Can't you just right click? - <AUTHOR> https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html <comment><USER2> This makes me wonder how open source is supposed to work on macOS. People seem to become more and more aware of it and even enterprises that insisted on support contracts can see that they can't get around open source completely anymore. Meanwhile Apple is removing the ability for me to have a pet project without paying an Apple tax.

If the message were completely transparent, something like "The developer didn't pay $99 for us to do a cursory check on them (or whatever it is that Apple does with that money), are you sure you want to run their software? [Move to trash] [No] [?]", then that would give the user the relevant information to make this decision, but as it is, virtually no mac user will understand what is really going on.

I also can't imagine $100 is easy to come up with in countries below level 4[1]. The OpenStreetMap Foundation recently introduced a way to waive the yearly £15 fee for OSMF membership if you have a certain number of map edits or otherwise contributed to the project. The OSM community seems to be quite diverse, but I can't imagine that Apple computers are less widespread than OpenStreetMap.

[1] [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Factfulness#incomegroups](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Factfulness#incomegroups)

<comment><USER3> Like all other legitimate software on MacOS; they get a developer account and distribute it via the app store.

For years, Windows got laughed at by EVERYONE because there was so much malware on it - in part because of its laissez-faire approach to letting the user install anything from anywhere.

Mac went for the closed garden approach and there's hardly any malware, adware, scareware or whatever -ware you can think of on the platform, which is one of the reasons why Mac is safer and considered to have a better user experience.

Curation is not a bad thing. And if an open source application wants to become popular for the masses - not the HN power user crowd, which represents only a small percentage of potential customers - they have to conform to its rules.

Likewise, they will want to be available through the Windows store as well.

Using the tools and platforms offered by the OS developers is the lowest friction option for installing software.

As for poorer people and countries, isn't this where the open source charities come in? Isn't this where the big FAANGs - including Apple - and the investors and everyone that earned billions off of software should come in? I mean come on, it's only $99.

<comment><USER4> > ... in part because of its laissez-faire approach to letting the user > install anything from anywhere.

This comment makes it seem like installing software outside of a curated store is responsible for security issues, but this is exactly what Linux and other like OSes do. You can install apps from anywhere and I'll wager you'll find less malware, adware etc. for them in the wild, than the Mac. Granted usage of these platforms as a Desktop is way lower making it a less attractive target for bad actors, but much of it owes to inherent OS design.

> And if an open source application wants to become popular for the masses - > not the HN power user crowd, which represents only a small percentage of > potential customers - they have to conform to its rules.

Open source applications have been popular with the masses way before the curated store app store model came into place. Publishing on an app store has a good chance for increasing outreach, but it should not make distribution and installation of applications in the classical way more cumbersome, should the user so desire.

<comment><USER5> Most standard Linux repos are _highly_ curated, with even distro specific patches and stuff.

The difference is that there is no rent seeking and you can choose your curator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This feature is at about the right spot for me.

It is still convenient enough for me to run software I want that isn't signed, but sufficiently obtuse that neither of my parents have figured it out. Given they are both prone to running any executable that any website tells them to download and run, this feature has probably save me several dozen hours of fixing their computers.

<comment><USER7> Apple has been making things more and more restrictive over a decade now.

New versions of mac os introducing new restrictions.

Doesn't take a genius to see that their end goal is to make mac os as restrictive as ios.

When that happens, will it still be the right spot for you?

<comment><USER8> You stop using Apple and go to a reasonable OS. You and I are not going to help Apple keep their $2T valuation, we are no longer the market not been one for 5 + years for Apple

Apple moved their focus from the professional market who were willing to pay premium for productivity with better UX/Hardware/Software, to people paying just the premium .

It is a lifestyle brand now, people money because it is Apple, not because there is real value they gain for the higher cost.

Depending on what you work with, Windows or Linux is by far better option today. MS listens to developers (eventually), WSL , professional support, a lot of graphical professional grade applications all make it attractive. Linux is lot more flexible, works with less friction makes it easy to work with containers servers etc,

If you really need Apple hardware dual boot or flash a sensible OS .

<comment><USER9> >It is a lifestyle brand now, people money because it is Apple, not because there is real value they gain for the higher cost.

Oh come now, there are millions and millions of professionals using macOS to do work every single day.

This is basically a slippery slope fallacy. Today they're making it marginally hard, what might they do tomorrow?!?

There are many reasons to prefer macOS to Linux or Windows. The Apple ecosystem works extraordinarily well together. There is nothing that you can buy, not with all the money in the world, that matches the seamlessness of owning an Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, and a macOS device. You can't do it with Linux, Windows, Android, or anything else. It doesn't exist.

I prefer macOS for development work, and for basically any kind of work. I loathe the Windows UI/UX and Linux is far too often a second (or third) class citizen. There is nothing that I have needed to do that I have been unable to do because of macOS. Not once.

Not to mention... if you want to write software for macOS, iPadOS, WatchOS, or iOS you must own at least one Mac.

<comment><USER10> > Oh come now, there are millions and millions of professionals using macOS to > do work every single day.

Right, and how many of those are using macOS because they're "forced" to, as a sibling suggests, or simply by force of habit?

Moving from macOS to Linux or Windows (or from any one OS to any other, really) does require some time. It's not necessarily difficult, but it still takes time. Time that the same professionals might find is better spent on their actual professional work.

It could be argued it's a boil the frog situation, but for me that means the incentives to change the OS aren't quite there yet. Maybe if MacOS 10.17 goes too far with restricting what people can run on it, there could be more people switching. But remember, many of those "professionals" are not programmers, they use standard "enterprise" software, like Adobe or whatever. I bet most of those people have no idea what a terminal is. They would probably not even notice such restrictions are in place.

<comment><USER9> Is it really that hard for you to believe that people like and prefer macOS??

I don't want to move to Windows or Linux. The time sink is irrelevant. I am a software engineer and I PREFER macOS. So do my coworkers. So do many, but not all, of my friends. So does my spouse.

Many of you replying here just seem completely unable to grasp that other people exist, with other thoughts and opinions.

<comment><USER11> So you would stay loyal to the product no matter what it evolves into? I imagine there's some kind of limit to what you would put up with. Or is your point that these restrictions don't bother you at all? That's fine of course but I'm sure not everyone feels the same way.

As someone who never bought any Apple products, I find it harder and harder to see why I would buy one. I have friends who are quite invested Apple owners who say they will most likely not buy Apple again because of the way the product has changed for the worse (in their eyes).

<comment><USER9> >So you would stay loyal to the product no matter what it evolves into?

No. My line in the sand is Apple locking down macOS so that I cannot install applications outside of the Mac App Store. These "restrictions" that seem to annoy other people do not bother me. At that point I would just migrate over to Linux and maintain a Mac for any remaining Apple specific dev.

I'm not sure exactly where the line is on mobile. I don't feel restricted by the iOS ecosystem, but I do understand that others might. If there became a time where I wanted to abandon iOS then I would likely just go without a phone or get a flip phone. I refuse to use Android or any product developed by Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> white-flame The fact that the standard model of computing is that applications are opaque machine code blobs that can access everything in your user permission space is the core problem in privacy and malware. Applications should see nothing but their executable jail, and whatever was intentionally allowed to them by the user (eg, Open file dialog giving the application an opaque file handle, etc, not carte blanche access to the entire filesystem). Ideally, the notion of machine code blobs should be done away with as well.

Mobile OSes got to rethink everything in an era of constant adversarial connectivity and started off on a better foot in this regard.

<comment><USER12> This works for some type of software, but not all type of software. For example a file server or a file manager wont work. A VCS client wont work. A game engine that needs to keep track of imported resources (especially when you want automatic imports when the file is saved via a 3rd party tool - e.g. saving a model on Blender or a texture on Krita causes an automatic reimport/convert to the engine's format). Basically any sort of content management software that doesn't provide everything itself but relies on 3rd party tools already installed on the user's machine wont work.

Software like clipboard managers also wont work. Screen sharing and remote desktop software similarly wont work. Screencast software wont work. Hotkeys software wont work. Most desktop automation software wont work.

I could go on and start looking at what i have installed to extend this list (i'm sure most of the software i have on my PC wont work), but i guess you get the idea. Almost everything that doesn't fit in the media consumption model that you'll often find on a phone or a tablet wont work (and amusingly enough, at least on my Android, stuff like a file server does work, though i've heard Google wants to remove that functionality).

<comment><USER13> Sure it does! We just need sufficiently granular permissions for all of this stuff. "Do you want to give ClipboardManager access to your clipboard?" Yes. "Do you want to give TikTok access to your clipboard?" No. I agree that clicking a million permission boxes is annoying but ideally it should only be something needed for apps that don't fit the media consumption model.

