←back to thread

Apple's apps bypass firewalls like LittleSnitch and LuLu on macOS Big Sur

(twitter.com)
1183 points robenkleene | 5 comments | 20 Oct 20 15:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.717s | source
Show context
AlexandrB ◴[20 Oct 20 16:27 UTC] No.24839296[source]▶
Both major consumer OS vendors seem hell-bent on bringing the OS layer under their complete control. As a power user, it's very frustrating. Meanwhile "desktop" Linux still kind of sucks, just like it did 10 years ago. I don't have much hope of seeing a compelling, unified UX out of Linux in my lifetime.
replies(6): >>24839339 #>>24839436 #>>24839550 #>>24839643 #>>24839695 #>>24839842 #
dylan604 ◴[20 Oct 20 16:53 UTC] No.24839643[source]▶
What is it about Adobe software that makes it only work on Windows or macOS? Both of their graphics engines are totally different, so what makes it so difficult for Linux compatibility? It's the only software package that keeps me beholden to Apple (I'll never run Windows of my own decision).
replies(2): >>24840042 #>>24840657 #
1. jaywalk ◴[20 Oct 20 18:18 UTC] No.24840657[source]▶
Adobe doesn't care to support Linux. It's as simple as that.
replies(1): >>24840754 #
2. dylan604 ◴[20 Oct 20 18:28 UTC] No.24840754[source]▶
That's an obvious drive by answer, but I'm asking a forum of developers for an explanation/guess on what it is about Linux that would make Adobe not care about it.
replies(3): >>24841305 #>>24842112 #>>24843373 #
3. LeoNatan25 ◴[20 Oct 20 19:18 UTC] No.24841305[source]▶
The small user-base. It's a feedback loop; people don't use Linux because a lot of software isn't there, and developers don't port the software to Linux because people don't use Linux.
4. themacguffinman ◴[20 Oct 20 20:37 UTC] No.24842112[source]▶
The reasons that game developers give should be instructive:

- "Linux" is not a unified desktop environment, there are many different configurations and supporting such variety is difficult. The Linux desktop landscape also changes more frequently than most (eg. Pipewire & Pulseaudio, Xorg & Wayland, Snap & Flatpak & AppImage & native distro package managers) which requires more development resources to keep up with.

- But suppose you try to cut costs by supporting only one blessed Linux configuration and constrain your Linux development budget. You still have another cost that you can't avoid: customer support, which is very expensive. It's especially expensive when you get a lot of Linux users who don't know or care that you technically only support one blessed Linux configuration, they'll have some wacko configuration and they'll take the time to complain to your customer support agents about it. Your constrained Linux development budget will only exacerbate your customer support costs as more users run into Linux bugs more often.

- Which isn't worth it because you know that Linux has a small user base. The actual sales bump you get from Linux support isn't worth the cost of maintaining it.

Frankly, I don't think Linux will ever solve the problem of a small user base. No one working on Linux cares enough about the normal-person-UX of its desktop to make it good enough for a majority of people to use, and many current Linux users even oppose measures that would trade off the power & flexibility that they enjoy now for normal-person-UX. This isn't going to change because Linux is largely a volunteer-led project.

5. ◴[20 Oct 20 23:32 UTC] No.24843373[source]▶