I am still on macOS 10.11.6 so I don’t know much about what
is happening but I was wondering if you transferred the file with
a secure connection like CyberDuck does the download bit get
changed? Another question that might be a work around is if
you zip the file and then zip the zip of that
On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:21, Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode wrote:
At one time one could get past OSs, but I don't think it is the case
now
If a past OS has been downloaded through one's standard Mac/me/iCloud
account in the past it can be downloaded and installed again. It can
also be
From experiments that I’ve done, it’s the downloading bit which flags an App as
needing special treatment by the OS. If you build it and transfer it via a USB
stick (or CD), then it’s ok. It’s when you download it - either as the app
itself, or as a zipped version. I think the zip file is
I wonder if downloading-qua-downloading is the problem?
Possibly downloading some sort of compressed file (.zip, .7zx, other
type) and
then decompressing it on the target machine will allow installation?
Richmond.
On 12.09.19 8:05, Rick Harrison via use-livecode wrote:
That behavior does
That sounds as if "things" are possible.
I have run off a very simple standalone (one card, one button, one field)
and uploaded it to Dropbox, and would be most grateful if you can try to
get it to run.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/518kxvml2si3xic/ISLAND.zip?dl=0
I am currently running Mojave as
That behavior does not sound any different from
what we have experienced in older versions of
macOS such as High Sierra. Perhaps it won’t
get worse until later versions of Catalina?
Thanks for the test Marty!
Rick
> On Sep 11, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Marty Knapp via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Just
Just tried my previous tests with non-signed, non-notarized apps with the
Catalina beta 8 (just released today) with the same result as beta 7. I also
zipped an app, transferred it to the Catalina machine via thumb drive, then
unzipped and ran without complaint or warning. So it would appear
I just tried 2 apps that I built in LC 9.5 business. I have Catalina beta 7
installed. Neither app was code signed or notarized. I moved the apps to that
machine via a thumb drive and did not zip compress either one. They both
launched on Catalina beta without complaint.
Next I zipped one of
Just a couple of comments:
On 9/11/19 12:57 AM, Peter Reid via use-livecode wrote:
5. The $100 charge each year is inexcusable. Basically Apple are saying "We'll make
any app development more tedious unless you pay up $100 every year.". Even the
development of the simplest app, to be used as
The most telling test is if anyone who has a Catalina beta installed
runs off a Macintosh
standalone and sees if they can run it themselves: wether from the Open
Source version or
one of the commercial versions.
Richmond.
On 11.09.19 18:21, Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode wrote:
Keeping a clear look at things... That $100/yr does include "beta OS releases,
advanced app capabilities, technical support, and tools to develop, test, and
distribute apps." At one time one could get past OSs, but I don't think it is
the case now. And you could go down to the test warehouse
Ditto what Kee said
I so happy with this thread… I didn't know about Matthias's tool's!
Oh.. My.. I do a lot of in house/volunteer tooIs, ….the number of times in the
past few years have tell, send email, send them to web site… to "Go to System
Preferences, General down below you will see the
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 09:25, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Would it be feasible for these ad hoc apps to be built using the Community
> Edition?I have an idea...Richard GaskinFourth World Systems
> ___
>
The ratio of money asked from devs is also of course: (considered mobile)
Mobile Operating SystemsPercentage Market Share
Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide - August 2019
Android 76.23%
iOS 22.17%
KaiOS 0.59%
Unknown 0.26%
Samsung 0.21%
Windows
Would it be feasible for these ad hoc apps to be built using the Community
Edition?I have an idea...Richard GaskinFourth World Systems
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage
I've been reading the responses to my original posting with interest. My
thoughts are as follows:
1. Matthias Rebbe's tutorial and helper stack seem to be excellent and appear
to be the best way of complying with Apple's requirements, for now. Let's hope
that Matthias can maintain this as
I wrote an article on this process for MacOS and it took some time for me to
figure out all the steps. Once documented, doesn’t really take that long to do.
Apple doesn’t judge the contents of personally signed apps and the $99 per year
is not a burden for me.
I know a bunch of users who
Thank you for your work in this.
I like the idea of identity signing of files, documents, programs, messages and
links. I was all PGP at one time. I am making a shortlist of Electronic Lab
Notebooks, and automated time-stamping and easy page/paragraph signing are
important features. I
I'm on your side on this one. OS developers are not getting sued by end users
because they get malware. What is the impetus for all this?? Apple long ago had
a policy tthat if they introduced a new way of doing something, the user could
revert to the way it used to work. This ought to be a
If I want to develop an small OSX (or Windows) app for my wife to help
her keep track of some hobby related items, I should not have to code
sign or notarize it for OSX or Windows or, honestly, any platform.