The real problem is that the desktop security model is outdated - it was designed for a world where software developers are trusted by default and users need to protect their data from each other. Today we can't trust that developers will respect my data. I mean, the fact that any application I run or any npm module I transitively install could upload or delete any of my personal documents is insane. We absolutely need to preserve my ability to run software I write, and run screencast software, file servers, etc. But permission to read my data should not be given by default to any software I happen to run. The Epic thing makes me nervous but generally I think Apple's direction here is the right one.

<comment><USER12> > The real problem is that the desktop security model is outdated - it was > designed for a world where software developers are trusted by default and > users need to protect their data from each other. Today we can't trust that > developers will respect my data.

Why is it any different today? You can always only install applications you trust. It would be useful to have sandboxing for untrusted applications (especially when said sandboxing would also allow you to monitor what the application is doing), but not all applications are untrusted.

<comment><USER13> The UNIX permission system was designed when computers cost millions, they had lots of users through timesharing (many of whom were programmers themselves). And computers had comparatively little software. And most of the software that was on the computers was installed by the system operators; who could be trusted to not install software from disreputable developers. The threat model was malicious users accessing each other's files; so user accounts with limited permissions kept us safe.

Today I have several computers. Each computer only has 1 user. And yet my /etc/passwd file still has 110 entries somehow. And it doesn't really help - the thing I need to protect the most on my computer is my data, and most programs on my computer could read and modify all my data with impunity if they wanted to. The permission model nothing to protect my own files from the programs I run.

Using tools like homebrew I install new software very frequently, and I don't have time to vet the code I run. There is a staggering number of software developers who have contributed code that runs on my computer. Some of them work at companies in direct competition with each other. Some of those companies I don't really trust. (Hi Facebook). So I rely on sandboxing in the browser and on my phone to keep my data safe.

The UNIX user permission model just doesn't meet modern needs.

<comment><USER12> Right, but why do you install software you do not trust in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I still believe that Gatekeeper is a blatant cash grab and not a legitimate security feature.

$100/year to avoid a scary warning about how your app is _definitely_ a virus? It's like a protection racket.

<comment><USER15> It's hard to believe that this would be a cash grab. Even if there are 1M developers in the world, that's only $100M, which should not be worth the friction and cost to implement and maintain this scheme. Consider that Apple's most recent _quarterly_ revenue was just under $60B. Apple made $260B in all of 2019; $100M is not even four hundredths of a percent.

Developer time to build out the signing and notarization features is not free, and running the notarization servers in a highly-available manner is also not free. As much as we all like to call out Apple sometimes for how they don't take good care of their developers, adding hoops for your developers to jump through is not a great idea.

So I think in some ways Apple really does it for the security aspects, and also probably just because Apple likes to maintain rigid control over their experience.

<comment><USER16> > As much as we all like to call out Apple sometimes for how they don't take > good care of their developers, adding hoops for your developers to jump > through is not a great idea.

Why not?

Apple has been pushing very hard lately to increase their 'services' revenue, by getting users to sign up for Apple Music, iCloud, etc. It makes _perfect sense_ for Apple to force developers to jump through hoops, not because it makes the developers' lives worse, but because it gives Apple a leg up! Some examples:

• When launching Chrome for the first time, you have to opt-in to Chrome notifications, but macOS pops up its own notification telling you to use Safari instead.

• Similarly, Apple News notifications are allowed by default, but you have to explicitly opt-in to notifications from other news websites.

• Again, similarly, you'll get Apple Music adverts through push notifications, something that's explicitly disallowed in the App Store guidelines.

• System Preferences gets an obnoxious (1) badge next to it, because I haven't signed in to iCloud.

I use SyncThing, rather than iCloud Drive. It definitely benefits Apple to waste the SyncThing developers' time and money keeping up with things the iCloud Drive team doesn't need to deal with — do you _really_ think the sort of company that pulls shit like the above would do anything different?

<comment><USER17> > • When launching Chrome for the first time, you have to opt-in to Chrome > notifications, but macOS pops up its own notification telling you to use > Safari instead.

Link to a screenshot of this Safari notification when Chrome is run?

> Similarly, Apple News notifications are allowed by default, but you have to > explicitly opt-in to notifications from other news websites.

Reference to an article about this?

> • System Preferences gets an obnoxious (1) badge next to it, because I > haven't signed in to iCloud.

This is something other apps can't display...?

<comment><USER18> Not when Chrome is run, it shows up at some point after you start using your Mac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I deal with this every day, because we only notarize our electron app in CI if we're building the master branch or an RC branch. I don't see it mentioned in the article, but what gets me every time is that the "right-click" trick only works the second time you try to launch the app. The first time, right-click or not, MacOS won't let you launch the app.

I do wish Apple had a free tier for open source projects, just like many other tools on the web.

As an alternative, I wish there was an easy way to "sponsor" open source projects for this sort of thing. (I guess there is in some cases, but it's pretty hit or miss)

On Windows, although it's pretty easy to run unsigned applications, it's a huge pain to install unsigned 64 bit drivers, even if it's just the inf file that's custom. I've ended up signing open-source drivers several times with my own code signing certificate (a few hundred bucks every few years) although I haven't distributed the result. Drivers for things like USB SDRs.

<comment><USER20> > I don't see it mentioned in the article, but what gets me every time is that > the "right-click" trick only works the second time you try to launch the > app. The first time, right-click or not, MacOS won't let you launch the app.

Thanks for the comment! I've referenced this in a new addendum to the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought that a developer status will autosave me either from malware or from being babysitted, but then [1] happened. No matter how hard I tried to start that binary, OSX didn't allow me to do that. Damn OS which knows better, who do yo think you are? Did you see checksums, site certs, my competence, my willpower? I thought that it must be something with a build process that transmission uses, some signature didn't get into the bundle, etc, and went to their forum for help, while trying to self-sign that app and to reduce the system protection level in a console. As I found out later, that was yet another snafu that happens with transmission every few years, and it's not that it is a particularly small or inactive project.

Moral of the story is, if you want to protect your users, you have to bring some level of inconvenience and frustration to them. Or be sure that I will run that malware no matter what you say.

[1] [https://forum.transmissionbt.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17834](https://forum.transmissionbt.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17834)

<comment><USER22> So the moral is that we should give up freedom for security?

Because that's a bad moral.

<comment><USER23> Like anything in life there is balance, and anyone living in any sort of society today has already given up some freedom for some security.

<comment><USER22> They never had a choice.

There seems to be a trend in the US society today to error more on the side of safety than liberty than I've seen ever before. Particularly, this is a change in the tech community which has been a bastion in the fight for individual freedoms since I've been alive.

In the end, when you make that bargain at the levels we are making it today, the safety is only temporary but the damage to liberty is unrecoverable without starting over.

It's a bad bargain.

To be clear of straw men, I'm not saying that individuals (not groups) who have personally demonstrated bad behavior should have complete freedom to repeat such acts. This argument is, and always has been, about pre-emptive actions against the innocent in the name of safety.

<comment><USER24> Most people would hypothetically eagerly trade a miniscule amount of freedom for a massive amount of security, because it'd be a good deal.

You're welcome to be an ideologue and paint the world in black and white of course, but more people will try to assess the tradeoffs and have some appreciation for nuance.

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm a staunch supporter of open source software and don't own any Apple devices because of it, but I do appreciate and understand why a company or an individual would want to have a device with a more locked down ecosystem.

<comment><USER25> The majority of people is fine living their lives as to ensure to destruction of all organized human life on the planet, just when it comes to the climate. Thinking of history, all the darkest hours of it involve a majority thinking they're right automatically, by virtue of being the majority, and persecuting minorities, or doing all sorts of stuff that in hindsight is just evil, embarrassing and gross.

> Free thought requires free media. Free media requires free technology. We > require ethical treatment when we go to read, to write, to listen and to > watch. Those are the hallmarks of our politics. We need to keep those > politics until we die. Because if we don't, something else will die. > Something so precious that many, many of our fathers and mothers gave their > life for it. Something so precious, that we understood it to define what it > meant to be human; it will die.

\-- Eben Moglen

If people don't understand that it takes away from them, not from the importance of the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hold on a minute -- MacOS _phones home_ every single time you launch an application? As a non-user of MacOS, this strikes me as utterly bonkers. You'd have to place a massive level of trust in the developers of your OS to accept this. And furthermore, surely the constant attempts to phone home have a negative effect on the user experience when the computer's network connection is missing or slow!

Perhaps the fine article has mischaracterized this behavior?

<comment><USER27> _As a non-user of MacOS, this strikes me as utterly bonkers._

I assume you use Linux or anything other than Windows? Because the "SmartScreen"[1] feature in the newer versions of Windows does the same thing.

[1] A common trend in these times: the word "smart" really means "we think _you are stupid_ "

<comment><USER26> You assume correctly. Although I do use Windows for my day job, my expectations for that OS are so low that I ascribed its performance shortcomings to incompetence. I'm not tremendously surprised to learn that self-sabotage was involved. Sometimes after I type my password at the Windows 10 lock screen, I'm treated to a 5 minute wait during which I get to speculate about what terrible decisions have got us to this point. I could cold-boot Arch on a ten-year-old netbook, use it to check the weather, and shut it back down in that amount of time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A couple other ways to deal with it (at least for some instances--not sure this applies to every kind of executable).

