5 ms·

It’s undeniable that a whole class of ARM software was prevented from even being conceived because it has to pass the App Store’s Byzantine set of rules. On th

It’s undeniable that a whole class of ARM software was prevented from even being conceived because it has to pass the App Store’s Byzantine set of rules. On the other hand, I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store.

jeroenhd 5y ago
As a non-Mac developer, what does it mean to notarize a piece of software? Is that something you need to do in order to be able to run a piece of software these days?
- my123 5y ago
  It's used as part of Gatekeeper for software downloaded from the internet. See https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... for the notarisation process and https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 for the customer-facing documentation, which includes how to work around it when needed. Gatekeeper can be totally disabled via sudo spctl --master-disable.
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    I see. That's a pretty developer-hostile measure. Luckily, I don't intend to ever ship any software to Macs, so it's not a problem to me. If I did want to ship a Mac version of any tool I'd write, I'd pretty hesitant to jump through Apple's hoops, so I can understand why developers don't want to notarize their stuff.
    - my123 5y ago
      For Windows, distribution without signing isn't exactly painless either, and the signing certificates for that are quite expensive. And there, it's not even deterministic, see https://www.digicert.com/dc/blog/ms-smartscreen-application-reputation/ https://www.digicert.com/dc/blog/ms-smartscreen-application-... The goal of the system is to authenticate which developer made a given piece of software, to be able to track the spread of malware. An option is always given for a user to opt-out.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > Gatekeeper can be totally disabled via sudo spctl --master-disable. If you had to do this on Linux to run software that wasn't notarized by Red Hat, HN posters would write about how unfriendly and developer hostile Linux is.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Really? I find this hard to believe, because if this was true, why doesn’t Android have a bunch of unique apps that couldn’t exist on iPhone? Yes, Android does have some apps that can’t exist on iPhone, but I wouldn’t say that most people find them compelling or care about them. Those that do already have Android.
- phh 5y ago
  Except emulators and actual web browsers you mean?
  - m4rtink 5y ago
    Not to mention various IDEs and a lot of specialized tools basically compiled from a Linux distro. Still it's far from ideal given that everything needs to be compiled against the bastardized Bionic c library using the wonky at best Android NDK. Not to mention issues the Termux project uncovered where newly introduced "security" features prevent you from running binaries that were not installed from an APK (breaking many Linux distro chrome usecases and IDEs). In short, a proper mobile Linux distro is needed, as Android is already far from perfect and getting worse. Hopefully some of the projects spawned around and related to PinePhone can cover that over time. :)
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Android hardware is not very compelling as of late. Nor are the users, to be entirely honest.
  - myko 5y ago
    I assume this is meant as a joke but it is in very poor taste
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      Not sure what’s wrong about it, it’s fairly well known that Android users don’t pay for software?
collaborative 5y ago
I tried notarizing, but gave up after 2 weeks of trying. I used to offer an app that wrapped an entirely java-based (shipped with its own JavaSE JRE) app within an Apple Script launcher. I used to be able to sign it, but the notarization tool simply won't accept my app's bundle. So had to drop it
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Please consider shipping it unnotarized. I'd always rather have the option to allow an app through Gatekeeper than to not have a Mac version be available at all.
  - collaborative 5y ago
    At the moment I have settled to publishing a version that only works on Apple Silicon devices (via iOS compatibility where I use translated bytecode). I will think hard about this, perhaps I will end up doing as you suggested :-)
aptgetrekt 5y ago
I make a free mac utility and would be fine with notarizing it if it wasn't $100 a year. I don't want to pay $100 a year to give away something for free. And the message that pops up telling users to "contact the developer" because "the app needs to be updated" is just infuriating. To me it feels like Apple asking users of unnotarized apps to bug developers into paying Apple that $100 a year.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this. > Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store. Notarization requires developers to pay Apple $100 every year if they want to notarize their software.

jeroenhd 5y ago

As a non-Mac developer, what does it mean to notarize a piece of software? Is that something you need to do in order to be able to run a piece of software these days?

my123 5y ago
It's used as part of Gatekeeper for software downloaded from the internet. See https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... for the notarisation process and https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491 for the customer-facing documentation, which includes how to work around it when needed. Gatekeeper can be totally disabled via sudo spctl --master-disable.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  I see. That's a pretty developer-hostile measure. Luckily, I don't intend to ever ship any software to Macs, so it's not a problem to me. If I did want to ship a Mac version of any tool I'd write, I'd pretty hesitant to jump through Apple's hoops, so I can understand why developers don't want to notarize their stuff.
  - my123 5y ago
    For Windows, distribution without signing isn't exactly painless either, and the signing certificates for that are quite expensive. And there, it's not even deterministic, see https://www.digicert.com/dc/blog/ms-smartscreen-application-reputation/ https://www.digicert.com/dc/blog/ms-smartscreen-application-... The goal of the system is to authenticate which developer made a given piece of software, to be able to track the spread of malware. An option is always given for a user to opt-out.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Gatekeeper can be totally disabled via sudo spctl --master-disable. If you had to do this on Linux to run software that wasn't notarized by Red Hat, HN posters would write about how unfriendly and developer hostile Linux is.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Really? I find this hard to believe, because if this was true, why doesn’t Android have a bunch of unique apps that couldn’t exist on iPhone? Yes, Android does have some apps that can’t exist on iPhone, but I wouldn’t say that most people find them compelling or care about them. Those that do already have Android.

phh 5y ago
Except emulators and actual web browsers you mean?
- m4rtink 5y ago
  Not to mention various IDEs and a lot of specialized tools basically compiled from a Linux distro. Still it's far from ideal given that everything needs to be compiled against the bastardized Bionic c library using the wonky at best Android NDK. Not to mention issues the Termux project uncovered where newly introduced "security" features prevent you from running binaries that were not installed from an APK (breaking many Linux distro chrome usecases and IDEs). In short, a proper mobile Linux distro is needed, as Android is already far from perfect and getting worse. Hopefully some of the projects spawned around and related to PinePhone can cover that over time. :)
saagarjha 5y ago
Android hardware is not very compelling as of late. Nor are the users, to be entirely honest.
- myko 5y ago
  I assume this is meant as a joke but it is in very poor taste
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    Not sure what’s wrong about it, it’s fairly well known that Android users don’t pay for software?

collaborative 5y ago

I tried notarizing, but gave up after 2 weeks of trying. I used to offer an app that wrapped an entirely java-based (shipped with its own JavaSE JRE) app within an Apple Script launcher. I used to be able to sign it, but the notarization tool simply won't accept my app's bundle. So had to drop it

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Please consider shipping it unnotarized. I'd always rather have the option to allow an app through Gatekeeper than to not have a Mac version be available at all.
- collaborative 5y ago
  At the moment I have settled to publishing a version that only works on Apple Silicon devices (via iOS compatibility where I use translated bytecode). I will think hard about this, perhaps I will end up doing as you suggested :-)

aptgetrekt 5y ago

I make a free mac utility and would be fine with notarizing it if it wasn't $100 a year. I don't want to pay $100 a year to give away something for free. And the message that pops up telling users to "contact the developer" because "the app needs to be updated" is just infuriating. To me it feels like Apple asking users of unnotarized apps to bug developers into paying Apple that $100 a year.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this. > Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store. Notarization requires developers to pay Apple $100 every year if they want to notarize their software.