Every OS should provide a way that the USER is still in control of their
OS and can
Maybe developers should have been pushing for code signing some time ago—on
their own terms.
> On Sep 8, 2019, at 8:10 AM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> That may be exactly what happens next if the big guys continue with their
> nonsense.
> More developers will rebel and leave
And then, when everybody use Linux, where do you think the bad guys is
going to put their efforts.
Antti
su 8.9.2019 klo 17.11 Rick Harrison via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> kirjoitti:
> That may be exactly what happens next if the big guys continue with their
> nonsense.
>
I don't think any of us are happy about the contortions we increasingly
need to go through to get apps into the app stores or out to the public.
Keeping up with Apple is even harder for the LC team.
But Apple sells privacy and safety as its primary distinctive feature.
There are instances
This reminds me of the arguments that the British government have used
to set up a surveillance society.
Richmond.
On 8.09.19 17:37, prothero--- via use-livecode wrote:
Folks,
With respect, I agree with Paul’s comments. We live in an online environment
where we are faced, on a daily basis,
At which point, if Apple and Microsoft have any brain at all,
they'll wake up and Linux will, finally, achieve what has always
been one of its reasons for being: to stop the smugness of a
duopoly that has dominated the computer world far, far too long.
Richmond.
On 8.09.19 17:10, Rick Harrison
Folks,
With respect, I agree with Paul’s comments. We live in an online environment
where we are faced, on a daily basis, with criminal activity. The worst of it
can cost us financially, but even major players like Amazon record our
behaviors and choices, for their profit, with disclosure
That may be exactly what happens next if the big guys continue with their
nonsense.
More developers will rebel and leave their platforms altogether in favor of
Linux.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Rick
> On Sep 8, 2019, at 2:55 AM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> If you want a
Paul Dupuis wrote:> I see no one refuting Peter's original > claims that
Catalina is a ste towards > the end of ad-hoc and in-house > development for
the Apple platform > and I would agree.Me too, FWIW, but I don't think the
problem is Apple.What really changed since the olden days is that the
Everyone is signing the praises of tools to jump through Apple's hoops,
but I see no one refuting Peter's original claims that Catalina is a ste
towards the end of ad-hoc and in-house development for the Apple
platform and I would agree.
Apple's goal for OSX is to get to the same place as
I have an idea on how to get a single ‘Capsule’ app notorized that can open and
run any stack file as a standalone. It does mean that the stack won’t be
compiled quite like a true standalone but does allow users to open any stack on
their desktops. Perhaps there’s a way we could even get it to
I just wanted to chime in on singing the praises for Matthias’ tool as well. It
has made code-signing and notarizing Mac applications so easy and fast for me.
And it has a feature that allows it to work with the third party tool DropDMG
(which I already used)… so even more amazing! A huge gift
I will add that this situation is not unique to LC, it will apply to any
environment that creates a compiled app. I still think that LC will be an
optimal choice given the ease of development - especially with the way Mac apps
are packaged (everything can be inside the .app folder).
Thanks,
I can't recommend Matthias' tool enough, it can do all Apple requires with
a click.
Notarization does not go through Apple's approval process, no human ever
sees it, it's entirely automated. It simply adds a token that proves you
are a verified developer in good standing. Once that token is
One part you say seems incorrect. I’ve been running Catalina full time since
the first developer build, and I’ve seen various combinations of problems.
For the one you’re talking about, where right-click Open still doesn’t open the
app, in the security control panel where it used to say open
Hi Peter,
We are all pretty miffed about the overly restrictive nature of
developing native apps. These is a lot of time wasted on the
ever changing hoops one must jump through just to develop
in-house or small audience apps.
Not only is it pushing away developers from developing for
specific
use for free (should it be written)
Op 7-9-2019 om 13:53 schreef JJS via use-livecode:
I forgot, it was Mattias Rebbe who wrote the notarizing app which you
can you fro free, aint that great!
He also made an excellent lesson which is on lessons.livecode.com
Op 7-9-2019 om 13:36 schreef JJS
I forgot, it was Mattias Rebbe who wrote the notarizing app which you
can you fro free, aint that great!
He also made an excellent lesson which is on lessons.livecode.com
Op 7-9-2019 om 13:36 schreef JJS via use-livecode:
Well said.
There is help on this.
On of the list members will jump
Well said.
There is help on this.
On of the list members will jump in i guess and he made an excellent
tool which will help you out notarizing and all other stuff Apple tries
to kill you with.
If you already have a Apple dev account (only 100$ per year) which gives
you the ability to help
I've been using LiveCode as my development platform since 1999. Practically all
the apps I've developed have been for in-house use by my family, friends and
customers - all very low numbers of copies distributed in an informal manner.
I've no interest in App Store distribution and the users of
39 matches
Mail list logo