1.1 Hit "Cancel" in the warning dialog.

1.2 Open "System Preferences" / "Security & Privacy" and select the "General" tab.

1.3 It should have a notice about the unverified app being blocked, and offer the chance to approve it. Do so.

1.4 Try to launch the app again. You'll get the dialog again, but this time it should have a button to tell it to go ahead and launch it. That will also remember that you have approved the app so you should be OK from them on (or at least until the app updates, and you will have to redo this).

Another way is to fix it from the command line.

2.1 Locate the executable.

2.2 Do "xattr -d com.apple.quarantine /path/to/executable"

I just hit this today when doing some web testing with Selenium, and it could not use chromedriver because the developer was not verified. My chromedriver is installed via Homebrew and evidently it had been updated since I last used it. A search for how to deal with that turned up both of the above solutions as part of this Stackoverflow question [1].

[1] [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60362018/macos- catalinav...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60362018/macos- catalinav-10-15-3-error-chromedriver-cannot-be-opened-because-the-de)

<comment><USER29> I have to look up this fucking procedure every time I update our internal executable tools. And for whatever reason the security setting loads up some sub tab for me and I always forget you have to go back to general to find the little thing at the bottom to allow the app.

This is so far beyond reasonable from a ux standpoint and they have no reason to improve because what am I going to do? Not use macos to work on iOS stuff? It pisses me off so much

<comment><USER17> If you have an automated process to update internal tools, you will likely have a much better UX with updating that process to appropriately deal with quarantine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> On a related note, the macOS 11 Beta 5 released today reveals that Apple silicon Macs will require all ARM executables to be signed: [https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/08/19/apple-silicon-macs-to- req...](https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/08/19/apple-silicon-macs-to-require- signed-code/), [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release- note...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos- big-sur-11-universal-apps-beta-release-notes)

<comment><USER30> From Apple's documentation:

> There isn't a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad- > hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which > are now generated automatically by the linker. This new behavior doesn't > change the long-established policy that our users and developers can run > arbitrary code on their Macs

So, the sky isn't falling yet, but it is reasonable to be concerned.

<comment><USER31> > This new behavior doesn't change the long-established policy that our users > and developers can run arbitrary code on their Macs

This irks me, I don't know why. Maybe because calling it an Apple policy is something that can be changed. I consider it more a right that I can run arbitrary code on my computer.

So yes, I would agree, quite reasonable to be concerned.

<comment><USER32> Everyone knows the direction they're heading in, so this wording comes across as .. we know you're lying, you know you're lying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The power that tech companies accumulate with tactics like this, and the justifications for that power, are strangely reminiscent of autocratic governments: _we_ decide which programs you can develop and run, and _we_ can levy an arbitrary 30% income tax (on top of regular VAT). But don't worry, it's all for your safety and security!

We are fast becoming corporate citizens, for better and for worse: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3pkkSNRug4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3pkkSNRug4)

While there is _some_ truth to the security argument - security after all is sometimes at odds with freedom - good computer security can certainly be achieved without this degree of centralization of power. Maybe you can't protect a determined user from hurting themselves, but that seems like an acceptable price for freedom.

<comment><USER34> Frankly, I'm afraid your premise is a bit of a straw man argument.

I'm constantly running npm, mvn, sbt, docker and some that download hundreds of megabytes from unknown organizations, hosted on unknown servers, written by unknown developers.

Next to that, I'm running desktop applications downloaded roughly under the same circumstances, and was the update image it just installed when I opened it genuine? Transmission was 0wned, as well as Handbrake. Any other I was never aware of? Perhaps one that I'm currently using?

I have several GB of irreplaceable (to me) photos and financial documents on this laptop. When was the last time I tested my cold-storage restore procedure? (Hint: never.) What if I get hit by a ransomware? What if they grab my GAccount cookie and run away with my identity?

All this makes me fret, and aware of how much vulnerable my information persona has become.

I can run Linux, and trust Ubuntu or Debian or whatever to thoroughly audit and verify every line before PGP signing any package released for distribution (riiight, it's already a gift out of free will, am I going to make demands now?) I could manage, begrudgingly though because I'm more interested in using the tool than to constantly grind it's sharp edges.

But what about normal users? Not necessarily idiots. Just people that haven't explored the dense thicket of Linux on the desktop and ACPI, and kernel driver (oh, by the way... what about those drivers?) Don't they have the right to some trust and expectation of privacy? (that they can immediately forego and upload to Facebook)

Why must everyone constantly have to risk their own neck to defend someone else's perception of freedom. Why should they all pay (in terms of risk and time mitigating against it) for something that someone else presumes it would benefit them?

Apple can abuse their grip on their integrated platform. Apple can turn this infrastructure into a rent-seeking scheme, into extortion.

But for the time being, they can't deliver cryptographic app control soon enough.

<comment><USER33> Heavily sandboxing apps by default is fine, and some Linux distros are, slowly, moving to do this - see e.g. AppArmor and Snap.

Even giving warnings by default about unsigned apps requesting high privileges would be fine if the implied message weren't basically "everything _we_ haven't checked is malware". Something like "We nor any other provider you've chosen to trust have no idea who made this and we haven't checked if it contains malware. This program may steal and delete all your files. Be really sure you trust the author before running this." would be much more honest.

Good security does not require a single entity becoming the sole gatekeeper and taxman for a huge fraction of users.

> Why must everyone constantly have to risk their own neck to defend someone > else's perception of freedom. Why should they all pay (in terms of risk and > time mitigating against it) for something that benefits someone else alone?

I'm not advocating for Windows-levels of "install anything with access to everything with barely any warnings". And I wouldn't say you're "constantly risking your own neck" if you deliberately ignore warnings.

In computing as in society, I don't see how we can remove all possibility of getting cheated into hurting yourself (by installing malware in this case) without essentially submitting to some form of autocracy. And I think freedom benefits almost everyone, at least indirectly. As a concrete example, in the Apple/Epic case, an alternative game store would likely result in healthier competition i.e. lower prices. As another example, Hong Kong protesters with iPhones would have had an alternative way to coordinate: [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919459](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49919459)

<comment><USER34> > Even giving warnings by default about unsigned apps requesting high > privileges would be fine if the implied message weren't basically > "everything we haven't checked is malware". Something like "We nor any other > provider you've chosen to trust have no idea who made this and we haven't > checked if it contains malware. This program may steal and delete all your > files. Be really sure you trust the author before running this." would be > much more honest.

Well, what you ask is what's written in the very first prompt screenshotted in the blog post; it says "the developer cannot be verified", "macOS cannot verify that this app is free from malware." I don't see how this choice of words is much different from your proposal.

I don't want to go too deep into the "alternative store" discussion, it's much broader than this, but let me just say Adobe Flash. I don't think Apple will ever relinquish the strategic power to force developers to adopt APIs and track their lifecycle, and never again have to deal with the Flash scenario.

If they let the door open to "alternative stores" good luck explaining to the general public how it's not their fault if <insert major app> works like shite and kills hardware performance. As an example, to this day, people still rant about Apple's "proprietary music file formats" when really it's just bog standard mp4 (it's even unencrypted... you can copy it over to any industry- standard decoder and you're good to go. Good luck with WMA (if they're still around) or whatever madness Sony came up with.

The moment they would decide a major overhaul, you'd see "alternative app stores" advertising "backward compatibility", "freedom from Apple's treadmill", fragmenting user experience in an endless passing of blame about who's fault it is for the rot.

<comment><USER33> > Well, what you ask is what's written in the very first prompt screenshotted > in the blog post; [..] I don't see how this choice of words is much > different from your proposal.

There are nuances about the UI and wording as discussed elsewhere in this thread, but my main objection is about Apple positioning themselves as the only one who decides which apps don't get that warning.

> [..] I don't think Apple will ever relinquish the strategic power to force > developers to adopt APIs and track their lifecycle, and never again have to > deal with the Flash scenario.

I don't see how alternative stores would prevent Apple from breaking backwards-compatibility on an OS they would still control. Even open source projects do BC breaks as they see fit. And I think Microsoft demonstrates that proper BC is something a company the size of Apple could well afford to do if they cared to.

The Flash case could be seen to support my position as well. Wasn't it a case of Adobe getting into a dominant position (for their particular niche) and then "abusing" it by letting Flash stagnate with awful security? It's good that we _eventually_ got rid of Flash, but wouldn't it have all been much easier if Adobe had never become that dominant in the first place?

You can of course say Apple would never let something stagnate in that way, but all companies have their (sometimes shifting) priorities and interests. Often they'll align with you as the user - that's the nice thing about capitalism - but there's no guarantee that they always will (e.g. that Hong Kong example), and a dominant player in the absence of healty competition is always incentivized to charge as much as the market will bear.

