[PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW !?

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Wed May 22 00:58:19 CEST 2013

I wouldn't stop anyone from putting Pd into the Apple App Store, but I'm not
going to contribute to the effort.  It is indeed this ridiculous path that
Apple is taking with Mac OS X that has made me abandon Mac OS X.  I now use
Linux Mint 95% of the time.


On 05/17/2013 08:11 PM, Rich E wrote:
> I think putting a 'validated' pd in the app store is a great idea, for both
> pd-vanilla and pd-extended.  Just alot of work.
> I believe, but am not certain, that dlopen will continue to work as long as
> you play the 'app sandbox' game: if a user wants to load binaries from a
> different location in a sandboxed app, they need to give permission.  Here
> are the juicy details:
> http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Security/Conceptual/AppSandboxDesignGuide/AppSandboxInDepth/AppSandboxInDepth.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011183-CH3-SW5
> of importance in there is 'Securty-Scoped Bookmarks'.
> Note this isn't just Mac, you have to jump through the same hoops for
> WinRT, which hasn't really caught on yet, but its a sign that the trend
> nowadays is for a rediculously high level of securty, by default.
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu>
>>> To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: "pd-dev at iem.at" <pd-dev at iem.at>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:12 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW !?
>>> T hat  sounds sensible... sounds like I can probably do nothing for now
>> (but
>>> I'm worried they're going to progressively lock things down harder in
>>> the
>>> future... this isn't going in a good direction!)
>> Well, if they decide to remove the easy workaround that would be a big
>> enough change that we'll likely hear news from FSF and others.
>> -Jonathan
>>> M
>>>>  Again, that adds credibility to a system that adds little more than a
>> pain
>>> for
>>>>  users, and it distracts everyone other than bureaucrats.  Most users
>> just
>>> want to
>>>>  download and run your software.
>>>>  If a school sysadmin wants to misunderstand security and force
>> instructors
>>> to
>>>>  go through the hoops, then the school or, at worst, the instructor
>> should
>>> pay you
>>>>  to jump through the hoops and get a signing key.  The end user
>>> shouldn't even be
>>>>  aware of any of this, other than maybe seeing a link to the _trivial_
>>> workaround
>>>>  katja mentioned next to the version you currently have available.
>>>>  -Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-dev mailing list
>> Pd-dev at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list