3 ms·
As a user I don’t like installer packages as much because without special utilities, they’re opaque and it’s hard to tell what they’ll do. Of course copied bin
by cosmic_cheese 2mo ago
As a user I don’t like installer packages as much because without special utilities, they’re opaque and it’s hard to tell what they’ll do.
Of course copied binaries can cause plenty of trouble too, but I have much less of a reason to give an installed program admin privileges than I do an installer.
- ianmurrays 2mo agoSame here. Especially because most installer packages rely on these specifically to install "obscure" things, so I'm immediately distrustful of them.
- stevekerr 2mo agoThat makes a lot of sense. With the icon method: The user is in full control. In our case, the CLI is part of a data sync system, so it does need a "special" once-per-hour check for new data (keeping local and mobile in sync). I've actually been surprised how strict Apple is before it will happily let signed code run. But the average user (including me previously) doesn't know that. I think trust comes down to being clear up front. Note to self: Add extra details/options to installer (WYSIWYG)
- philistine 2mo agoI moved to the Mac App Store version of OneDrive specifically because of the constant issues with the background processes it insists it must have running at all times. The MAS version has only one of those and it works.
- whstl 2mo agoI really dislike PKGs and I have bought an app called Pacifist app to specifically know what they're doing.
- guessmyname 2mo agoLink, for anyone interested: https://www.charlessoft.com/ https://www.charlessoft.com/ I prefer this one: https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/ https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/ But I’ve used both at different times with equally great results.