> If they let the door open to "alternative stores" good luck explaining to > the general public how it's not their fault if <insert major app> works like > shite and kills hardware performance.

Is this really that big of a problem? Seems like something platforms already deal with by surfacing and by default restricting apps' energy use etc, though this too can be a double-edged sword. I have a few apps on Android that need to constantly show a pointless notification just so they can run in the background, and they have legit reasons to do so, and I'm OK with the battery drain.

Again I'm compelled to draw an analogy to society: freedom indeed requires some degree of responsibility and understanding from everyone. Benevolent dictators are a great place to "outsource" all that. The trouble is that they (or their successors) rarely stay benevolent for long, especially if you're not in their ingroup. I've yet to see power accumulation have good long-term consequences in history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> "Y'know, it sure would be a shame if our OS went around telling users your software's a virus. Now we c'n make sure this little problem doesn't happen to you, all you gotta do is fork over the $300 (yearly of course) to join our developer program."

Nothing like a good old protection racket. No wonder Apple's worth trillions of dollars.

<comment><USER18> $100/year

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This behavior frustrates me, as a seasoned (=old) Mac user, but I am simultaneously quite grateful for it existing on my parents Macs.

It would be nice if there was a Sys Prefs option to add a "run anyway" button to the initial prompt. It wouldn't even need to be on by default. Just give me the option.

<comment><USER37> But then you'll have websites that walk you through changing the setting. At least this way you have to make a decision every time, even if it costs you a few clicks each time you do it.

<comment><USER38> They can do the same for the right-click technique. Omitting a setting does not change the user's understanding of the decision, it just makes this completely undiscoverable and tedious for users who know what they're doing.

<comment><USER39> A system setting risks allowing you to make more mistakes.

Imagine I install some app from a trusted third party and am walked through the steps to toggle the system setting to allow installs. Then a year later when I am installing some untrustworthy tool, I am no longer warned (at least not to the same severity) that this tool is unsigned. It leaves me more likely to install that software and end up putting myself at risk in the future.

Take for example the Android settings for installing third party apps. I can enable it on a per-app basis, but that permission persists for the lifetime of my device. If I allow Chrome to install apps for me, that enables apps from ANY site from now until the EOL of my device, to more easily make their way onto my phone.

If I am asked every time (or even periodically) I am given a moment to consider if I know what I am doing.

<comment><USER38> But the setting doesn't have to get rid of a warning, we're discussing requiring the right-click to even show the option of running the software.

Gatekeeper right now won't even allow you to run an application unless you somehow know and remember to right-click. This is sadistic. Many well-informed users won't even know about it and even more will forget to right-click on the first try. This is far from "forcing the user to make a choice about each binary". It's clear Apple doesn't want users to even be aware that there is a choice.

<comment><USER37> Well... there happens to be a way to disable that part of gatekeeper functionality if you want to. It's just not a checkbox in settings, if I recall correctly it's a terminal command that requires sudo. [https://www.imore.com/how-open-apps-anywhere-macos- catalina-...](https://www.imore.com/how-open-apps-anywhere-macos-catalina-and- mojave) But really, really only do this if you know what you're doing. You can leave gatekeeper running but in a mode where it is much less restrictive. It may still prompt you if you just downloaded an app from Safari, that sort of thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I was surprised to find out the something even worse is happening on default installations of Windows 10: you cannot install non-Microsoft software at all unless you go to the system settings and disable "S mode".

It's impossible for someone who's not technically oriented to know how to disable S mode or even what it is, and trying to get my mum to install Google Chrome on her new computer was harder than it has any right to be.

When did the ability to run software get this bad?

<comment><USER41> Only some PC models come with S mode by default (notably the Surface do).

<comment><USER40> S mode is active by default in regular, non-Surface Lenovo Ideapad laptops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Fellow devs, I have to take the minority view here. How is $99/yr a number that any business should even care about? Even for OSS.

The reality is that the HN audience are complete outliers. Just look at the junk your friends and family install on their machines.

On a related note, the equivalent in Windows is SmartScreen. It prompts similarly to Mac for unsigned downloads as well as signed ones where there isn't yet sufficient reputation on the signing key. That last part is frustrating - we have a downloadable software component for our SaaS. It's not that frequently used and every time we renew the cert (third party BTW, not with MS), it takes a few weeks for SmartScreen to start trusting it.

<comment><USER43> > How is $99/yr a number that any business should even care about? Even for > OSS.

If you're including solo non-business programmers in that, I'll say I find it unreasonable to ask of an open-source developer that in addition to giving their time to develop and support their software, they should also give their money.

It's great that $100 is chump change for you. That's not the case for everyone, certainly not all open-source developers.

But the issue isn't about money, it's about the control a petty company exerts on what you can develop: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217921)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I have yet to get a good answer to this question: what do these checks do?

They just confirm the developer has $100? Does Apple actually make sure signed binaries don't do anything bad?

<comment><USER45> When an application turns out to be malicious, Apple can remotely disable it by invalidating the developer certificate globally.

This is how some mac viruses were stopped; the developer license was retracted, making the executables hard to open in the background, slowing the spread or even killing the virus during its infection track.

It also maintains Apple as the administrator of your computer. You may have paid Apple for your laptop, but it is Apple who decides what you can and cannot execute. Options to work around the blocks Apple throws up are reduced and made harder with every new release. I predict that eventually all binaries will need to have Apple's blessing or be signed with a corporate certificate, just like on iOS. It's still years away, but the direction Apple is taking this is obvious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I dont see any problem with this. If you don't feel comfortable doing this then you definitely shouldn't be running random code from the internet. I would take it a step further and force it to be run from the command line.

Also, what kind of "viable software business" has trouble paying $100 a year?

<comment><USER47> Any open source developer?

Do you know how much $100 is in Iran?

<comment><USER46> I just looked it up, and it seems like $100 is worth less than half a week of an average developers salary in Iran.

<comment><USER18> $100 can be an hour of a developer's salary here, or even less. The relative cost is quite large. (Oh, and guess who isn't making a developer's salary in Iran? Someone who is just starting out, or an open source developer, or someone who is currently unemployed…)

<comment><USER46> But if youre just starting out or only releasing your code for free, then you're not a "viable software business", which is what the article was complaining about.

<comment><USER18> You know who needs to get new customers (the next sentence in the paragraph you took the quote from)? People bootstrapping a software business.

<comment><USER47> Or people who want to publish a software for free.

It's surprising how many people have forgotten that software development and starting out new projects wasn't always for an endgoal of monetizing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> How does this work for Java programs?

The actual java binary (JVM) can be (is?) signed and used for many different apps/programs. But the .jar file that is executed probably can't be signed.

(Note: I have never done any "native" Mac programming)

</comment><comment><USER49> As a data point: I am indeed a new Mac user, and I would never have guessed how to override gatekeeper and run the app if it weren't for (I think) stackexchange or a similar site providing detailed step-by-step instructions on how to do it. I'm a Linux power user so googling is no strange thing to me, but still, macOS really goes out of the way to hide this choice!

In my opinion, it's simply not possible to learn how to override it by following macOS UI "hints". Every step of the way seems designed to hide this possibility, instead of giving users a warning and a clear choice.

</comment><comment><USER50> Disabling Gatekeeper From the Apple menu, open the "System Preferences" application. Click on Security & Privacy > General tab. If the lock in the left-hand corner is locked, click on it, then enter your Mac's username and password. This may not be required. Click "Anywhere" under "Allow applications downloaded from:". If you followed Step 3, please click the lock in the left- hand corner to return it to its locked state. Close "System Preferences".

<comment><USER51> Sounds like a security disaster for non-technical users. It is much better to trust a specific app from now on than to trust the entire internet from now on.

<comment><USER50> The assumption is that developers need free reign. One would hope a developer is a technical and savvy user.

Not for nothing, Gatekeeper once did not exist. Myriads of Mac OS X users were not p0wned. But your point is not lost on me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I don't understand how any developer can willingly use a Mac these days. When you buy a Mac, you don't own it.

I have a similar idea about services like Amazon Lambda; why would developers build apps tightly integrated with a product that they don't own.

Most millennials these days own nothing because they keep perpetually accepting their position as 'renters' through every decision they make.

</comment><comment><USER53> I've seen a few apps get around this by packaging them in a standard .dmg and giving the user clear instructions ("just right-click") as the background image of the opened container, or as the name of the app, or on the download website, etc. Although generally these have been fairly tech-oriented apps where the users would be likely to know the shortcut anyway!

</comment><comment><USER54> I would say this is an example of how the user interface - and some of back- end plumbing - of a desktop environment [1] is not designed to serve users, their needs and interests. Instead, it's designed to serve Apple's needs and interests at the expense of users.

