How far OSX has come since the days of the “cancel or allow” parody advert.
You can also try macinabox if you have unraid:
https://hub.docker.com/r/spaceinvaderone/macinabox
It’s probably the easiest way of setting up a Mac VM if you have unraid. I know there are similar options for qemu and kvm based hypervisors. If you have an amd gpu you should be able to pass it through.
The only way atm is installing homebrew and using a gnu tool chain if I understand the license of the official sdks correctly?
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/app-code-signing-pr...
> On devices with macOS 10.15, all apps distributed outside the App Store must be signed by the developer using an Apple-issued Developer ID certificate (combined with a private key) and notarized by Apple to run under the default Gatekeeper settings.
Re: Developer ID Certificates: https://developer.apple.com/help/account/certificates/create...
I suspect the friction that users are facing are due to dodging the above requirements.
What ultimately helped after weeks of trying and tinkering was installing VMware Workstation, patching it to enable macOS support, create a VM with the specific hardware configuration of an older MacBook, install an old version of macOS and do the 2FA from in there.
Think of it this way: if you required an apple device in order to make an Apple ID, then literally every single podcaster on Apple podcasts (which is still the dominant app for podcasts) must own an Apple device.
You can build Android apps on an Apple device, no problem. You can build Linux apps on an Apple device, no problem. etc... But the reverse isn't true. Its just more of Apple financially gate keeping their ecosystem so they make more money in as many channels as they possibly can.
Testing on real hardware is the ONLY time I would say that owning, or at least having access to the hardware has real tangible benefits, and I would argue that that you NEED or SHOULD do this.. But to block compiling to that ecosystem? Sorry but I fundamentally disagree.
Blocking compiling, means requiring xcode, which requires a mac, which requires you to give more money to Apple, and is no different IMHO than giving Apple $100 a year, because now you're giving them a lot more of that every X years (where x is how many years that laptop gets updates)
What is stopping you from writing an open source alternative to Xcode that runs on Linux?
It'll be a skill they can use for any unsigned app and you can have cute screenshots. The Terminal command, on the other hand, is a huge barrier to entry.
In case you're wondering like me, this is the advert in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CwoluNRSSc&t=0
The application cannot be opened for an unexpected reason, error=Error Domain=RBSRequestErrorDomain Code=5 "Launch failed." UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Launch failed., NSUnderlyingError=0xae1038720 {Error Domain=NSPOSIXErrorDomain Code=163 "Unknown error: 163" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Launchd job spawn failed}}}
This error exists because Apple has effectively made app notarization mandatory, otherwise, users see this warning. In theory, notarization is straightforward: upload your DMG via their API, and within minutes you get a notarized/stamped app back.
…until you hit the infamous "Team is not yet configured for notarization" error.
Once that happens, you can be completely blocked from notarizing your app for months. Apple has confirmed via email that this is a bug on their end. It affects many developers, has been known for years, and Apple still hasn't fixed it. It completely elimiates any chances of you being able to notarize your app, thus, getting rid of this error/warning.
Have a loot at how many people are suffering from this for years with no resolution yet: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/118465
Other than developing my own (without using any other OS...) which is a ... significant ... task, there's not much other option. YMMV.
As a Linux lifer I agree that the hard diamond surface of the Mac desktop has a solid feeling to it. The Linux way is harder and also more brittle. Windows and Linux are both better than MacOS even as a desktop as long as you do not look at the in the wrong way. The thing is I have only minor problems doing that on either Linux or Windows, but the walled garden of the Mac, Android and iOS is a joke.
MacOS is designed to be a somewhat stable desktop, that is good. It is not a better Unix, it is a political stance that means hacking will forever die.
Linux developers seem to almost-universally believe that if the user doesn’t like it or it doesn’t make sense then the user will fix it themselves either via configuration files or patching the source code. That model works fine for users with a lot of knowledge and time on their hands. In other words, it’s an operating system for hobbyists.
MacOS, for all its faults, is still pretty easy to use (though not even close to the ease of use of Classic Mac OS 9 and earlier).
Linux users, on the other hand, seem to spend more time customizing their operating system and sharing screenshots of it than actually getting work done.
Not being able to install things sucks, but when you do you will easily destroy your nice shiny brittle desktop. The pebkac is strong here, but making the users enemies is a bad solution, this is why Google, Apple and MS are all bad desktops.
As I said I have been a Linux user my whole life. I know it works as a desktop but it works best with either people who do not care about instaling stuff, or thise who care enough to get it working.
I’ve been using Linux since it came on a root and boot floppy. I remain completely unimpressed with its desktop design, ease of use, and (especially) accessibility. It’s a fantastic server OS.
Not a feature they care about. Same for deleting apps not released yet. Haven't looked in a while but for over a decade it has been impossible to delete ios apps submitted and not released. So either you have to release the app, make it "apple approved" and then immediately kill it or have an app always present (I think you can hide it but I've not checked that in quite a while.
However yes, security is much more than an UAC dialog.
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2025/05/19/enhanc...
The thing that really irks me is I've got a paid developer account with Apple, I've already done the xcode dance, notarized binaries and all that nonsense, shouldn't this have activated some super special bit on my Apple account that says
“this one needs to do random stuff now and again and after saying, `Hey just checking in, doing this will do X to your computer probably, and maybe set it on fire, but if you say "go for it, I promise I know what I'm doing', I'm gonna trust you champ`, finger guns“
(not sure why in my head the personification of Apple would do "finger guns", but here we are I guess :shrug:)
Hell at this point I'll take a checkbox in my settings that says, ”Some people are into extreme sports, I love to install random binaries, just get out of my way“
Or something like that
(Joke is on you. You thought you'd be given access to app data to back it up? That's against the security model.)
People also forget that it makes it safe for people who aren't grandmas. The reason why you think it's just grandmas is because, for you to get a virus or your computer hacked now, it requires so many user gaffes for something like that to happen. In addition, it almost always involves typing in or telling someone your password when you shouldn’t. In the early 2000s, I still remember there was some ad affiliate for the cyanide and happiness webcomic website that, if you let it's ad load, instantly infected your computer with adware just from visiting the site. That’s unheard of now because of increasingly protective/restrictive policies set by technology companies. It’s one of those situations where if a system is working correctly, you won’t even know it’s working at all.
Maybe 1 out of 1,000 users will know the magic ritual required to run what they want on their machine, and for every one of those, 10,000 are gaslit into thinking you were trying to harm them by macOS' scary warnings and refusal to do what they want.
Apple will make users know that there are loads of hackers trying to trick them. The threat is extremely real.
> 10,000 are gaslit into thinking you were trying to harm them
Gaslit? Again, many are absolutely trying to harm users. Pretending this is some fake threat is perverse.
As much as people like to complain about downloaded software having restrictions, or encouraging the developer to be verified by Apple, we had already entered a world where users were told to never, ever run any software not by one of the bigs. I mean, I've told relatives that, for good reason after they installed malware and other nonsense repeatedly. It sucks having to get an Apple account and sign your executable, but for any normal user outside of the foolish, that was the only way they were ever going to run your app.
And honestly, for the case given this should be a web app. People shouldn't be trusting some random executable by some random group.
Should it be $100 per year? No, that is ridiculous and usurious.
It isn't 2001 anymore, systems are designed to be secure, and the outdated security model of trusting gatekeepers to keep you safe has been shown to be a farce, as billions of dollars are siphoned each year from innocent users who are just listening to good-intentioned people like yourself and trusting the App Store or Play Store. But they still get scammed anyway. The gatekeepers do not give a shit and approve of malware everyday. Hell, if you structure your scam right, you'll make those gatekeepers very rich until they reluctantly remove you. That or they leave the app because it's a "game" or "service".
How many users are being scammed by "legitimate" apps that charge subscription fees for features already on their devices, or god forbid, apps/games that are just illegal and unregulated casinos? Absolutely tons. I regularly find my older relatives being scammed by the App Store with a dozen different recurring subscriptions they didn't know they signed up for and certainly don't use. And those are the apps/services deemed "legitimate" by gatekeepers, because they're profitable even if they're taking advantage of users.
Sorry, I don't trust gatekeepers who run unregulated casinos and are the largest distributors of malware in the world to keep anyone safe. Design systems to be secure and you don't have to trust corrupt gatekeepers' blessings.
All of these mechanisms can be disabled and overridden. You are annoyed that users are protected from people like you, and, you know, too bad? Suck it up.
The rest of your ridiculous spiel, where you so effortlessly transitioned to laughable whataboutism, is just nonsensical noise, so no point addressing that.
But to repeat, we went through a period where users would install *NOTHING* from small developers, weary and jaded that their trust had been abused for years. The average computer had Chrome and Office on it. Developers who rail (especially so hysterically) against mechanisms that actually made users more likely to trust software do so from a position of astonishing levels of self-sabotaging ignorance.
Only seeing the worst potential explanations of other parties whom make different trade-offs than you is uncharitable. It can also look like what I would call counterfactual hypocrisy, by which I mean, if you were in those shoes, would you actually behave differently?
E.g.: If you were in Apple’s shoes (think about what this entails), what actions would be compatible with a business’s MO from that point of view? From various ethical points of view?
If you say you would’ve behaved differently, is it even possible that you would’ve ended up in their shoes in the first place?
A common response here is early mistakes compound. Or actors have poor character which leads to an inevitable fall. That’s the stuff of Greek tragedies. I’m more of a system thinker. If you look at the patterns, it is pretty easy to see that the leverage points are human systems rather than human nature itself.
If you don’t like the environmental conditions that led to the decision space, then think about changing the system rather than blaming parts of it.
Casting blame on individual parts of the system arguably plays into maintaining the status quo. The most effective changemakers understand how things work and how they got that way without alluding to convenient oversimplifications. Rant now concluded.
Like windows complainers, most of us do not care.
It makes a bit more sense on accounts that have a password set, as it requires you to confirm identity when introducing significant changes to the system (and this is something that Apple also does).
Gatekeeper is a different thing, it basically makes sure that the software you're trying to run has been pre-scanned for malware by a trusted party, similar to Windows's "smart screen" and Defender or APt's GPG keyring integration. It's a mechanism that is completely invisible to 99+% of users. If you see a Gatekeeper pop-up and the app in question is not mlaware, the developer is doing something very wrong.
Refusing to pay $100 for notarization is not "doing something very wrong".