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  I guess EFF should check if any GPL-licensed software is shipped with Mac OS (such as Apple's antique bash version). Because AFAICT, a requirement for notarization, or any other condition on top of GPL for that matter, is incompatible with GPL.
  - fierarul 6y ago
    Apple has banned GPL from macOS quite some time ago and has been pruning GPL apps. See http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/
- _fat_santa 6y ago
  As an iOS developer I justify it as the cost of doing business. However, unlike you I sell my apps so the annual cost is justified. I think Apple should have an "Open Source" certificate that comes at no cost but the source code has to be made public somewhere.

fierarul 6y ago

I literally paid Apple $99 so I can give its users for free an Open Source app. The free developer account does not allow you to notarize apps. And Apple gives no free passes to open-source apps. Everybody must pay. I'm still debating if I'll renew the certificate.

m_st 6y ago
Windows dev here. Not to disagree with you, but I also have to buy an Authenticode certificate just to sign my assemblies so that Windows doesn't show a scary popup when the user starts my application. Ah, and I also have to buy another certificate for HTTPS so that the browsers don't show a scary popup when the user opens my website.
- fierarul 6y ago
  Yes, my app is Java so I would also have to pay for a Windows cert. I have none right now and would love to not feel so attached to the $300 a fancy cert would be. For HTTPS I manage with LetsEncrypt. Wouldn't that work for you?
tannhaeuser 6y ago
I guess EFF should check if any GPL-licensed software is shipped with Mac OS (such as Apple's antique bash version). Because AFAICT, a requirement for notarization, or any other condition on top of GPL for that matter, is incompatible with GPL.
- fierarul 6y ago
  Apple has banned GPL from macOS quite some time ago and has been pruning GPL apps. See http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/
_fat_santa 6y ago
As an iOS developer I justify it as the cost of doing business. However, unlike you I sell my apps so the annual cost is justified. I think Apple should have an "Open Source" certificate that comes at no cost but the source code has to be made public somewhere.