For me, this is a much stronger reason to avoid Apple software than whether it's FOSS or not. I can live with a company which makes some proprietary app. I mean, I am annoyed that access to it is restricted, but at least the "deal" is upfront.

When what I see and what I can run and how it runs is the object of direct partisan manipulation, and trade between commercial companies for epistemic access to a captive user-base, that's a whole other story and it just makes me sick.

\---

[1] : I'm letting Apple enjoy the benefit of the doubt and assuming the "signing" business is not enforced at kernel-level, only by the graphical desktop environment's application launching mechanism.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm the main contributor of an app that emulates Windows's alt-tab feature on macOS ([https://github.com/lwouis/alt-tab- macos](https://github.com/lwouis/alt-tab-macos)). I researched this topic extensively, and eventually decided that I would bite the bullet and pay from my own pocket, so that users get a good UX when launching the app.

It is displeasing to see Apple not having an open-source program in-which they give free certificates for popular open-source projects after a review. They are a large beneficiary of OSS after all.

Furthermore, smaller companies do it frequently these days: Jetbrains gave me free IDE licenses, poeditor gave me a free account, github hosts the project code, ticketing system, and is the distribution channel for first downloads and updates, appcenter hosts crash reports for free, travis does the CI for free, etc.

</comment><comment><USER56> I came across this problem when I wrote a small program for a humanities professor to help him draw some diagrams. He didn't want a web app ("it'll disappear once you graduate!") so I wrote him a mac app and emailed it... it was such an adventure getting him to ignore the security warnings to run it...

<comment><USER57> The alternative (that macOS not display security warnings when trying to run unsigned software that someone emailed you) doesn't seem better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Windows is starting to pull the same shit. Walled garden OS's are the future for most regular users.

<comment><USER59> Good. Regular users are not sufficiently computer-savvy to avoid being tricked into installing malware.

<comment><USER60> I mean, you're right, but I feel like the approach we're taking is that we have to cater to the least tech-savvy person that might every use the computer, even if that damages the experience for millions of folks that are tech-savvy. I really disagree with this this one-size-fits-all approach. It seems like a local optimum, at best.

Of course, more tech-savvy users can always use a system that doesn't impose this on them, but I really wish Apple would provide different experiences to different users. If they hadn't diluted the "Pro" moniker, I'd advocate for "Pro" editions of MacOS that remove all this stuff. As it is, every amateur user thinks they should get a Macbook Pro, and my user experience on any distro of Linux is miles ahead of any other platform available. That's fine for me (I'll probably never leave Linux unless something drastic changes), but what about folks that love Apple and are tech-savvy? Why should they have to jump through increasingly arcane hoops to do very reasonable things (like run unsigned code) on a machine they bought? It seems like a massive missed opportunity.

<comment><USER61> Apple needs to finish migrating their casual userbase off MacOS and onto iPadOS. Macs should be reserved for engineers and other technician oriented jobs in the various industries. That should be the delineation.

The industry tried to morph desktop computing into the world of Windows XP playschool friendly computing. Teach grandma for the 6th time how to click the start menu, etc.

That was a stopgap solution, and that era is over. We need to move all of those people off of computers and onto consumer-safe devices. Then restore desktop computing back to its originally intended audience, take off the bumpers and give unregulated access back to serious computer users who want to build important stuff, not get constantly nagged and prohibited from doing so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Why operating systems don't provide a sandbox for running unsigned apps by default?

Is your app signed and secured? it runs in the current environment. Otherwise it runs in a copy of the current environment, with restrictions as to what it can send/receive from the world.

</comment><comment><USER63> I've ran into this signing issue a few years ago when trying to distribute a binary for applications (tips, if you need to do so here: [https://henvic.dev/posts/cs-security/](https://henvic.dev/posts/cs- security/)), and while it's a hassle for developers I really appreciate that this is making using computer applications safer.

The next step is naturally adding boundaries about what applications can do just akin to containers, sandboxes, or permissions found on smartphones operating systems. I just hope some sort of standard emerges so we don't have each major vendor implementing their own incompatible system (okay, too late).

</comment><comment><USER27> Is this only for GUI applications? Admittedly I have not done much development on Macs, but have done some exclusively-command-line work post-Gatekeeper, and have never seen that dialog (or a textual equivalent) appear when running binaries I compiled and even copied across machines; from the Terminal.

Incidentally I have never run those binaries via the Finder either, so it makes one wonder where exactly this check is --- is it something Finder does when you open apps, or when GUI libraries are loaded, or something much lower- level in the kernel, like on an exec() call? I don't have a suitable machine around at the moment to check, but the need to right-click suggests Finder is doing this?

</comment><comment><USER64> I think it's fine to have more checks for "normal" users, but I'd like to see a better UI for experienced users.

Either there could be a pro-mode app/setting that let's use tone down the warnings a bit and give the extra "allow" option already in the first dialog.

And/or let app developers add an extra dialog to ask for ermissions on install (e.g. in Homebrew).

I haven't tested this but apparently you can disable Gatekeeper completely using:

sudo spctl --master-disable

from [https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/10.2/index.html?localePath=...](https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/10.2/index.html?localePath=en.lproj#/dev9b7736b0e)

</comment><comment><USER65> > Can you distribute Mac software over the internet without signing it, > thereby avoiding Developer ID and notarization entirely? Technically, > currently, yes, although Apple has indicated that a future version of macOS > may not allow unsigned code to run at all.

To my knowledge, this depends on what APIs you wanna use. Using certain capabilities like Network Extensions (the on-device low-level networking APIs) requires paying $99/year for the Apple Developer Program. See [https://developer.apple.com/support/app- capabilities/](https://developer.apple.com/support/app-capabilities/) for more details.

</comment><comment><USER66> Man, I really love my Macbook pro. Such a nice piece of hardware, and the OS is a joy to use. But the more and more I learn about about their business practices, the more I wonder if they are really in line with my own values, and the more I think about how much benefit I really gain from the OS.

Probably not as much as I used to think.

I'm starting to realize something. I'm almost certain I would be just as happy with a Linux capable laptop, loaded up with Ubuntu 20.04. I'm pretty sure my next laptop purchase will not be another Macbook pro. It will surely save me a ton of money, and I'm just not convinced the walled garden is adding enough to my life to make it worth it.

<comment><USER52> I highly recommend Kubuntu. It looks ugly initially but you can customize it to look really good. There is even an OSX theme that you can download.

<comment><USER67> While I second the Kubuntu/KDE recommendation, I would suggest not using a Mac theme. Because that might get you in the mentality of trying to make a Mac out of Linux, which it is not. I recommended learning to use Linux like Linux with all its unique ideas and it's a joy to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Well. This is how you make 2 trillion dollars right? Make tightly controlled marketplace where you are the king and tax the shit out of it.

Like it or not, America's founders didn't bow to the European kings, but now we have new tech emperors that we must bow to.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is just a cash grab from Apple, and part of a series of unethical behaviour by a monopoly (eg app store dictatorship).

This would be totally unnessisary if apps could run in a sandbox. It wouldn't matter if I run some random game I downloaded off the internet if it can't do anything on my computer outside of its own sandbox.

And to the people that say it's not possible, just look at web browsers. Each website runs in a complete sandbox.

For apps that do need to use operating system functions, then you can escalate privellages with user consent. For example, mobile apps, that ask: "This app wants access to your camera"

<comment><USER18> macOS ships with some of that already; users immediately complained that it turned their OS into Windows Vista. Perhaps the underlying problem is that Apple's sandbox is not under the control of the user, it's mostly controlled by Apple and (to a lesser extent) by the developer of the software itself. It's really a strange model if you think about it…

<comment><USER69> > Perhaps the underlying problem is that Apple's sandbox is not under the > control of the user, it's mostly controlled by Apple

Absolutely agree. There is a risk of prompt fatigue but that's a UX problem that can be solved during the installation process or first run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I (a savvy and sophisticated dev who knows all about right-clicking) got stuck with this today with an unsigned binary of a command-line program. Right-click open didn't work since the OS didn't know which program to use to open it, so there was no "open anyway" option. Launching from the Terminal gave me the familiar MALWARE! PRIVACY! pop-up. Solution was to open System Preferences -> Security, click the lock, then below the radio button for "allow apps from App Store/identified developers" there was a button allowing a manual override.

</comment><comment><USER71> Just thought I'd point out this is bad for Unity and Unreal. Tons of student devs making small games putting their apps on itch.io to share, no longer allowed unless they pony up $99 to Apple.

<comment><USER72> This is my biggest concern too, cross-platform game dev is just so hard to do and you even have to deal with stuff like gatekeeper. I was just thinking about giving up cross-platform entirely now and just do the web which is plain simple

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Apple doesn't provide a good documentation and tools about manually creating Apple Bundles, Signing, Notarization and Stapling. When you cannot use XCode or don't want use XCode you're in the Apple Hell.

