Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-12 Thread JB via use-livecode
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 file does it change
the download bit?

JB

> On Sep 12, 2019, at 1:19 AM, Phil Jimmieson via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 flagged as 
> potentially dangerous, and when unzipped, it’s contents similarly flagged. If 
> you share it via a shared Dropbox folder, that also works (but not 
> downloading it from a Dropbox link).
> 
> 
>> On 12 Sep 2019, at 08:26, Richmond via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 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 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 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 that  downloaded apps are what triggers the warning.
 
 Marty
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> --
> Phil Jimmieson  p...@liverpool.ac.uk  (UK) 0151 795 4236  (Mobile) 07976 
> 983164
> Computer Science Dept., Liverpool University, Ashton Building, Ashton Street
> Liverpool L69 3BX  http://intranet.csc.liv.ac.uk/~phil/
> I used to sit on a special medical board... ...but now I use this ointment.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-12 Thread Keith Martin via use-livecode

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 downloaded to install on a different Mac or to archive the 
installer yourself, although this takes a tiny bit of hoop-jumping as it 
is set up to 'download-run-install' with minimal user management 
required.


k

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-12 Thread Phil Jimmieson via use-livecode
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 flagged as potentially 
dangerous, and when unzipped, it’s contents similarly flagged. If you share it 
via a shared Dropbox folder, that also works (but not downloading it from a 
Dropbox link).


> On 12 Sep 2019, at 08:26, Richmond via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 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 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 that  downloaded apps are what triggers the warning.
>>> 
>>> Marty
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

--
Phil Jimmieson  p...@liverpool.ac.uk  (UK) 0151 795 4236  (Mobile) 07976 983164
Computer Science Dept., Liverpool University, Ashton Building, Ashton Street
Liverpool L69 3BX  http://intranet.csc.liv.ac.uk/~phil/
I used to sit on a special medical board... ...but now I use this ointment.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-12 Thread Richmond via use-livecode

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 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 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 that  
downloaded apps are what triggers the warning.

Marty

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-12 Thread Richmond via use-livecode

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 am a bit reluctant to dive into the 
water round

the island just yet.

Richmond.

On 12.09.19 3:13, Marty Knapp via use-livecode wrote:

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 the apps and uploaded to my server and then downloaded it 
to the Catalina beta. This time when I tried to open, I got the message that it 
could not be opened because its integrity couldn’t be verified. The only 
options were “Move to trash” or “cancel”

I then right clicked and chose Open and again got the warning about not being 
able to verify but now had an additional option to open, which it did. I quit 
and opened again - this time with no warnings or trouble.

I did just get a notice that beta 8 is available. Will test when I get it 
installed.

Marty


On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Richmond via use-livecode 
 wrote:

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 and test on old machines.

On the Windows side, I have used MSDN Universal ($2200/yr) and MSDN Operating 
Systems ($700/yr) in the past. The latter might be comparable to the Apple 
Developer membership. Well, it was when you could get past OSes from Apple.

I have seen ads for codesigning certs that work for both Apple and Windows. I 
don't know what that means. And I don't know why the fees for 2nd and 3rd years 
are so high.

Dar

Senior Consultant
Dar Scott Consulting

Mad Scientist
darzLab


On Sep 11, 2019, at 2:38 AM, JJS via use-livecode 
 wrote:

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 0.2%

So apple iOs is somewhat increasing this year, in 2018 it was 15% worldwide.

Apple asks 100$ yearly --iOs/ (and macOS)

Google ask 25$ one time fee -- Android

Amazon is FREE ! (for the time being) -- Kindle which is just Android

You can also use other platforms for free like Fdroid

Beats me why Apple charges so much yearly while the gain i think is to lower 
that cost as they earn money from your sales anyway.

Is there an alternative platform for iOs/macOs ?


Op 11-9-2019 om 07:57 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:

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 Apple move the goalposts over time! If 
Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope that the LC mothership would 
adopt them.

2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family (and a 
tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use in closed 
communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and the extended 
development cycle caused by their involvement is just unnecessary pain.

3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the pain 
could be justified given the gain. However we know that this protection process 
is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous over time whilst still 
providing partial protection for a limited time.

4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch them 
off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could switch the 
features back on to see the fully Apple-ised experience. As it is now, using 
the current Catalina beta on my development Mac, I see no blocking or warnings. 
So I've no way of testing the user experience on my development Mac. I have to 
find another Mac to act as my newbie user. Even then if such a Mac has been a 
previous newbie, how do you neutralise it to relive the newbie experience?

5. The $100 charge each year is inexcusable. Basically Apple are saying 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Rick Harrison via use-livecode
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 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 that  
> downloaded apps are what triggers the warning.
> 
> Marty

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Marty Knapp via use-livecode
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 that  
downloaded apps are what triggers the warning.

Marty

> On Sep 11, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Marty Knapp  wrote:
> 
> 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 the apps and uploaded to my server and then downloaded 
> it to the Catalina beta. This time when I tried to open, I got the message 
> that it could not be opened because its integrity couldn’t be verified. The 
> only options were “Move to trash” or “cancel”
> 
> I then right clicked and chose Open and again got the warning about not being 
> able to verify but now had an additional option to open, which it did. I quit 
> and opened again - this time with no warnings or trouble.
> 
> I did just get a notice that beta 8 is available. Will test when I get it 
> installed.
> 
> Marty
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Richmond via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 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 and test on old machines.
>>> 
>>> On the Windows side, I have used MSDN Universal ($2200/yr) and MSDN 
>>> Operating Systems ($700/yr) in the past. The latter might be comparable to 
>>> the Apple Developer membership. Well, it was when you could get past OSes 
>>> from Apple.
>>> 
>>> I have seen ads for codesigning certs that work for both Apple and Windows. 
>>> I don't know what that means. And I don't know why the fees for 2nd and 3rd 
>>> years are so high.
>>> 
>>> Dar
>>> 
>>> Senior Consultant
>>> Dar Scott Consulting
>>> 
>>> Mad Scientist
>>> darzLab
>>> 
 On Sep 11, 2019, at 2:38 AM, JJS via use-livecode 
  wrote:
 
 The ratio of money asked from devs is also of course: (considered mobile)
 
 Mobile Operating Systems   Percentage Market Share
 Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide - August 2019
 Android76.23%
 iOS22.17%
 KaiOS  0.59%
 Unknown0.26%
 Samsung0.21%
 Windows0.2%
 
 So apple iOs is somewhat increasing this year, in 2018 it was 15% 
 worldwide.
 
