Hacker News Reader

Comment by hamandcheese | Hacker News Reader

Adding signing as a requirement can easily make what was once a very simple distribution mechanism into something much more complex - now you need manage signing certificates and keys to be able to build your thing.

The cost is far far higher than the price.

View on HN

But it doesn't in practice.

I develop and distribute few free apps for macOS, and building / notarising is never a problem.

You seem to be comparing a single dev sending apps to the world vs a corporate team pushing to employees (if I get parent's case right).

In most cases, just involving account management makes the corporate case 10x more of a PITA. Doing things in a corporate environment is a different game altogether.

In contrast to this point, as long as I use Xcode and do the same thing I've always done allowing it to manage provisioning and everything else, I don't have a problem. However, I want to use CI/CD. Have you seen what kind of access you have to give fastlane? It's pretty wild. And even after giving it the keys to the kingdom, it still didn't work. Integrating apple code signing with CI/CD is really hard, full of very strange error messages and incantations to make it "work".

I don't know about fastlane, since my CI/CD is just a shell script, and signing and notarising is as hard as (checking the script) running `codesign ...` followed by `notarytool submit ... --wait`

Yes, you need to put keys on the build server for the "Developer ID Application" (which is what you need to distribute apps outside of AppStore) signature to work.

You do not need to give any special access to anything else beyond that.

Anyway, it is indeed more difficult than cross-build for Darwin from linux and call it a day.

Code signing is absolutely disgusting practically and philosophically. It has very reasonable and good intent behind it, but the practical implementations cause great suffering and sadness both for developers (cert management, cost, tools) and end-users (freedom of computing).

It is ugly: https://hearsum.ca/posts/history-of-code-signing-at-mozilla/

Do you distribute OSS software which requires notarizing? If so, have you found a way to let the community build the software without a paid developer account? I would be very interested in a solution which allows OSS development, relying on protected APIs without requiring that anyone who builds the app to have a paid developer account.

I take it you feel the trade off for dev team inconvenience, vs end user security, is not worth it?

They're talking about internal software for internal users. It can be made insanely secure, but that surely isn't the primary concern in this case.

I'm just observing that the cost is a lot higher than $99/year.

I do this professionally, I maintain macOS CI workers for my employer. Apple doesn't make it easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com