I've ported an already running and shipped desktop application from Linux and Windows to Mac. First and foremost you save some time with the network stuff because there is still some POSIX in MacOS and you got a usable shell also.

We cannot use reliable XCode, because it doesn't support Meson or anything else outside of Apples own world reliable. Compiling code with 'homebrew' works, yes.

Creating the App Bundle itself is the first big burden, because outside of XCode you have to create them fully manually and using 'otool' to adjust every library path which is used internally. Even the icons hurt you, you cannot provide one big PNG or SVG (Linux) or melt it into the executable (Windows), but a icon for every size someone can imagine. ImageMagick is your friend. What year is it? 1995?

Because we cannot use XCode and have to build stuff repeatable, we also stick with 'codesign'. Which is horrible to use, because it's recursive option is not reliable and you have to sign nearly every bit in an App Bundle. On Windows you sign the executable or the howl installer, here you sign nearly everything.

But watch out. The certificates included by default in your Apple Account are likely all false friends. There badly name and desribed and you cannot see that you don't get the needed type of certificate as non account owner. So be careful with company accounts! Always ensure that multiple people have permanent access to this as owners and can immediately accept the new terms - or you cannot ship anything anymore. Happened this spring/summer to me :(

Signing done? Fine. Now hope that your 3rd party code doesn't show nasty bugs after signing, like the code from our partner. Furthermore don't expect that MacOS tell you via console what is going wrong and what you need. But itt could maybe help a little.

Then uploading for "notarization" follows. I hope you didn't make something bad and placed the right file in the wrong directory of the bundle or it is declined.

Finally attach (staple) the notarization to your bundle! Or every Mac there will ask the Apple Servers if it is "okay to execute this code now". Without it privacy is lost. And the startup is slowed down also.

If your going to support MacOS, don't assume that portable code is portable. The shipping is actually the hard part.

</comment><comment><USER74> To me, this is a lazy solution by Apple. It's easy to keep a whilelist of apps that were manually reviewed (for money!) and just block everything else, leaving out anyone who's not willing to join the club (or cannot afford it) out in the rain.

A more appropriate approach would be to use an actual malware detection system, similar to what AVs to when checking binaries (check fingerprints etc.). AFAIK this is what Windows does, and it's way more inclusive.

</comment><comment><USER75> As macOS market share increases, Apple definitely doesn't want to become another attractive platform for malware developers like windows XP.

I guess if they make it more intuitive for users to run unsigned apps when they want to, everyone would be still happy with those restrictions. It's just about adding clear message and additional buttons. So I would be happy with having the option and my grandmother is also happy with some level of protection.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'm actually a big fan of this. Since macOS has become a lot more prevalent and most of my family and friends use it, I was asked A LOT less for IT support.

</comment><comment><USER77> I'm very happy to have come across this sentence:

> Finally, we see the instructions to right click. Err, control click.

Just recently I was on my iMac playing the "free guess" minesweeper where guessing is safe whenever you're forced to guess. The game needed a right- click to mark mines, and I got frustrated by Apple's magic mouse being prone to misinterpret right-clicks as left-clicks.

Now I know how to be in control with my right-clicks!

<comment><USER78> You can ensure it doesn't interpret a right-click as a left click by lifting the fingers on the left side before right-clicking, then it'll work every time. Or do like me and ditch the magic mouse, since it's insane that a mouse would force you to do that just to be able to right click with any consistency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> The approach may be to start educating the Apple users to understand that these messages do not necessarily mean that the app itself is malicious or from a malicious source.

Yes, I know that ideally Apple should be allowing opensource apps or at least have a mechanism for opensource apps also to be verified by the gatekeeper and that is something we can campaign for, but in the absence of that, we can atleast educate the users.

</comment><comment><USER80> >although Apple has indicated that a future version of macOS may not allow unsigned code to run at all

Where is this comming from? I doubt Apple indicated such a thing.

</comment><comment><USER81> I really don't mean this in an inflammatory way. Please take the question at face value.

Why does anyone who's a creator of anything stand for this?

</comment><comment><USER82> How do you ad-hoc from windows? I run into this just yesterday and had to explain people to CTRL+CLICK. I'm not planning to give apple anything and the users already know that. Whats funny is that on windows you can also get an app signed via a third party(not sure if this applies this day) and avoid this kind of scary dialogues.. just because you paid someone.

</comment><comment><USER83> > Can you distribute Mac software over the internet without signing it, > thereby avoiding Developer ID and notarization entirely? Technically, > currently, yes, although Apple has indicated that a future version of macOS > may not allow unsigned code to run at all.

I don't mean to keep beating a dead horse on this subject, but why are we acting like this is only a _possibility_? Apple is almost certainly going to remove the ability to run unsigned code in the future.

A day or two I wrote[0] about the timeline that took Facebook from guaranteeing that you'd never need to sign into an account on Oculus to requiring a Facebook account on Oculus. Different company, same story.

We spent a long time having concerns dismissed, and then once everyone was used to the idea and the uproar had been reduced to a manageable level, Facebook did it. People get told that they're paranoid when they express concerns about the future. Then those concerns turn out to be correct, but by then the concerns seems less dystopian, and we've moved on to dismissing other concerns even farther down the road.

I'm not going to find the other threads and articles, but:

Voice assistants: same story different companies. Concerns about recordings leaking, being distributed outside of the company to 3rd-party contractors were all paranoia until they weren't.

Facebook, again: same story different company. Facebook would need to be stupid to use 2-factor phone numbers for advertising and promotion services, the people worrying about that scenario were paranoid. Until they were proven right.

Browsers: same story different companies. You can not run unsigned extensions in Chrome. You can not run unsigned extensions in Firefox unless you are on the beta-version developer branch. In both cases, even though Firefox technically has an escape hatch, the effect is the same: normal no longer have the unrestricted ability to write software for their own devices.

I'm not going to argue that Mozilla's worries about malware aren't real, I'm not even going to argue about whether or not they made the right decision overall. BUT, anyone who thinks for one second that Apple isn't in a position to bring up the exact same security justifications for removing unsigned code from the Mac is fooling themselves.

We keep on taking these companies at face value, assuming the most permissive, conservative version of their policies, and then using that assumption to avoid talking about the real dangers of a corporate war on user-controlled general-purpose computing.

When Mac signing came out, so many people were telling me that it was stupid to object, because this was just about stopping specific malware. It would never be used to enforce a ToS or directly punish another company. So when we have conversations about Apple's dominance in the space, about what walled gardens mean for Apple, we need to have those conversations under the assumption that the most likely future is one where those same exact policies apply to both Apple phones and Apple desktop computers.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24202879](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24202879)

</comment><comment><USER84> That's how Apple protects its 30% cut.

<comment><USER18> Actually, this specific behavior applies exclusively to applications distributed outside of the Mac App Store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Also importantly Apple consider it legitimate to refuse to notarise apps if you break unrelated rules that have nothing to do with distributing malware and don't give any reason to think you're shipping anything dangerous. This was part of their threat to Epic Games.

</comment><comment><USER86> I have a 2015 Macbook, and for the last year or so I've known it'll be my last Apple product. Perhaps in fifteen years when they've been displaced and have made a semi-contrite return a la Microsoft, I might look at buying their stuff again.

</comment><comment><USER87> Can't you just use a PC?

</comment><comment><USER72> What about cli applications / scripts? Why macOS doesn't seem to prevent users from using those downloaded from the internet when they can also very likely be malicious according to apple

</comment><comment><USER88> The whole idea here is to protect the user. If it's important enough for you to have your app signed then you will do it.

iOS does this in a much more violent approach - the app verification process.

<comment><USER89> I'm the user, where can I disable this on my machine?

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> As I understand it, the article was referring to applications built with Apple development tools. How does Gatekeeper treat applications developed in some other way, say an Electron app?

</comment><comment><USER91> It's hard for me to understand how so many in their right mind can spend thousands of dollars to buy Apple stuff that are made to screw them and to transform them into toddlers!

</comment><comment><USER92> I would have assumed that double-clicking is functionally equivalent to selecting "Open" from the context menu.

At least in Vista it was a separate command "Run as administrator"...

</comment><comment><USER93> This would make sense if Apple guaranted that my machine is "more secure" with this feature and offered some compensation or extra services for it.

</comment><comment><USER94> Dear Mac, where the developer goes, your revenue goes.

</comment><comment><USER95> I wish Apple would apply this sort of security protocol to code which wanted to fingerprint my browser and identify my kids' habits on the web.

</comment><comment><USER96> "Apple has indicated that a future version of macOS may not allow unsigned code to run at all"

Anyone have a source for when Apple has indicated this?

</comment><comment><USER97> And yet Apple is supposedly better at UI and UX than anyone else. I still can't see it no matter how many times I use Apple software.

</comment><comment><USER98> The crazy thing is that I had no idea those dialog boxes have the malware warnings. I just look for the buttons and click.