 Apple asks 100$ yearly --iOs/ (and macOS)
 
 Google ask 25$ one time fee -- Android
 
 Amazon is FREE ! (for the time being) -- Kindle which is just Android
 
 You can also use other platforms for free like Fdroid
 
 Beats me why Apple charges so much yearly while the gain i think is to 
 lower that cost as they earn money from your sales anyway.
 
 Is there an alternative platform for iOs/macOs ?
 
 
 Op 11-9-2019 om 07:57 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:
> 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 Apple move the 
> goalposts over time! If Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope 
> that the LC mothership would adopt them.
> 
> 2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family 
> (and a tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use 
> in closed communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and 
> the extended development cycle caused by their involvement is just 
> unnecessary pain.
> 
> 3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the 
> pain could be justified given the gain. However we know that this 
> protection process is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous 
> over time whilst still providing partial protection for a limited time.
> 
> 4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch 
> them off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could 
> switch the features back on to see the fully Apple-ised 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Marty Knapp via use-livecode
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 the apps and uploaded to my server and then downloaded it 
to the Catalina beta. This time when I tried to open, I got the message that it 
could not be opened because its integrity couldn’t be verified. The only 
options were “Move to trash” or “cancel”

I then right clicked and chose Open and again got the warning about not being 
able to verify but now had an additional option to open, which it did. I quit 
and opened again - this time with no warnings or trouble.

I did just get a notice that beta 8 is available. Will test when I get it 
installed.

Marty

> On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Richmond via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 and test on old machines.
>> 
>> On the Windows side, I have used MSDN Universal ($2200/yr) and MSDN 
>> Operating Systems ($700/yr) in the past. The latter might be comparable to 
>> the Apple Developer membership. Well, it was when you could get past OSes 
>> from Apple.
>> 
>> I have seen ads for codesigning certs that work for both Apple and Windows. 
>> I don't know what that means. And I don't know why the fees for 2nd and 3rd 
>> years are so high.
>> 
>> Dar
>> 
>> Senior Consultant
>> Dar Scott Consulting
>> 
>> Mad Scientist
>> darzLab
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 2:38 AM, JJS via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The ratio of money asked from devs is also of course: (considered mobile)
>>> 
>>> Mobile Operating SystemsPercentage Market Share
>>> Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide - August 2019
>>> Android 76.23%
>>> iOS 22.17%
>>> KaiOS   0.59%
>>> Unknown 0.26%
>>> Samsung 0.21%
>>> Windows 0.2%
>>> 
>>> So apple iOs is somewhat increasing this year, in 2018 it was 15% worldwide.
>>> 
>>> Apple asks 100$ yearly --iOs/ (and macOS)
>>> 
>>> Google ask 25$ one time fee -- Android
>>> 
>>> Amazon is FREE ! (for the time being) -- Kindle which is just Android
>>> 
>>> You can also use other platforms for free like Fdroid
>>> 
>>> Beats me why Apple charges so much yearly while the gain i think is to 
>>> lower that cost as they earn money from your sales anyway.
>>> 
>>> Is there an alternative platform for iOs/macOs ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Op 11-9-2019 om 07:57 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:
 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 Apple move the goalposts 
 over time! If Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope that the 
 LC mothership would adopt them.
 
 2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family 
 (and a tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use in 
 closed communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and the 
 extended development cycle caused by their involvement is just unnecessary 
 pain.
 
 3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the pain 
 could be justified given the gain. However we know that this protection 
 process is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous over time 
 whilst still providing partial protection for a limited time.
 
 4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch 
 them off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could 
 switch the features back on to see the fully Apple-ised experience. As it 
 is now, using the current Catalina beta on my development Mac, I see no 
 blocking or warnings. So I've no way of testing the user experience on my 
 development Mac. I have to find another Mac to act as my newbie user. Even 
 then if such a Mac has been a previous newbie, how do you neutralise it to 
 relive the newbie experience?
 
 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 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread J. Landman Gay via use-livecode

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 a temporary tool by a couple of friends 
will be blighted by warnings,  etc. if you don't pay $100 per year and jump through the 
hoops! Apple are deliberately making life more difficult and charging us $100 a year for 
the privilege!


Apple now offers a free developer account for personal apps that aren't 
for sale.




7. If a new-to-LC developer wants to do the usual "Hello World" trivial 1st app 
(making an executable standalone app), they have to understand code-signing, notarising 
and stapling, DMG/ZIP creation and be signed/paid-up Apple developers.


For testing on your own phone you don't need any of that. Just cable the 
phone to the computer (or use the simulator) and you're good to go.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Richmond via use-livecode
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 and test on old machines.

On the Windows side, I have used MSDN Universal ($2200/yr) and MSDN Operating 
Systems ($700/yr) in the past. The latter might be comparable to the Apple 
Developer membership. Well, it was when you could get past OSes from Apple.

I have seen ads for codesigning certs that work for both Apple and Windows. I 
don't know what that means. And I don't know why the fees for 2nd and 3rd years 
are so high.

Dar

Senior Consultant
Dar Scott Consulting

Mad Scientist
darzLab


On Sep 11, 2019, at 2:38 AM, JJS via use-livecode 
 wrote:

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 0.2%

So apple iOs is somewhat increasing this year, in 2018 it was 15% worldwide.

Apple asks 100$ yearly --iOs/ (and macOS)

Google ask 25$ one time fee -- Android

Amazon is FREE ! (for the time being) -- Kindle which is just Android

You can also use other platforms for free like Fdroid

Beats me why Apple charges so much yearly while the gain i think is to lower 
that cost as they earn money from your sales anyway.

Is there an alternative platform for iOs/macOs ?


Op 11-9-2019 om 07:57 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:

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 Apple move the goalposts over time! If 
Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope that the LC mothership would 
adopt them.

2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family (and a 
tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use in closed 
communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and the extended 
development cycle caused by their involvement is just unnecessary pain.

3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the pain 
could be justified given the gain. However we know that this protection process 
is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous over time whilst still 
providing partial protection for a limited time.

4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch them 
off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could switch the 
features back on to see the fully Apple-ised experience. As it is now, using 
the current Catalina beta on my development Mac, I see no blocking or warnings. 
So I've no way of testing the user experience on my development Mac. I have to 
find another Mac to act as my newbie user. Even then if such a Mac has been a 
previous newbie, how do you neutralise it to relive the newbie experience?

