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 > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> 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: > <http://lessons.livecode.com/m/4071/l/1122100-codesigning-and-notarizing-your-lc-standalone-for-distribution-outside-the-mac-appstore> > > > Regards, > Matthias > > Matthias Rebbe > > free tools for Livecoders: > InstaMaker <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/> > WinSignMaker Mac <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/> >> Am 07.09.2019 um 13:18 schrieb Peter Reid via use-livecode >> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <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&S 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 <mailto: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
