HarHarLinks
commented
3 months ago Open shadow-identity opened 3 months ago
HarHarLinks
commented
3 months ago 
shadow-identity
commented
3 months ago It received 0 attention in a year and a half.
justjanne
commented
2 months ago I don't think it's ok to encourage users to bypass OS security systems to use "secure" messaging apps. So it feels like matrix.org should not promote macOS build of the app.
Signing applications is a process that requires significant amounts of time and money. While some Matrix clients, e.g., Element, can shoulder this burden thanks to corporate funding, it's not reasonable to expect all open source projects that develop Matrix clients to go through this process.
A compromise might be to mark the signing status of clients on the client list and the client detail view.
shadow-identity
commented
1 month ago I understand it completely from the developer's point of view.
From the user's point of view, macOS support means that they can easily install it on their Mac and it will work. If matrix.org pretends to be user-friendly, not nerd-friendly, I think it also should share this meaning. If the user needs to compromise security to install a client, or to build the app from sources on whatever platform, or to do any other pretty specific and nasty things, it should, I agree, have at least some noticeable mark on it.
The Cinny client marked as "stable" at the Clients page. There is also a button to download its masOS version.
However, macOS package is not signed, so macOS prevents users to run it.
User has now two options: to not use the client, or to bypass macOS security system, which can be harmful and can lead to security issues in his system and can not be recommended.
I don't think it's ok to encourage users to bypass OS security systems to use "secure" messaging apps. So it feels like matrix.org should not promote macOS build of the app.