Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac app”

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by OJFord on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @04:50AM (#25760064)

> This appears to be a very typical response from an Apple user who doesn't understand the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions, bugs and limitations.

Eh? Isn't that a description of the original complaint, and the 'a response' submitted here is from WireGuard creator/lead Jason/zx2c4 explaining much as you do the restrictions, bugs, and limitations he's tried to work around?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by alias_neo on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @04:58AM (#25760129)

Apologies, I indeed meant the original post to which Jason was responding.

By "response" I meant the response of the user to the WireGuard Mac app.

Again apologies, I somehow jumped a few mental hoops of my own when commenting.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by mannykannot on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @09:23AM (#25762254)

Ah, but the original post, which triggered the uninformed ranting against WireGuard, was not itself from someone who was ignorant of the lengths and hoops developers have to jump through to work around Apple's many, many restrictions. Furthermore, its author outlined how to work around the problems with the app by using Macports instead.

What about the problems? Well, it's free. They owe me nothing. But, you should still be aware what you are getting into when you choose to [use the app]. That's why I wrote this post: to serve as a warning to others. Let my frustration save you the same in the future.

When it comes to WireGuard, just stick with the tried and true low-level Unix approach, even on your Macs. Your sanity will thank you.

I just hope the iOS version never flips out on me.

Anyone who has a problem with that state of affairs has a beef with Apple, and should not be posting their displeasure to the WireGuard mailing list.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by alias_neo on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @03:37PM (#25767642)

Agreed, the beef needs to be with Apple, developers targeting the platform are trying their best, and to say that they shouldn't support the platform if they can't deliver a quality product is disingenuous; you can have a quality product and Apple's policies and restrictions can absolutely destroy your UX; I've experienced this first hand.

It's not that Apple doesn't budge, if people shout loud enough; their Push/APNS change deadline was pushed back twice, it can happen again if enough people push enough for them to start treating their 3rd party developers like first class citizens.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by OJFord on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @06:01AM (#25760538)

Ah no worries, just misunderstood since between you and the submitter both sides got called a 'response'. Bloody English language, eh!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by notRobot on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @04:56AM (#25760101)

Yeah, the parent to your comment is discussing Rachel's post, not Jason's response.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Response to “WireGuard: great protocol, but skip the Mac ... by boudin on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @04:55AM (#25760092)

I think he meant the author of the original blog post that zx2c4 is responding to.

[ Parent | on HN ]