</comment><comment><USER99> software security 101: if there is an "accept the obvious risk" button, the user WILL DEFINITELY CLICK IT. No matter how clear you make the danger, they always choose potential malware instead of inconvenience. It's better hide because, otherwise that button would be the center of any social engineering attack

</comment><comment><USER100> I miss the wild west of download random .exes and discovering news software. Time to sandbox a win95 box?

</comment><comment><USER101> Now do this thought experiment again with MyTrojanKeylogger.app instead of MyGreatApp.app.

</comment><comment><USER18> > On macOS Catalina, Gatekeeper not only checks whether the software was > signed by a valid Developer ID certificate, it also "phones home" to check > whether Apple has notarized the software, again refusing to run it if the > check fails.

Nit: I believe stapling is supposed to fix this issue.

<comment><USER20> > Nit: I believe stapling is supposed to fix this issue.

No, even stapled apps phone home. The difference is that stapled apps can still run if Catalina can't contact Apple (e.g., no internet), whereas unstapled apps can't.

Look closely at the Gatekeeper dialog with and without your internet connected.

<comment><USER18> …wait, what? Why is this designed like that? Surely downloading a revocation list is not that onerous…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> It hasn't been worth it to develop for Mac for a good while now.

</comment><comment><USER103> Free computing is dead. Apple and Google killed it.

</comment><comment><USER104> It's good that at least one company these days still cares about protecting its users from viruses and malicious software. I feel like most other companies are just not doing enough.

</comment><comment><USER105> It costs $349/yr to rent the magic number required to ship signed drivers for Windows. $99 seems pedestrian by comparison.

</comment><comment><USER106> Can't you just [give up on macos as a general computing platform]

</comment><comment><USER107> All of these people saying: switch to Windows, its better than mac!

Have you really done that? REALLY? Because I work on Mac, Win10 and Linux every day. And Win10 doesn't even come close to the other two in terms of reliability, stability, and lack of unnecessary bullshit.

I just don't understand who can make this claim that Win is better than Macos with a straight face. Maybe for gaming. Maybe. The cost/fps is clearly better for Windows machines, but Apple puts so much more thought into their OS than windows. Hell, Windows still pops a Win95 dialog for drivers. Come on, man. Seriously? MacOs doesn't have built in ads on the home screen. MacOS has no REAL viruses, and clicking on malware is even harder now than Windows.

Downvote me all you want, but I think a lot of people on this thread have never even used a mac for more than five minutes, let alone developed on one. HN monoculture is real.

<comment><USER108> > I think a lot of people on this thread have never even used a mac for more > than five minutes, let alone developed on one.

I have when I started a new job and they gave me a macbook and said it's the only option. After 2 weeks I told them I'll need a linux box asap or I'll look for a different job.

It's in my opinion the absolute worst garbage of an operating system I've ever had the displeasure of using and their window manager is a completely unusable pile of shit. Their hardware doesn't have proper cooling and burns your hands if you actually use your CPU.

People have different tastes and I really don't think you should assume people haven't tried.

Yes, I too think windows is way better than OSX, but well I also think windows is pretty shit. However, I wouldn't quit my job over having to use windows, I would have for OSX.

<comment><USER109> I had similar experience. They gave me a brand new beefed up macbook. I tried to like that thing. I really did. For months.

One day I just got tired of that thing overheating and being loud. Was given a real linux machine to work with.

<comment><USER110> What OS are you running on linux that makes the experience worth it over macOS? I've grown up using macs and am used to the UI quite a bit. Have a work machine (t580) and used Ubuntu and Fedore. Both have been quite challenging to use with lots of Graphics Issues. Sure the thing runs everything I throws at it in terms of docker/system-services/etc., but UI stuff is really ugly.

<comment><USER111> > _Ubuntu and Fedora_

> _but UI stuff is really ugly._

Have you tried a linux distro without an ugly UI ? Ubuntu especially is a horrid horrid UI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> Why do so many in tech buy into a walled garden and then bitch about it later?

I could say whinge but it doesn't quite convey what I'm seeing here.

<comment><USER20> The problem is that we didn't buy into a walled garden. Mac OS X was an open platform from 2000 until 2012, when Gatekeeper was added, ostensibly for security. It's very difficult if you've invested in a platform for many years, and then the platform slowly transforms into something different.

<comment><USER112> Its 2020.

Apple has been hostile to openness since inception, see: right to repair or basically any Louis Rossman video on YouTube.

Not to mention years of news stories showing how little apple cares for developers or individuals.

<comment><USER20> Has Apple become increasingly hostile? Yes. Since inception? No. For example, my MacBook Pro from 2007 had a user-replaceable battery. I just popped the old one out, popped the new one in, 15 seconds, it was brilliant.

<comment><USER112> Oh come off it. Those user replaceable batteries were expensive as hell.

It's cheaper to replace a MacBook air battery than it is to replace one of those old cartridge things, of which you could only buy from Apple.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> I don't understand how anyone with self-respect uses AAPL products. I guess it's true what they say about fools and their money.

</comment><comment><USER114> Personally, I don't think $99USD/year is an unreasonable burden for any business selling software targeted primarily at the MacOS platform.

</comment><comment><USER115> Here is Apple's calculus:

What fraction of unsigned app openings, across the entire world each and every day, are safe?

If 99% of these events are unsafe, then such an experience seems warranted, given real malware and security threats.

The question is, what is that fraction?

Folks may say I want my computer to be "open" but do you want it open in the same way for your grandad and grandma?

</comment><comment><USER116> I'm not sure what the point of that page or posting it here is. This system (and others like it) is neither new nor special. It's also not a bad thing, and I haven't seen anyone come up with a better alternative.

Generally you see all major distribution options have signatures with a CA- type trust structure no matter what you use, be it open-source, free or commercial paid software. On Windows, macOS and at least all Linux distros based on dpkg or rpm you have signatures and circumventing that requires a bunch of steps that will prevent most users from shooting themselves in the foot.

<comment><USER18> Question for you: what exactly does Notarization protect against? I have watched all the videos about it, I read the developer documentation, I notarize my apps because it is required by the OS…but I still have not gotten a single good explanation as to why it's useful. Apple claims that the process is extremely tolerant…so does it try to accept everything but blatant malware? Does it let malware through? What happens if malware does get through? Why does having build-specific certificates help security–is there any reason why Apple would disable a single build of an app from a malware publisher?

<comment> crooked-v > Apple claims that the process is extremely tolerant…so does it try to accept > everything but blatant malware?

From what I understand, the most common use case here is to match against known malware inserted into an otherwise normal release, either from an infected dev machine or by way of an attacker coopting stolen credentials. It's not going to guard against truly novel malware for obvious reasons, but the vast majority of malware is a repackaging of stuff that's already out there.

<comment><USER18> But Apple can already detect that using XProtect…</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Study: 11% of Americans Think HTML Is an STD - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/12410/11-of-americans-think-html-is-an-std/

<comment><USER2> I'm more surprised about this:

> 23% thought an "MP3″ was a "Star Wars" robot. It is actually an audio file.

I'm sure most people don't know what an MP3 actually is, but I would have thought that they would know it's music related. I remember a teacher shouting "Is that an MP3 I see in your pocket?!" and having to answer yes rather than face the far worse consequences of correcting a teacher.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you think you've contracted HTML, you should really look into it... [http://doifuckinghavehtml.com/](http://doifuckinghavehtml.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> > HTML is a programming language

Seems like the author doesn't know what it is either!

<comment><USER5> That's exactly what it is — if by "exactly" you mean "not exactly":

> 1 in every 9 Americans–or exactly 11%</comment></comment>


[video] Douglas Crockford – JavaScript Programming Style and Your Brain  - <AUTHOR> http://ontwik.com/javascript/douglas-crockford-javascript-programming-style-and-your-brain/

<comment><USER2> Really? The "++" operator is too crazy?</comment>


Should it be built? - <AUTHOR> http://any2web.io/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a collection of multi file format conversion I've put together. I use the tools in multiple applications for taking uploads and making either thumbnails, or other web-ready previews. Is that interesting to anyone else?</comment>


America's bailed-out airlines are not 'playing fair' with customers - <AUTHOR> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-bailedout-airlines-are-not-playing-fair-with-customers-travel-expert-says-114038635.html <comment><USER2> If we give bail outs, we should get stock/control. End of story. All bailed out companies should be nationalized to some extent, depending on the value of their stock and how much the government buys.

A board/council of _nationally elected_ representatives should manage whatever share of these companies the government owns.

It's time the citizens started getting a return on their tax dollars if they're being used for private investment.

<comment> T-hawk Serious question: do we have historical comparisons, can we refer to instances where nationalizing in the wake of a bailout led to positive results?

The one comparable I can think of in the US is Amtrak, which is functional although not exactly wildly successful.

<comment><USER3> This is a bad faith question.

