News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be si... by mike_hearn on Sunday October 29, 2023 @06:30AM (#38057261)
Windows has already made that journey years ago. The MSIX system works the way you suggest:

• Admin privs aren't needed

• Packages declare what integration points they need in an XML file

It's similar to the way macOS, iOS and Android work. You can also (starting soon in Win11) declare that the app will be sandboxed.

However, developers have to actually use this system and most don't know it exists or how to use it.

The ImageMagick developers can fix their problem by purchasing a cheap OV code signing certificate and then using Conveyor [1], which is a product my company makes. It can make these MSIX files along with all the new formats it requires for things like icons, and it can do so from Linux or macOS or whatever the developers prefer to use. So you can do releases locally without needing CI/CD or cloud signing.

Now, they'd like to have releases be done by GitHub Actions instead of using local hardware, and that would require a cloud signing service as they say. Conveyor can use those too. But that's not a technical requirement anymore, because it doesn't use any of the native toolchains so you don't need to release Windows binaries from Windows (or Mac from Mac). Conveyor can create all the files for installing and updates, and then upload them to a GitHub Release or ordinary web server, and it's free for open source projects. Given that they're initiating the release process from a laptop anyway, they can do it all locally.

Conveyor can also self-sign but that's more just to enable the tracking of permissions and things for all software. Self signed binaries still trigger warnings obviously.

[1] https://conveyor.hydraulic.dev/

Re:The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be si... by maccard on Sunday October 29, 2023 @07:30AM (#38057535)
> The ImageMagick developers can fix their problem by purchasing a cheap OV code signing certificate and then using Conveyor

By "cheap" you mean $500/year[0]? Then for anyone who isn't open source it's another $45/month on top for Conveyor. That's hardly "accessible".

That said, Conveyor looks awesome. We (thankfully) distribute our application via Steam/EGS/etc but when we were looking at bundling installers before that it was a nightmare and we probably would have just paid for Conveyor.

[0] https://order.digicert.com/step1/code_signing

Re:The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be si... by mike_hearn on Sunday October 29, 2023 @09:30AM (#38058445)
Well, firstly, buying certs is optional. You can distribute via the Microsoft Store and they'll sign for you. That's a $19 one time fee, no subscription. It's by far the cheapest way to distribute signed software on Windows. Conveyor can prepare everything and do the upload for you.

So this stuff only applies if you don't want to go via the store.

Now you picked DigiCert and their cloud HSM solution. They're unfortunately quite expensive. SSL.com is a lot cheaper:

https://www.ssl.com/certificates/code-signing/buy/

So about $100 / yr, with a one off fee to buy a USB key.

And then ImageMagick is open source so they could use the tool for free.

Even commercially, $100/yr plus $45/month isn't particularly expensive compared to the labor cost of developing software commercially. The cost of the tool is like one hour of skilled labor at contracting rates per month. It'll save far more time than that given that as you said, doing deployment by hand is a nightmare.

And as you note, if your app is open source then you can use it for free. So then we're down to using the MS Store + Conveyor for free: $19, one off. Anyone can afford that.

Re:The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be si... by Dalewyn on Sunday October 29, 2023 @12:15PM (#38059967)
$500 per year is nothing, that's $41.67 per month or $1.37 per day.

I'm going to ignore Conveyor because that post was just a sly advertisement.