5 ms·

I've been through the same hell and there's basically just one way to publish software for macOS with no hassle for the user: Completely lock yourself in their

I've been through the same hell and there's basically just one way to publish software for macOS with no hassle for the user: Completely lock yourself in their ecosystem. That means working on a Mac, building in Xcode using Swift and publishing in the official app store. If you want to do anything that resembles the free software approaches of Linux, stay far away from Apple. If you really need to publish on Mac for whatever reason, it is so much better to dump the hassle on the user. Even if the core targets are not developers. And who knows, if you ruin the experience for enough users, Apple might actually bother to fix their system.

isodev 3y ago
And why not respect the platform you want to support? Just like you get various Linux/BSD distros and they all have a different take on packaging and distributions... you also have the way macOS does it. There is no inherent expectation that "what I do on Linux" will work on macOS... or every Linux even.
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  That's exactly what's happening. But while most software devs still steer around Apple for these kinda of things, Windows and Linux have figured out a way to work nicely together. If you want to ship from one of them to the other, it is trivial - which is by no means expected or how it always was. And it did make everyone's lives easier.
  - isodev 3y ago
    To be exact though, Windows didn't figure out how to work together, they transplanted "a thing" (WSL) and I'm not sure that's a tool one can expect users who are not developers or IT folks to install or use. All "native" windows ways also require windowsy tooling (e.g. MSI, powershell etc...)
  - threeseed 3y ago
    I have no idea what magical thing Windows and Linux have figured out. Is it WSL2 ? Because you can distribute Mac CLI apps exactly the same way. The issue here is with the code-signing process which is optional but recommended just like on Windows.
    - sigmoid10 3y ago
      It is "optional" in the sense that it removes hassle from the user. This is what the original article and my comment are all about. And don't get me started on building anything remotely more complex stuff for Mac from Windows or Linux. With the other too it's trivial to build and ship across by comparison.
      - AnonymousPlanet 3y ago
        I wouldn't call WSL hassle free for the user. Quite the contrary. And compiling stuff on Windows is a nightmare compared to Linux and macOS. It's become marginally better since you don't have to install the entire Visual Studio monstrosity anymore just to get a compiler that plays nice with the system. But it wasn't always like that. On macOS you could always install the necessary parts from Xcode without App store and activate it via command line.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >But while most software devs still steer around Apple for these kinda of things Do they? Between Homebrew, MacPorts, the hundreds of thousands of Mac App Store apps, indie dev apps distributed outside MAS, not to mention all major proprietary apps like Abobe Creative Suite, MS Office, Pro Tools, and so on, probably more software devs steer around Linux than Apple..
Klonoar 3y ago
Plenty of open source software out there is able to figure out how to ship in the Mac ecosystem without needing to go through the app store.
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  That was never in question. Read what was said again.
  - Klonoar 3y ago
    I did, and I'll highlight the relevant sections of your comment for you. > I've been through the same hell and there's basically just one way to publish software for macOS with no hassle for the user: Completely lock yourself in their ecosystem. That means working on a Mac, building in Xcode using Swift and publishing in the official app store. Your highlighted portions are false.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Yeah, as is "If you really need to publish on Mac for whatever reason, it is so much better to dump the hassle on the user.". All those other devs, including tens of thousands of MacPorts and Homebrew ports, manage to not dump any hassle to the user...
      - ehutch79 3y ago
        Arguably, relying on homebrew is dumping the hassle on the user. To be honest though, if your making a cli tool, you’re requiring the command line. And anyone comfortable with the command line can install homebrew
threeseed 3y ago
This is simply not true. I build a cross-platform app using Tauri and have never had to touch Xcode, Swift or the App Store. And if you want to a similar experience to Linux then just package your app using homebrew.
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  Of course it's possible. Noone ever said anything on the contrary. The issue is how many hoops you have to jump through. And things like Tauri create at least as many problems as they solve once you build more complex things that are not minimal PoCs.
pjc50 3y ago
You can't really escape this system. OSX notarization requirements apply even if you just want to download some binaries.
coldtea 3y ago
And yet all kinds of non-XCode major proprietary software exists, all kinds of third party indie dev software, all kinds of FOSS projects for Mac-only tools, as well as MacPorts, Homebrew, Nix, and everything in between.