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 a temporary tool by a couple of friends 
will be blighted by warnings,  etc. if you don't pay $100 per year and jump through the 
hoops! Apple are deliberately making life more difficult and charging us $100 a year for 
the privilege!

6. I wonder how much developer time world-wide is wasted jumping through 
Apple's hoops, especially those developers without the benefit of LC and 
Matthias' tools?

7. If a new-to-LC developer wants to do the usual "Hello World" trivial 1st app 
(making an executable standalone app), they have to understand code-signing, notarising 
and stapling, DMG/ZIP creation and be signed/paid-up Apple developers.

Thanks to Matthias, you're a life/sanity saver, but I still find the prospects 
as an app developer rather depressing!

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode
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 and test on old 
machines.

On the Windows side, I have used MSDN Universal ($2200/yr) and MSDN Operating 
Systems ($700/yr) in the past. The latter might be comparable to the Apple 
Developer membership. Well, it was when you could get past OSes from Apple.

I have seen ads for codesigning certs that work for both Apple and Windows. I 
don't know what that means. And I don't know why the fees for 2nd and 3rd years 
are so high.

Dar

Senior Consultant
Dar Scott Consulting

Mad Scientist
darzLab

> On Sep 11, 2019, at 2:38 AM, JJS via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> The ratio of money asked from devs is also of course: (considered mobile)
> 
> Mobile Operating Systems  Percentage 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   0.2%
> 
> So apple iOs is somewhat increasing this year, in 2018 it was 15% worldwide.
> 
> Apple asks 100$ yearly --iOs/ (and macOS)
> 
> Google ask 25$ one time fee -- Android
> 
> Amazon is FREE ! (for the time being) -- Kindle which is just Android
> 
> You can also use other platforms for free like Fdroid
> 
> Beats me why Apple charges so much yearly while the gain i think is to lower 
> that cost as they earn money from your sales anyway.
> 
> Is there an alternative platform for iOs/macOs ?
> 
> 
> Op 11-9-2019 om 07:57 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:
>> 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 Apple move the goalposts over 
>> time! If Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope that the LC 
>> mothership would adopt them.
>> 
>> 2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family (and 
>> a tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use in closed 
>> communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and the extended 
>> development cycle caused by their involvement is just unnecessary pain.
>> 
>> 3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the pain 
>> could be justified given the gain. However we know that this protection 
>> process is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous over time whilst 
>> still providing partial protection for a limited time.
>> 
>> 4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch 
>> them off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could 
>> switch the features back on to see the fully Apple-ised experience. As it is 
>> now, using the current Catalina beta on my development Mac, I see no 
>> blocking or warnings. So I've no way of testing the user experience on my 
>> development Mac. I have to find another Mac to act as my newbie user. Even 
>> then if such a Mac has been a previous newbie, how do you neutralise it to 
>> relive the newbie experience?
>> 
>> 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 a temporary 
>> tool by a couple of friends will be blighted by warnings,  etc. if you don't 
>> pay $100 per year and jump through the hoops! Apple are deliberately making 
>> life more difficult and charging us $100 a year for the privilege!
>> 
>> 6. I wonder how much developer time world-wide is wasted jumping through 
>> Apple's hoops, especially those developers without the benefit of LC and 
>> Matthias' tools?
>> 
>> 7. If a new-to-LC developer wants to do the usual "Hello World" trivial 1st 
>> app (making an executable standalone app), they have to understand 
>> code-signing, notarising and stapling, DMG/ZIP creation and be 
>> signed/paid-up Apple developers.
>> 
>> Thanks to Matthias, you're a life/sanity saver, but I still find the 
>> prospects as an app developer rather depressing!
>> 
>> Peter
>> --
>> Peter Reid
>> Loughborough, UK
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode
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
> ___
>

This is a really good point, Peter. Let LC do all the 'hoop-jumping' and
have your family and friends run your small one-off apps as an LC stack
inside the community edition.

Alternatively, boycott Apple if your distaste for them has increased so
much and just leave that issue between them and the larger developers who
don't seem so bothered about it.

>From *my* standpoint, I LIKE (nay, Love!!) the idea that they are making it
harder for hackers to hack our beloved Macs and increase the divide between
them and crappy Windoze and Hemeroid devices. Linux is the other option if
you really hate yourself and want to put yourself and your family/friends
through that level of pain ( I use it because I have to but wouldn't wish
it on others).

I hope you find a solution that works for you and you find some level of
peace.

Pi
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread JJS via use-livecode

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 0.2%

So apple iOs is somewhat increasing this year, in 2018 it was 15% worldwide.

Apple asks 100$ yearly --iOs/ (and macOS)

Google ask 25$ one time fee -- Android

Amazon is FREE ! (for the time being) -- Kindle which is just Android

You can also use other platforms for free like Fdroid

Beats me why Apple charges so much yearly while the gain i think is to 
lower that cost as they earn money from your sales anyway.


Is there an alternative platform for iOs/macOs ?


Op 11-9-2019 om 07:57 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:

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 Apple move the goalposts over time! If 
Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope that the LC mothership would 
adopt them.

2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family (and a 
tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use in closed 
communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and the extended 
development cycle caused by their involvement is just unnecessary pain.

3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the pain 
could be justified given the gain. However we know that this protection process 
is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous over time whilst still 
providing partial protection for a limited time.

4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch them 
off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could switch the 
features back on to see the fully Apple-ised experience. As it is now, using 
the current Catalina beta on my development Mac, I see no blocking or warnings. 
So I've no way of testing the user experience on my development Mac. I have to 
find another Mac to act as my newbie user. Even then if such a Mac has been a 
previous newbie, how do you neutralise it to relive the newbie experience?

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 a temporary tool by a couple of friends 
will be blighted by warnings,  etc. if you don't pay $100 per year and jump through the 
hoops! Apple are deliberately making life more difficult and charging us $100 a year for 
the privilege!

6. I wonder how much developer time world-wide is wasted jumping through 
Apple's hoops, especially those developers without the benefit of LC and 
Matthias' tools?

7. If a new-to-LC developer wants to do the usual "Hello World" trivial 1st app 
(making an executable standalone app), they have to understand code-signing, notarising 
and stapling, DMG/ZIP creation and be signed/paid-up Apple developers.

Thanks to Matthias, you're a life/sanity saver, but I still find the prospects 
as an app developer rather depressing!

