Plus signing up and paying for a developer ID. While it’s easy to minimize all of this, it’s still red tape and it’s extra work one has to do.
It's a little bit of extra work, which is in your build scripts anyway. And it protects against some attacks.
To me it just sounds like bitching against Apple.. some old, same old
but it doesn't cost a cent
The article is not even about distributing free applications. It's about paid applications.
There are thousands of OSS apps available on the Mac. None of them are signed. This includes many GUI apps like iTerm.
Most people who use OSS apps are already going to have HomeBrew regardless.
I simply fail to understand why people are so privileged to think $100 is no-go. Its not one time fee. Its yearly fee. and $100 is probably half of 1 month salary in many Asian countries.
> "Distributing an OSS app requires neither a domain name nor an SSL certificate"
One can just release app on homebrew or even github release and guess what they don't need domain name or certs. Yes github/homebrew paid that cost but OSS dev doesn't have to pay that much cost to release the opensource app.
Signing your app and distributing it outside of the Mac app store does not require a paid developer ID.
What’s the point of Gatekeeper if getting a new certificate is free? Once your malware is blacklisted you could just use the next one at no cost.
Note that I will concede that it is extremely stupid and greedy of Apple to require a paid account for notarizing apps, particularly free apps, because it is in their best interest if more applications would be notarized, and they are not particularly hurt for cash either. It's inexplicable TBO. But that doesn't mean you cannot install signed but non-notarized apps without a paid developer account.