isodev 3y ago

And why not respect the platform you want to support? Just like you get various Linux/BSD distros and they all have a different take on packaging and distributions... you also have the way macOS does it. There is no inherent expectation that "what I do on Linux" will work on macOS... or every Linux even.

sigmoid10 3y ago
That's exactly what's happening. But while most software devs still steer around Apple for these kinda of things, Windows and Linux have figured out a way to work nicely together. If you want to ship from one of them to the other, it is trivial - which is by no means expected or how it always was. And it did make everyone's lives easier.
- isodev 3y ago
  To be exact though, Windows didn't figure out how to work together, they transplanted "a thing" (WSL) and I'm not sure that's a tool one can expect users who are not developers or IT folks to install or use. All "native" windows ways also require windowsy tooling (e.g. MSI, powershell etc...)
- threeseed 3y ago
  I have no idea what magical thing Windows and Linux have figured out. Is it WSL2 ? Because you can distribute Mac CLI apps exactly the same way. The issue here is with the code-signing process which is optional but recommended just like on Windows.
  - sigmoid10 3y ago
    It is "optional" in the sense that it removes hassle from the user. This is what the original article and my comment are all about. And don't get me started on building anything remotely more complex stuff for Mac from Windows or Linux. With the other too it's trivial to build and ship across by comparison.
    - AnonymousPlanet 3y ago
      I wouldn't call WSL hassle free for the user. Quite the contrary. And compiling stuff on Windows is a nightmare compared to Linux and macOS. It's become marginally better since you don't have to install the entire Visual Studio monstrosity anymore just to get a compiler that plays nice with the system. But it wasn't always like that. On macOS you could always install the necessary parts from Xcode without App store and activate it via command line.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >But while most software devs still steer around Apple for these kinda of things Do they? Between Homebrew, MacPorts, the hundreds of thousands of Mac App Store apps, indie dev apps distributed outside MAS, not to mention all major proprietary apps like Abobe Creative Suite, MS Office, Pro Tools, and so on, probably more software devs steer around Linux than Apple..

Klonoar 3y ago

Plenty of open source software out there is able to figure out how to ship in the Mac ecosystem without needing to go through the app store.

sigmoid10 3y ago
That was never in question. Read what was said again.
- Klonoar 3y ago
  I did, and I'll highlight the relevant sections of your comment for you. > I've been through the same hell and there's basically just one way to publish software for macOS with no hassle for the user: Completely lock yourself in their ecosystem. That means working on a Mac, building in Xcode using Swift and publishing in the official app store. Your highlighted portions are false.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Yeah, as is "If you really need to publish on Mac for whatever reason, it is so much better to dump the hassle on the user.". All those other devs, including tens of thousands of MacPorts and Homebrew ports, manage to not dump any hassle to the user...
    - ehutch79 3y ago
      Arguably, relying on homebrew is dumping the hassle on the user. To be honest though, if your making a cli tool, you’re requiring the command line. And anyone comfortable with the command line can install homebrew

threeseed 3y ago

This is simply not true. I build a cross-platform app using Tauri and have never had to touch Xcode, Swift or the App Store. And if you want to a similar experience to Linux then just package your app using homebrew.

sigmoid10 3y ago
Of course it's possible. Noone ever said anything on the contrary. The issue is how many hoops you have to jump through. And things like Tauri create at least as many problems as they solve once you build more complex things that are not minimal PoCs.

pjc50 3y ago

You can't really escape this system. OSX notarization requirements apply even if you just want to download some binaries.

coldtea 3y ago

And yet all kinds of non-XCode major proprietary software exists, all kinds of third party indie dev software, all kinds of FOSS projects for Mac-only tools, as well as MacPorts, Homebrew, Nix, and everything in between.