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-11 Thread Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
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 your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-10 Thread Peter Reid via use-livecode
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 Apple move the goalposts over time! If 
Matthias is unable to sustain these aids I'd hope that the LC mothership would 
adopt them.

2. A lot of the apps I develop are used by immediate friends and family (and a 
tiny circle of customers). They are private developments for use in closed 
communities. Apple have no right to be involved in these and the extended 
development cycle caused by their involvement is just unnecessary pain.

3. If Apple's measures really did provide bullet-proof protection the pain 
could be justified given the gain. However we know that this protection process 
is continuous and it becomes more and more onerous over time whilst still 
providing partial protection for a limited time.

4. If the Apple measures were a simple switchable setting I could switch them 
off whilst I check the user experience for a new user. Then I could switch the 
features back on to see the fully Apple-ised experience. As it is now, using 
the current Catalina beta on my development Mac, I see no blocking or warnings. 
So I've no way of testing the user experience on my development Mac. I have to 
find another Mac to act as my newbie user. Even then if such a Mac has been a 
previous newbie, how do you neutralise it to relive the newbie experience?

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 a temporary tool by a couple 
of friends will be blighted by warnings,  etc. if you don't pay $100 per year 
and jump through the hoops! Apple are deliberately making life more difficult 
and charging us $100 a year for the privilege!

6. I wonder how much developer time world-wide is wasted jumping through 
Apple's hoops, especially those developers without the benefit of LC and 
Matthias' tools?

7. If a new-to-LC developer wants to do the usual "Hello World" trivial 1st app 
(making an executable standalone app), they have to understand code-signing, 
notarising and stapling, DMG/ZIP creation and be signed/paid-up Apple 
developers.

Thanks to Matthias, you're a life/sanity saver, but I still find the prospects 
as an app developer rather depressing!

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-09 Thread kee nethery via use-livecode
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 click on everything and download stuff and agree to 
all sorts of silly stuff and then claim that they have been hacked (and perhaps 
they have been hacked). I’m OK with extra steps if the OS becomes safer for 
folks who really do not understand security.

Just my two cents.

Kee nethery

> On Sep 9, 2019, at 2:07 PM, Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 encourage customers to sign documents and I am 
> pleased to. In principle, I like codesigning. I like the idea of customers 
> far away and great grandchildren knowing that I wrote something and they can 
> be assured. However, I dream of an ideal world in which I can establish an 
> identity once and then check a box in the preferences in my IDE. 
> 
> For every person there is a cost, both in the learning curve and in money 
> ($100 per year for Apple IIRC and about the same for Windows). The yearly 
> vetting is a racket; I can assure folks I rarely turn into somebody else. And 
> the Apple patronizing is a high cost psychologically. But it is like taxes 
> and typhoons, it is the adventure I am handed in life and I address that.
> 
> So, I'm ready to renew my Apple Developer membership (cheaper than MSDN) and 
> jump into the fray. I will take heart and enter the next decade.
> 
> I skimmed over the lesson. I'm going to go rest.
> 
> Dar Scott
> Mad Scientist
> 
> 
> PS: Wasn't Stuxnet codesigned? 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Although i understand anyone´s concern about Apple new requirement for 
>> notarization, i welcome Apple´s effort to make Mac OS X apps more secure for 
>> the users. I was also not very happy when i first heard that  10.14.6 will 
>> not start unnotarized apps right away. 
>> 
>> But what are our options here?
>> Either we stop developing for Apple or we fulfill Apple´s requirements. 
>> Everyone has to decide for her/himself, if the extra work for this 
>> Notarization is worth it.
>> 
>> Even if there is a way to run unnotarized apps under Mojave by going to 
>> security control panel and allow the app to be opened, i think this is not 
>> very user friendly and also not not very trustworthy, regardless if it is a 
>> free or a commercial app.
>> 
>> 
>> Under  Windows developers have to purchase a CodeSigining Certificate which 
>> costs from 79,- to 300,- USD, depending on where you buy from and depending 
>> on the type of the certificate, to be able to codesign.  And if i remember 
>> right, also under future Windows versions it will be more difficult to run 
>> unsigned Apps. At least there will be a popup with a warning message, this 
>> is currently in Win10 the case. That is also not very trustworthy, isn´t it?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Anyway, some weeks ago i´ve posted a link to a Livecode lesson which not 
>> only describes the required manual steps to notarize and staple an app for 
>> distribution outside the Mac Appstore , but also includes an helper stack 
>> which does all the needed steps.
>> 
>> You´ll find the lesson here: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>> 
>> Matthias Rebbe
>> 
>> free tools for Livecoders:
>> InstaMaker 
>> WinSignMaker Mac 
>>> Am 07.09.2019 um 13:18 schrieb Peter Reid via use-livecode 
>>> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>:
>>> 
>>> 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 my apps trust me such that they do not need my apps to be "approved" by 
>>> Apple. What's more important to them is how quickly I can release new apps 
>>> and new versions of existing apps.
>>> 
>>> Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the minor 
>>> inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its use, just 
>>> once. With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not so simple, 
>>> instead these are the options:
>>> 
>>> 1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my kind 
>>> of apps which are essentially in-house/at 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-09 Thread Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode
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 encourage customers to sign documents and I am pleased 
to. In principle, I like codesigning. I like the idea of customers far away and 
great grandchildren knowing that I wrote something and they can be assured. 
However, I dream of an ideal world in which I can establish an identity once 
and then check a box in the preferences in my IDE. 

For every person there is a cost, both in the learning curve and in money ($100 
per year for Apple IIRC and about the same for Windows). The yearly vetting is 
a racket; I can assure folks I rarely turn into somebody else. And the Apple 
patronizing is a high cost psychologically. But it is like taxes and typhoons, 
it is the adventure I am handed in life and I address that.

So, I'm ready to renew my Apple Developer membership (cheaper than MSDN) and 
jump into the fray. I will take heart and enter the next decade.

I skimmed over the lesson. I'm going to go rest.

Dar Scott
Mad Scientist


PS: Wasn't Stuxnet codesigned? 


