I think of homebrew as a curation service; it lets me name a piece of software and install it without having to any special diligence on it. In that use case, I _want_ them to enforce code-signing requirements; that reduces the risk that some software-supply-chain compromise will spread to my computer.

I do want the ability to install unsigned software, either because I wrote/compiled it myself locally and can't be arsed with signing, or because I'm getting it from a non-public source that doesn't want to share a copy with Apple, or because it's from a developer I trust who can't be arsed. But I never want to get unsigned software _from a curation service_.

Protecting the user from things they don’t realize are apps or new apps on general is important.

But the amount of overreach in gatekeeper to try and make the failed Mac App Store profitable and milk $90 a year at the expense of apps users want to run is egregious.

The contrast between the steadily shrinking freedoms in Apple-land and the open computing approach underlying all today's the Valve announcements is fascinating.

It may be Apple policy to prevent users from doing what they want because "security" is the most important thing for a their bank/shopping terminals. But I thought the whole point of using homebrew was to empower the user to use Apple devices like a normal computer without the hassle of having to do it manually? The developer has made it clear this is not the use case and that it helped with it was unintentional and undesired. The actual use case for homebrew remains unclear given this new information.

For a quick background, Apple doesn't allow the typical quarantine bypass of Gatekeeper for ARM64 binaries. It must be digitally signed to run. And Intel based Macs are a dead end with macOS Tahoe being the last OS released for them. So, brew is disabling the --no-quarantine switch in their next major release or so.

From the post: "What alternatives to the feature have been considered?

None. Macs with Apple silicon are the platform that will be supported in the future, and Apple is making it harder to bypass Gatekeeper as is."

This has turned into a such a pain point for me I'm probably just going to ditch MacOS on my next hardware refresh and insist on a Linux-based workstation. I already use Linux for everything else, changing for $DAY_JOB is trivial.

Funny/sad to see this post just under the

"Install your own apps, or even another operating system. Who are we to tell you how to use your computer?"

Turns out you can be both consumer friendly AND have a wildly successful app store. Who knew?!

Hmm. I use arm64 macports instead of homebrew, and as far as I know, I download prebuilt binaries from macports without issue even on Tahoe -- are they signing them with an approved account? Or did they force me to build everything from scratch, like the old days, and I haven't noticed?

Also, fuck Apple's entire notarization process.

https://github.com/alacritty/alacritty/issues/8749#issuecomm...

If you want a more level headed overview of code signing differences, you can read this post I wrote back when this issue started coming to a head the first time back in 2021: https://nixpulvis.com/ramblings/2021-02-02-signing-and-notar...

Now, unsurprisingly, more and more distributers are falling in line, and it's all mostly theater.

Where is our modern Stallman, how have we let these massive platform OS providers assert this much control over the developer ecosystem.

They collect $99/yr for the right to give away free software! Madness. And they lie about the safety of the system. How about focus on keeping the OS secure and maintaining process isolation, and let users run what they want.

Homebrew also started preventing you from installing any packages system-wide with pip