The real question is, "Why were the airlines so poorly equipped to handle a cataclysmic event when the last one was only 19 years ago?"

The answer is short term profitability.

And the follow up question is, "Why would ANYONE bail any for-profit company out to the benefit of the shareholders only, ever?"

<comment><USER4> How could an airline company possibly be equipped to handle this kind of situation?

If you want to be competitive on the market you need to lower costs and cut down on margins. You can't just have a big pile of money lying around "in case all flight is halted for a few weeks/months"

<comment><USER2> > If you want to be competitive on the market you need to lower costs and cut > down on margins.

Yes, exactly. There are certain businesses that should not be subject to market forces: essential services that have tiny margins.

> You can't just have a big pile of money lying around "in case all flight is > halted for a few weeks/months"

Then you get nationalized ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯. If you want to be privatized again, make enough money to do buybacks.

<comment><USER5> Maybe you can... Berkshire Hathaway? Or even apple or google?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The pandemic is not their fault, but it is their fault for not being prepared for something like it. It's even listed as a risk factor in investor disclosures, so it's not totally unforeseen. An electrical fire can burn your house down through no fault of your own, and that's why you have homeowner's insurance. How about keeping cash in reserves instead of doing huge stock buybacks the last 10 years? How about having a plan to wind things down and "hibernate" until the business can be spun back up again? No sympathy for them. No bailout. Let them fold, let them sell the planes so new management can manage them better.

<comment><USER7> Keeping large cash on hand for highly rare black swan events is a pretty inefficient allocation of capital. If all companies kept enough cash to not earn revenue for months and pay all expenses for a once in a hundred year event, then a significant portion of money in all the U.S. economy would just sit as cash and not be allocated to investment, hiring, etc. Just a counter argument.

<comment><USER8> Holding cash does not mean that it isn't allocated to investment. The airlines wouldn't be putting it under their mattress. They would be depositing it with a financial institution that would then be able to use the increased reserves to provide more capital to various actors, ie: investment.

<comment><USER9> But if a rare, global event like this happens and companies' emergency funds are mostly investments, isn't everyone going to try to liquidate their investments, crashing prices to a level where those investments aren't worth enough to keep them funded through the event?

<comment><USER8> If everything stopped, that would be an issue, but in reality there is still a ton of economic activity happening. As far a big businesses go, there are a handful of industries that are being impacted by this pandemic and if they were slowly drawing down on cash reserves over the next 6 months or so that probably isn't terribly harmful.

Also, this is why Central Banks exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes, the bailout should've required all flights scheduled during shelter-in- place to be refunded. Millions of consumer dollars tied up in airline credits is a net drag on economic stimulus.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you were flying to europe they should be reimbursing per EU261. So far its been hit or miss actually getting the refunds with the people I've helped.

Its amazing how when the contract of carriage is in the customer's favor somehow it no longer applies.

<comment><USER12> Despite not having any information on American Airline's website, I was able to get my money for a cancelled flight last year from Europe to the US (due to technical problems on the plane) by just doing the contact us form and putting in all the info. But of course, they didn't have any of this info listed on their website in a way that told me I needed to do that. The check was mailed on time, and I was actually pretty surprised.

Definitely try to get your money under the EU regulations! It's worth the time.

<comment><USER11> In normal times you should also get 600EUR in additional compensation although they fight hard against that. Obviously this doesn't apply here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't understand why we can't let them go bankrupt. Presumably at least a couple of the airlines could raise money by selling more stock or getting acquired by somebody like Berkshire. The rest would go through chapter 11 and come out of it being owned by somebody else. We could use the 2 trillion to support the employees.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER14> What you're missing is that both political parties in the states are beholden to capital interests, and so the reason "we" can't let them go bankrupt is it would work against those interests. This isn't a conspiracy theory, there don't even need to be conspirators for it to work this way. With very few exceptions you are only capable of getting elected if you believe in the supremacy of the needs of capital. The only thing that can really stand against this is a strong organized worker's movement, which has been systematically dismantled over the past 70 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> We (the Tax payers) did earn billions bailing out the banks.

[https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2017-01-19/finan...](https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2017-01-19/financial- crisis-bailouts-have-earned-taxpayers-billions)

We should still have seen banksters going to jail over their clearly crooked and irresponsible behavior.

<comment><USER16> That article does not conclusively show the taxpayer benefited from the bailout. All it shows is that the stock price went up. If the money is then used to subsidize airlines, telecom companies, etc. and ultimately used for stock buybacks, exec bonuses, etc. then the taxpayer is never seeing any of that money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Serious question: does anyone actually expect the government (at least the current administration, of the US) to do what's right for the little guy?

<comment><USER18> As much as I'd love to pile on to this question, HN isn't a place for general political arguments, and this isn't a productive discussion for this site.

<comment><USER19> "HN isn't a place for general political arguments"

I wish we'd stop lying to ourselves about this.

<comment><USER20> "we" aren't lying about it to ourselves. It's enforced from the top down because VCs (such as the benefactors of this site) strongly prefer that their founders ignore culture and society to focus 100% on business. The lack of politics on HN is not some kind of community consensus.

<comment><USER21> HN has plenty of political, cultural, and social threads. I'm surprised you haven't noticed them. See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22714705](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22714705) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869) for more explanation.

Political topics take over everything if you let them, so we have to moderate HN to prevent it from becoming all-politics-all-flamewar-all-the-time. Do you think we should just let it burn?

Nobody's trying to "enforce" anyone to "focus 100% on business". I do worry whether users' addictions to sites like this keep them from doing better things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hard problem. They are working with < 12 percent load factors when 60% s break even is reality. I expect a lot of adjustments this week.

</comment><comment><USER23> The airline industry needs to be resized as well as bailed out.

Business travel will be permanently impacted by the shift to digital communications that is being forced upon business now.

Leisure travel will not come back until there is a Covid-19 vaccine, which is 12 to 18 months at least. Even then, higher ticket prices due to the lack of the more profitable business travelers, combined with a lack of consumer expendable income, will curtail demand for another year or two.

</comment><comment><USER24> Privatize the profits, Socialize the losses, that's the American Dream.

<comment><USER25> They often result in solid financial returns for the government holder of equity.

<comment><USER26> Is that actually true? TARP cost $426 billion in 2008 and when the assets were finally sold off in 2014, they summed $442 billion. So that's a 3.7% return during a time when the s&p 500 more than doubled in value.

Do you have some examples where the government made these returns?

<comment><USER27> Right but they maintained a whole tax producing economic center including (probably) corporate taxes and income tax on hundreds of thousands of wages from the companies themselves and their suppliers. Breaking even on a bailout is pretty phenomenal given the broader implications.

<comment><USER28> That assumes they had no leverage and no other options. Raising the rates by say 4% and companies would still have taken the money and the economy would have reacted in the same way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The government is failing badly at every level. That's more clear now than ever. Serious question: Why would you want to give them more to fail at?

<comment><USER30> >The government is failing badly at every level.

Just the executive branch, which was elected by a certain segment of our society.

Thankfully (hopefully) it only lasts 4 years, and not 20.

<comment><USER31> Just the executive branch? You should look into the corporate manipulation of the legislative branch- buying elections with PACs, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the filibuster, extreme partisanship on every topic except the protection of wealthy donors...

<comment><USER32> Senators and Congressmen selling off their stock after private briefings about COVID-19 is a pretty good example of how the legislative branch is no better. They probably could have weathered the storm pretty well ... those of us in the middle class have taken a material hit to our retirement prospects.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Fallacy of Productivity in Software Development - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@albertkoz/the-fallacy-of-productivity-in-software-development-68cdb3fb04fe <comment><USER2> Pretty awful article, sounds like it exists just to push pair programming.

In software collaboration simply doesn't happen through interactive conversations. There is just too much background work to do and too much knowledge and information to get through that requires a lot of deep focus, so it can only be a slow moving non-interactive process. Over time people learn code, documentation, comments other people wrote and contribute same things themselves for others to see and learn someday. This is how collaboration happens. If more targeted collaboration is required people just create a some sort of document and give others a chance to read it, learn it and contribute back on their own time. The attitude expressed in the article is actively harmful to that process, software is not that field where you can _" love seeing people working together"_.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hate seeing my teammate with headphones all day long, fully agree with the article.

<comment><USER4> I'm guilty. But I'm also on a small team, and the only one of on this particular team out of the many people at my office. The rest of my teammates are at another location.

The people around me speak really loudly (they speak another language and listening to it _all_ day is grating - this frustrates me cause I actually really like languages). Doesn't help that I have a coworker directly next to me that'll bring bags of carrots, celery, apples, etc. and chew loudly. Think cracking vegetables for a solid 10min at a clip. I tend to think I have some form of misophonia, but the noise really is draining regardless.

I'm looking forward to a workplace where I don't feel trapped in isolation despite being surrounded by other people.</comment></comment>


There Is No Scientific Method - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030373)</comment>