> On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Although i understand anyone´s concern about Apple new requirement for 
> notarization, i welcome Apple´s effort to make Mac OS X apps more secure for 
> the users. I was also not very happy when i first heard that  10.14.6 will 
> not start unnotarized apps right away. 
> 
> But what are our options here?
> Either we stop developing for Apple or we fulfill Apple´s requirements. 
> Everyone has to decide for her/himself, if the extra work for this 
> Notarization is worth it.
> 
> Even if there is a way to run unnotarized apps under Mojave by going to 
> security control panel and allow the app to be opened, i think this is not 
> very user friendly and also not not very trustworthy, regardless if it is a 
> free or a commercial app.
> 
> 
> Under  Windows developers have to purchase a CodeSigining Certificate which 
> costs from 79,- to 300,- USD, depending on where you buy from and depending 
> on the type of the certificate, to be able to codesign.  And if i remember 
> right, also under future Windows versions it will be more difficult to run 
> unsigned Apps. At least there will be a popup with a warning message, this is 
> currently in Win10 the case. That is also not very trustworthy, isn´t it?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, some weeks ago i´ve posted a link to a Livecode lesson which not only 
> describes the required manual steps to notarize and staple an app for 
> distribution outside the Mac Appstore , but also includes an helper stack 
> which does all the needed steps.
> 
> You´ll find the lesson here: 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Matthias
> 
> Matthias Rebbe
> 
> free tools for Livecoders:
> InstaMaker 
> WinSignMaker Mac 
>> Am 07.09.2019 um 13:18 schrieb Peter Reid via use-livecode 
>> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>:
>> 
>> 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 my apps 
>> trust me such that they do not need my apps to be "approved" by Apple. 
>> What's more important to them is how quickly I can release new apps and new 
>> versions of existing apps.
>> 
>> Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the minor 
>> inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its use, just 
>> once. With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not so simple, 
>> instead these are the options:
>> 
>> 1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my kind 
>> of apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.
>> 
>> 2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click technique 
>> as now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.
>> 
>> In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for the 
>> setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to install and use 
>> apps from any source. It seems that this is not possible with Catalina.
>> 
>> So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will have to 
>> go through the right-click authorisation process every time they open one of 
>> my apps.
>> 
>> More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend the 
>> combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to now I've 
>> done all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-09 Thread Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
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 feature we can turn on or 
off at will. Apple has no standing to prevent anything we want to install on 
our computers INCLUDING MALWARE if we so desire. It's absolutely none of their 
business. 

Bob S


> On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:44 , Paul Dupuis via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 tell the OS, I trust this application. Period.
> 
> Attempting to idiot proof the OS only leads to the creation of more idiots.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-09 Thread Paul Dupuis via use-livecode
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 tell the OS, I trust this application. Period.


Attempting to idiot proof the OS only leads to the creation of more idiots.



On 9/9/2019 2:07 PM, Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode wrote:

Although i understand anyone´s concern about Apple new requirement for 
notarization, i welcome Apple´s effort to make Mac OS X apps more secure for 
the users. I was also not very happy when i first heard that  10.14.6 will not 
start unnotarized apps right away.

But what are our options here?
Either we stop developing for Apple or we fulfill Apple´s requirements. 
Everyone has to decide for her/himself, if the extra work for this Notarization 
is worth it.

Even if there is a way to run unnotarized apps under Mojave by going to 
security control panel and allow the app to be opened, i think this is not very 
user friendly and also not not very trustworthy, regardless if it is a free or 
a commercial app.


Under  Windows developers have to purchase a CodeSigining Certificate which 
costs from 79,- to 300,- USD, depending on where you buy from and depending on 
the type of the certificate, to be able to codesign.  And if i remember right, 
also under future Windows versions it will be more difficult to run unsigned 
Apps. At least there will be a popup with a warning message, this is currently 
in Win10 the case. That is also not very trustworthy, isn´t it?



Anyway, some weeks ago i´ve posted a link to a Livecode lesson which not only 
describes the required manual steps to notarize and staple an app for 
distribution outside the Mac Appstore , but also includes an helper stack which 
does all the needed steps.

You´ll find the lesson here: 

  


Regards,
Matthias

Matthias Rebbe

free tools for Livecoders:
InstaMaker 
WinSignMaker Mac 

Am 07.09.2019 um 13:18 schrieb Peter Reid via use-livecode 
mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>:

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 my apps trust me such that they do not need my apps to be 
"approved" by Apple. What's more important to them is how quickly I can release 
new apps and new versions of existing apps.

Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the minor 
inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its use, just once. 
With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not so simple, instead these 
are the options:

1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my kind of 
apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.

2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click technique as 
now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.

In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for the 
setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to install and use apps 
from any source. It seems that this is not possible with Catalina.

So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will have to go 
through the right-click authorisation process every time they open one of my 
apps.

More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend the 
combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to now I've done 
all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the target platform is Windows or 
Android or Linux – I find it's simply faster, less error-prone and more 
pleasant with the Mac. However, from Catalina onwards even simple little 
utility apps, created for short-term use, will be tedious when opening or you 
have to learn about the complexity of code-signing and notarising and accept 
slower development cycles due to the need for Apple's approval!

This is quite depressing, especially since I abandoned iOS development due to 
Apple's distribution restrictions.

Back when the iPad 2 had just been released I developed for one of my customers an app 
to support health & safety audits for a national UK retail chain. The app took me 
15 days to develop in total. As a result of being able to field a team of 10-20 staff 
with iPads running my app, my customer was able to carry out 350 half-day H 
audits for 3 years. However I was unable to roll-out this app to other customers as the 
ad hoc distribution method I was using was limited to 100 iPads per year and the App 
Store was not 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode
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 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 developer platform use Linux
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread Antti Ilola via use-livecode
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.
> 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 <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you want a developer platform use Linux
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
-- 
Lähetetty iPadistä
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
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 where an app was decompiled, malware added, and 
recompiled using the original author's name. That not only endangers the 
public, but also trashes the developer's reputation through no fault of 
their own.


Adding a verification token is a way to make that harder. Google has a 
different system in place, currently optional but highly encouraged, which 
does the same thing since they've found several instances of this kind of 
malware insertion.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September 8, 2019 9:12:55 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 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 developer platform use Linux


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread Richmond via use-livecode
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, 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 statements too long, 
so most folks don’t read them. I get several phone calls every day from folks 
from “who knows where?” trying to get my personal info so they can access my 
bank account.

It is sad, I agree, that it is more difficult to make an app that we want to 
send to our friends, because of Apple’s security requirements. But, suppose 
someone distributes an app to your friends with malware and claims to be you? 
When there is so much info about each of us available already, spoofing as 
anybody else isn’t so hard. Clicking on nefarious links is common and the 
innocent staff of public agencies have inadvertently let ransomware into their 
workplace, costing big for their employer.

I get frustrated too, about the ever changing Apple requirements that make it 
harder for me to share my apps. Mathew’s signing app is a wonderful 
contribution that will make it much easier.

