Completely agree, especially because a signing key is $100 a year. Feels like the church selling indulgences.

That said, it's not quite as bad as your link. The secret is to right click or control click on the app, and choose Open. The warning dialog will have an Open button to bypass the Security pref pane. (Though maybe that doesn't work for you since you're making a CLI tool?)

I disagree, I don't really want the signing key to be $0.99 and someone just making 100+ developer accounts that can't be tracked with some leaked list of SSNs or similar. That would negate the whole point of the signing key for the end user almost entirely.

What you're seeking is proper identity verification, not necessarily a tariff or upfront cost to even do business.

Is proper identify verification something that Apple can do at a marginal cost significantly lower than $100?

I agree that the $100 fee in no way guarantees proper identity verification has been done. I also see plenty of other unnecessary barriers the fee creates, I just don't know what an obvious alternative would be.

$100 per year for distributing opensource app is way too much. $100 may be low in your country but its half salary for month in our country.

The $100 fee is no barrier at all to professional criminals. Whereas it's a huge barrier for open source developers.

Maybe a fee waiver for oss with certain licenses and dev accounts for .edu addresses with a couple other ID requirements would be a good start.

I'm not sure why, but I don't see many of these prompts myself. You can disable Gatekeeper.

  sudo spctl --master-disable

That should get rid of the prompts.

I’d rather not. After the initial setup I don’t see that many annoying prompts either, I’d rather not disable security measures when they’re really not that painful.

I don't have it disabled myself. But if it's a burden, the option is there.

It used to be option+click, then "Open". They removed that approach?

That still works.

you need to open twice, first time will never show it.

Sometimes, rather than giving me a "friendly" warning that the app is unsigned, I get and exception with a stack trace, with:

    Termination Reason:    Namespace CODESIGNING, Code 0x1

I can (re)sign the application with:

    codesign --force --deep --sign - /path/to/The.app

which often resolves the issue.

but what's the difference between the error that causes the friendly warning, and the error that cases the stack trace/exception? Is this the difference between a lack of code signature and a failed check?

It’s a failed code sign of some sort. E.g. and typically, the developer used an installer cert for an app.

The point isn't to imply you're a dolt, but to slowly convince you to use the App store for the percentage they make.

> they make it SO onerous for Desktop users to explicitly allow unsigned apps

Not really onerous. However, you do have to use a terminal command to turn off Gatekeeper.

https://www.imore.com/how-open-apps-anywhere-macos-catalina-...

He means from the perspective of an app developer - it is hard to educate users when Apple's deliberate UI scares the user. Asking some some of them to disable Gatekeeper can also backfire with ignorant users, because it is a security measure against malware spread and execution (once malware is identified).

From the app developer's perspective, you can hardly spin a terminal command as any more onerous than a registry edit on Windows.

Windows 10 SmartScreen is just as deliberate and just as scary.

You don't need to pay anything or sign up for any app store to be approved by SmartScreen, and even if you are not approved there is a "Run anyway" button right there in the dialog.

You absolutely have to pay for an extended validation code signing certificate for Windows 10 Smartscreen to allow your installer to run.

That's not true. Binaries can acquire a positive reputation by being commonly downloaded. However paying for an EV certificate (or getting windows logo certification) is the only way to bypass the warning with no reputation.

What new developer already has a reputation score?

You absolutely have to pay for an extended validation code signing certificate, or your installer will be blocked by default.

Third parties charge more for that code signing certificate than Apple does for a developer account.

No new developer already has a reputation score. Why should they? Is there something unfair about warning users that uncommonly downloaded software is more likely to contain malware?

If anything, the problem is that even software with an EV certificate should be subject to the warning (like how SmartScreen worked in the past).

The entire point of Gatekeeper and SmartScreen is to only warn users about unsigned software that could install a trojan horse.

If you check to see if the developer's signing certificate has been revoked before running their software, you can be reasonably sure that doing so is safe.

Apple's developer program is cheaper than the extended validation code signing certificate you need to develop and sign software use on Windows without running into a block from SmartScreen.

No, that might be the point of Gatekeeper but the point of SmartScreen is to warn you when you are running uncommonly downloaded software. You might be right that it is cheaper to buy a guaranteed exception for Gatekeeper than it is to buy a guaranteed exception for SmartScreen though, but I don't think that is relevant when you don't really need an exception for SmartScreen at all.

No, stopping uncommonly downloaded software from running is Microsoft's way to force new developers to use their app store, since software distributed from there is exempt from that limitation.

Apple's developer program is not only cheaper, it allows for functional code signing that completely sidesteps their app store.

SmartScreen existed prior to Microsoft's app store though.

I am not sure what you mean regarding your point about sidestepping Apple's app store. Code signing can obviously be done on either platform without any app stores.

No, SmartScreen blocks software that doesn't have a high enough "reputation score" even if it is signed. The only way around that particular restriction is to distribute your app through Microsoft's app store.

Gatekeeper has no such caveat.

"Everyday" users shouldn't have to edit the registry in order to install an app, either. Being no worse than Windows doesn't make it good.

Turning off gatekeeper disables the protections for all apps, not a specific app of the user's choosing. That is not what the other poster was asking for