So, my mindset now is that we live in a swamp full of alligators and that 
protective clothing, while hot and uncomfortable, keeps me and my friends 
safe(er).

Have fun,
Bill

William Prothero
http://es.earthednet.org


On Sep 8, 2019, at 7:10 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 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 developer platform use Linux

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread Richmond via use-livecode

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 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 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 developer platform use Linux

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread prothero--- via use-livecode
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 statements too long, 
so most folks don’t read them. I get several phone calls every day from folks 
from “who knows where?” trying to get my personal info so they can access my 
bank account.

It is sad, I agree, that it is more difficult to make an app that we want to 
send to our friends, because of Apple’s security requirements. But, suppose 
someone distributes an app to your friends with malware and claims to be you? 
When there is so much info about each of us available already, spoofing as 
anybody else isn’t so hard. Clicking on nefarious links is common and the 
innocent staff of public agencies have inadvertently let ransomware into their 
workplace, costing big for their employer.

I get frustrated too, about the ever changing Apple requirements that make it 
harder for me to share my apps. Mathew’s signing app is a wonderful 
contribution that will make it much easier.

So, my mindset now is that we live in a swamp full of alligators and that 
protective clothing, while hot and uncomfortable, keeps me and my friends 
safe(er).

Have fun,
Bill

William Prothero
http://es.earthednet.org

> On Sep 8, 2019, at 7:10 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 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 developer platform use Linux
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread Rick Harrison via use-livecode
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 developer platform use Linux

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-08 Thread Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
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 Internet 
has become both ubiquitous and hostile.The restrictions we face with or 
in-house apps apply to all apps, and in increasingly hostile environment we 
want those in place.How can the OS know your app is truly yours and not from 
someone else masquerading as you? Signing does that.Apple makes consumer 
electronics, and everything they make is designed to connect to the 
Internet.The connected world has become a dangerous place.Primarily a consumer 
platform, we should expect consumer-level protections.If you want a developer 
platform use Linux. ;)Richard GaskinFourth World Systems
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread Paul Dupuis via use-livecode
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 iOS, where all OSX 
apps go through the Apple store operation for a 30% cut. Eventually, you 
will not be able to distribute an OSX application yourself directly to a 
friend who runs OSX. It will go through Apple and, yes, it may be a 
"free" app, but the endlessly changing hurtles that are discussed 
frequency on this list for iOS will become the same for OSX and that 
overhead will kill off a certain number of developers who just do not 
have the time or patience or money to jump through those hoops. And 
because - those sort of small ad-hoc or in-house developers - will never 
contribute significantly to Apple's bottom line, Apple really doesn't 
care one bit about them.


My 2 cents from having been close to Apple since the Lisa was released.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread Pi Digital via use-livecode
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 run other 
non-notorized compiled apps within it. It’s only a fledgling idea so if anyone 
else can pip me to the post you’re more than welcome to. 

Sean Cole
Pi Digital Prod Ltd

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread scott--- via use-livecode
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 to anyone using LC 
for Mac development.  (He has some other free tools which are also excellent.)

--
Scott Morrow

Elementary Software
(Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
web   https://elementarysoftware.com/
email sc...@elementarysoftware.com
booth 1-800-615-0867
--









> On Sep 7, 2019, at 8:27 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 "stapled" to your 
> app, Gatekeeper won't object when the app is opened. If you choose not to 
> embed the token then users do need an internet connection so that Apple's 
> servers can verify the token. Matthias' Notarization Helper does both 
> notarization and stapling.
> 
> However, notarization only applies to Mac apps. There are no distribution 
> limits for those. It does not apply to iOS apps, which I believe hasn't 
> changed. You can still use ad hoc distribution for iOS apps as before, up to 
> 100 devices.
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> On September 7, 2019 6:55:45 AM JJS via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
>> 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 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 100 people(am i correct?) (thought there
>>> was an option for 1000??) then this tool will help you do these things
>>> and you can go on with coding as before.
>>> 
>>> I also put stuff on Google Play which is not intended for everybody,
>>> but i use a password combination, just like banks do with their apps.
>>> Their apps are also not for everyone, but only they who have an account.
>>> 
>>> You could do that too, so only people with access credentials can
>>> access the app.
>>> 
>>> Indeed you gave a few reasons why i choose not to develop for Apple,
>>> unless i can make enough money with it which compensates for it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jerry(Sphere)
>>> 
>>> Op 7-9-2019 om 13:18 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:
 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 my apps trust me such that they do not
 need my apps to be "approved" by Apple. What's more important to them
 is how quickly I can release new apps and new versions of existing apps.
 
 Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the
 minor inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its
 use, just once. With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not
 so simple, instead these are the options:
 
 1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my
 kind of apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.
 
 2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click
 technique as now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.
 
 In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for
 the setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to
 install and use apps from any source. It seems that this is not
 possible with Catalina.
 
 So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will
 have to go through the right-click authorisation process every time
 they open one of my apps.
 
 More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend
 the combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to
 now I've done all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the target
 platform is Windows or Android or Linux – I find it's simply faster,
 less error-prone and more pleasant with the Mac. However, from
 Catalina onwards even simple little utility apps, created for
 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread Brian Milby via use-livecode
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,
Brian
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
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 "stapled" to 
your app, Gatekeeper won't object when the app is opened. If you choose not 
to embed the token then users do need an internet connection so that 
Apple's servers can verify the token. Matthias' Notarization Helper does 
both notarization and stapling.


However, notarization only applies to Mac apps. There are no distribution 
limits for those. It does not apply to iOS apps, which I believe hasn't 
changed. You can still use ad hoc distribution for iOS apps as before, up 
to 100 devices.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September 7, 2019 6:55:45 AM JJS via use-livecode 
 wrote:



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 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 100 people(am i correct?) (thought there
was an option for 1000??) then this tool will help you do these things
and you can go on with coding as before.

I also put stuff on Google Play which is not intended for everybody,
but i use a password combination, just like banks do with their apps.
Their apps are also not for everyone, but only they who have an account.

You could do that too, so only people with access credentials can
access the app.

Indeed you gave a few reasons why i choose not to develop for Apple,
unless i can make enough money with it which compensates for it.


Jerry(Sphere)

Op 7-9-2019 om 13:18 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:

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 my apps trust me such that they do not
need my apps to be "approved" by Apple. What's more important to them
is how quickly I can release new apps and new versions of existing apps.

Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the
minor inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its
use, just once. With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not
so simple, instead these are the options:

1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my
kind of apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.

2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click
technique as now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.

In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for
the setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to
install and use apps from any source. It seems that this is not
possible with Catalina.

So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will
have to go through the right-click authorisation process every time
they open one of my apps.

More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend
the combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to
now I've done all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the target
platform is Windows or Android or Linux – I find it's simply faster,
less error-prone and more pleasant with the Mac. However, from
Catalina onwards even simple little utility apps, created for
short-term use, will be tedious when opening or you have to learn
about the complexity of code-signing and notarising and accept slower
development cycles due to the need for Apple's approval!

This is quite depressing, especially since I abandoned iOS
development due to Apple's distribution restrictions.

Back when the iPad 2 had just been released I developed for one of my
customers an app to support health & safety audits for a national UK
retail chain. The app took me 15 days to develop in total. As a
result of being able to field a team of 10-20 staff with iPads
running my app, my customer was able to carry out 350 half-day H
audits for 3 years. However I was unable to roll-out this app to
other customers as the ad hoc distribution method I was using was
limited to 100 iPads per year and the App Store was not appropriate
for this type of app.

As a result of the limitations Apple impose on tablet app
distribution, recently I developed a speech-aid app just for small
Android tablets and larger phones. I have not made an iOS app. This
app is 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread Colin Holgate via use-livecode
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 applications from 
anywhere, it now should show a message asking for permission to open the 
specific application that you just attempted to open.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread Rick Harrison via use-livecode
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 device platforms, it is pushing us all to only write
for the web.  At least that always works, although it not as
fast as we would like it to be.

Send your frustrations to Apple.  We can only hope they
will listen and change.  They did a survey of their
developers a couple of months ago, and they allowed
us to add comments.  I found myself writing quite the
rant to them about everything they need to change!

We share your pain. Please know you are in good 
company.

Cheers,

Rick

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread JJS via use-livecode

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 via use-livecode:

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 100 people(am i correct?) (thought 
there was an option for 1000??) then this tool will help you do these 
things and you can go on with coding as before.


I also put stuff on Google Play which is not intended for everybody, 
but i use a password combination, just like banks do with their apps. 
Their apps are also not for everyone, but only they who have an account.


You could do that too, so only people with access credentials can 
access the app.


Indeed you gave a few reasons why i choose not to develop for Apple, 
unless i can make enough money with it which compensates for it.



Jerry(Sphere)

Op 7-9-2019 om 13:18 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:
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 my apps trust me such that they do not 
need my apps to be "approved" by Apple. What's more important to 
them is how quickly I can release new apps and new versions of 
existing apps.


Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the 
minor inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its 
use, just once. With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's 
not so simple, instead these are the options:


1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for 
my kind of apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.


2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click 
technique as now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.


In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option 
for the setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to 
install and use apps from any source. It seems that this is not 
possible with Catalina.


So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will 
have to go through the right-click authorisation process every time 
they open one of my apps.


More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend 
the combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to 
now I've done all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the 
target platform is Windows or Android or Linux – I find it's simply 
faster, less error-prone and more pleasant with the Mac. However, 
from Catalina onwards even simple little utility apps, created for 
short-term use, will be tedious when opening or you have to learn 
about the complexity of code-signing and notarising and accept 
slower development cycles due to the need for Apple's approval!


This is quite depressing, especially since I abandoned iOS 
development due to Apple's distribution restrictions.


Back when the iPad 2 had just been released I developed for one of 
my customers an app to support health & safety audits for a national 
UK retail chain. The app took me 15 days to develop in total. As a 
result of being able to field a team of 10-20 staff with iPads 
running my app, my customer was able to carry out 350 half-day H 
audits for 3 years. However I was unable to roll-out this app to 
other customers as the ad hoc distribution method I was using was 
limited to 100 iPads per year and the App Store was not appropriate 
for this type of app.


As a result of the limitations Apple impose on tablet app 
distribution, recently I developed a speech-aid app just for small 
Android tablets and larger phones. I have not made an iOS app. This 
app is low volume (in terms of number of users) and requires 
significant personalising in order to be effective for its users 
(typically they are stroke victims). I chose to deliver the app on 
Android because of the facility to use developer mode and because of 
price – Android 7in tablet plus minimal add-ons: £80, Apple iPad 
plus add-ons: £320. Some of my users of this app already have an 
iPad but they are having to buy a cheap Android tablet. Like the Mac 
and Catalina, the iPad and iOS is driving away potential app 
developers due to Apple's rigid control of the delivery mechanisms.


Maybe I'm wrong, Catalina will be OK – if I am wrong, please correct 
me!


Regards

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please 

Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread 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 via use-livecode:

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 100 people(am i correct?) (thought there 
was an option for 1000??) then this tool will help you do these things 
and you can go on with coding as before.


I also put stuff on Google Play which is not intended for everybody, 
but i use a password combination, just like banks do with their apps. 
Their apps are also not for everyone, but only they who have an account.


You could do that too, so only people with access credentials can 
access the app.


Indeed you gave a few reasons why i choose not to develop for Apple, 
unless i can make enough money with it which compensates for it.



Jerry(Sphere)

Op 7-9-2019 om 13:18 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:
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 my apps trust me such that they do not 
need my apps to be "approved" by Apple. What's more important to them 
is how quickly I can release new apps and new versions of existing apps.


Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the 
minor inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its 
use, just once. With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not 
so simple, instead these are the options:


1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my 
kind of apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.


2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click 
technique as now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.


In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for 
the setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to 
install and use apps from any source. It seems that this is not 
possible with Catalina.


So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will 
have to go through the right-click authorisation process every time 
they open one of my apps.


More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend 
the combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to 
now I've done all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the target 
platform is Windows or Android or Linux – I find it's simply faster, 
less error-prone and more pleasant with the Mac. However, from 
Catalina onwards even simple little utility apps, created for 
short-term use, will be tedious when opening or you have to learn 
about the complexity of code-signing and notarising and accept slower 
development cycles due to the need for Apple's approval!


This is quite depressing, especially since I abandoned iOS 
development due to Apple's distribution restrictions.


Back when the iPad 2 had just been released I developed for one of my 
customers an app to support health & safety audits for a national UK 
retail chain. The app took me 15 days to develop in total. As a 
result of being able to field a team of 10-20 staff with iPads 
running my app, my customer was able to carry out 350 half-day H 
audits for 3 years. However I was unable to roll-out this app to 
other customers as the ad hoc distribution method I was using was 
limited to 100 iPads per year and the App Store was not appropriate 
for this type of app.


As a result of the limitations Apple impose on tablet app 
distribution, recently I developed a speech-aid app just for small 
Android tablets and larger phones. I have not made an iOS app. This 
app is low volume (in terms of number of users) and requires 
significant personalising in order to be effective for its users 
(typically they are stroke victims). I chose to deliver the app on 
Android because of the facility to use developer mode and because of 
price – Android 7in tablet plus minimal add-ons: £80, Apple iPad plus 
add-ons: £320. Some of my users of this app already have an iPad but 
they are having to buy a cheap Android tablet. Like the Mac and 
Catalina, the iPad and iOS is driving away potential app developers 
due to Apple's rigid control of the delivery mechanisms.


Maybe I'm wrong, Catalina will be OK – if I am wrong, please correct me!

Regards

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:


Re: OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread JJS via use-livecode

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 100 people(am i correct?) (thought there was an 
option for 1000??) then this tool will help you do these things and you 
can go on with coding as before.


I also put stuff on Google Play which is not intended for everybody, but 
i use a password combination, just like banks do with their apps. Their 
apps are also not for everyone, but only they who have an account.


You could do that too, so only people with access credentials can access 
the app.


Indeed you gave a few reasons why i choose not to develop for Apple, 
unless i can make enough money with it which compensates for it.



Jerry(Sphere)

Op 7-9-2019 om 13:18 schreef Peter Reid via use-livecode:

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 my apps trust me such that they do not need my apps to be 
"approved" by Apple. What's more important to them is how quickly I can release 
new apps and new versions of existing apps.

Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the minor 
inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its use, just once. 
With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not so simple, instead these 
are the options:

1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my kind of 
apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.

2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click technique as 
now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.

In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for the 
setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to install and use apps 
from any source. It seems that this is not possible with Catalina.

So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will have to go 
through the right-click authorisation process every time they open one of my 
apps.

More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend the 
combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to now I've done 
all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the target platform is Windows or 
Android or Linux – I find it's simply faster, less error-prone and more 
pleasant with the Mac. However, from Catalina onwards even simple little 
utility apps, created for short-term use, will be tedious when opening or you 
have to learn about the complexity of code-signing and notarising and accept 
slower development cycles due to the need for Apple's approval!

This is quite depressing, especially since I abandoned iOS development due to 
Apple's distribution restrictions.

Back when the iPad 2 had just been released I developed for one of my customers an app 
to support health & safety audits for a national UK retail chain. The app took me 
15 days to develop in total. As a result of being able to field a team of 10-20 staff 
with iPads running my app, my customer was able to carry out 350 half-day H 
audits for 3 years. However I was unable to roll-out this app to other customers as the 
ad hoc distribution method I was using was limited to 100 iPads per year and the App 
Store was not appropriate for this type of app.

As a result of the limitations Apple impose on tablet app distribution, 
recently I developed a speech-aid app just for small Android tablets and larger 
phones. I have not made an iOS app. This app is low volume (in terms of number 
of users) and requires significant personalising in order to be effective for 
its users (typically they are stroke victims). I chose to deliver the app on 
Android because of the facility to use developer mode and because of price – 
Android 7in tablet plus minimal add-ons: £80, Apple iPad plus add-ons: £320. 
Some of my users of this app already have an iPad but they are having to buy a 
cheap Android tablet. Like the Mac and Catalina, the iPad and iOS is driving 
away potential app developers due to Apple's rigid control of the delivery 
mechanisms.

Maybe I'm wrong, Catalina will be OK – if I am wrong, please correct me!

Regards

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 

OT: Catalina - the end of ad hoc & in-house development?

2019-09-07 Thread Peter Reid via use-livecode
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 my apps trust me 
such that they do not need my apps to be "approved" by Apple. What's more 
important to them is how quickly I can release new apps and new versions of 
existing apps.

Up to and including macOS Mojave my users can run my apps with the minor 
inconvenience of having to right-click an app and approve its use, just once. 
With macOS Catalina, if I understand things, it's not so simple, instead these 
are the options:

1. Code-sign and notarise my apps – I'm not interested in this for my kind of 
apps which are essentially in-house/at home developments.

2. Using an active Internet connection, go through the right-click technique as 
now not just once, but EVERY time the app is opened.

In the past the 'Security & Privacy' General tab had a 3rd option for the 
setting 'Allow apps downloaded from:' which allowed you to install and use apps 
from any source. It seems that this is not possible with Catalina.

So with Catalina my users will need an Internet connection and will have to go 
through the right-click authorisation process every time they open one of my 
apps.

More seriously, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recommend the 
combination of the Mac plus LiveCode for app development. Up to now I've done 
all my app development on Mac+LC, even where the target platform is Windows or 
Android or Linux – I find it's simply faster, less error-prone and more 
pleasant with the Mac. However, from Catalina onwards even simple little 
utility apps, created for short-term use, will be tedious when opening or you 
have to learn about the complexity of code-signing and notarising and accept 
slower development cycles due to the need for Apple's approval!

This is quite depressing, especially since I abandoned iOS development due to 
Apple's distribution restrictions.

Back when the iPad 2 had just been released I developed for one of my customers 
an app to support health & safety audits for a national UK retail chain. The 
app took me 15 days to develop in total. As a result of being able to field a 
team of 10-20 staff with iPads running my app, my customer was able to carry 
out 350 half-day H audits for 3 years. However I was unable to roll-out this 
app to other customers as the ad hoc distribution method I was using was 
limited to 100 iPads per year and the App Store was not appropriate for this 
type of app.

As a result of the limitations Apple impose on tablet app distribution, 
recently I developed a speech-aid app just for small Android tablets and larger 
phones. I have not made an iOS app. This app is low volume (in terms of number 
of users) and requires significant personalising in order to be effective for 
its users (typically they are stroke victims). I chose to deliver the app on 
Android because of the facility to use developer mode and because of price – 
Android 7in tablet plus minimal add-ons: £80, Apple iPad plus add-ons: £320. 
Some of my users of this app already have an iPad but they are having to buy a 
cheap Android tablet. Like the Mac and Catalina, the iPad and iOS is driving 
away potential app developers due to Apple's rigid control of the delivery 
mechanisms.

Maybe I'm wrong, Catalina will be OK – if I am wrong, please correct me!

Regards

Peter
--
Peter Reid
Loughborough, UK


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode