Sigil-0.9.10 Released

[DiapDealer]

Thanks, Kevin.

[Notjohn]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

How (and why?) do you build the TOC before all the chapters are split and given suitable <h1>Chapter Name</h1> headings? Then you can use the Create TOC function for both the internal TOC and the HTML one.

You're right, of course. I don't "build" the TOC. It's simply there, inherited from the print edition.

[exaltedwombat]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

You're right, of course. I don't "build" the TOC. It's simply there, inherited from the print edition.

And generally gets discarded, in favour of a more functional one.

[kdd6]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Yes, any 8.6.x version should work given the symlinks used to point to the library.

thank you. now i can install.

cheers!

[desk7]

It's the first time I download Sigil but when I try to install it, Windows warns me that it is from Unknown publisher. Could you sign the .exe in order to avoid this frightening message,please?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by desk7

It's the first time I download Sigil but when I try to install it, Windows warns me that it is from Unknown publisher. Could you sign the .exe in order to avoid this frightening message,please?

No. Signing certificates that will make that Windows message go away are prohibitively expensive and--in my opinion--invasive (never mind my objections to "pay to be less frightening" extortion schemes in general).

We provide checksums and GPG signatures to ensure that what you get is what we uploaded (and was uploaded by who github believes us to be). If that's not sufficient, people are free to: a) lobby Microsoft to relax their increasingly draconian and unnecessarily prohibitive "security" measures; b) trust us; c) build the installer themselves; d) not use Sigil.

Sigil is free, it's open-source, and it's maintained by volunteers who don't accept (or want) money/donations for their efforts. No one has to trust my Windows binary installer if they don't want to. In fact, I provide detailed instructions so people can create their own Sigil binaries (for free) if they so choose.

Sorry for the slight rant. It's just that I often explore the options available to me to eliminate Microsoft's "frightening" Unknown Publisher installer warning. And I come away more angry and more disgusted each and every time. So I'm not paying the extortionate fees (or tolerating an identity verification proccess) just to be "allowed" to distribute free software. It doesn't sit well with me.

[desk7]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. Signing certificates that will make that Windows message go away are prohibitively expensive and--in my opinion--invasive (never mind my objections to "pay to be less frightening" extortion schemes in general).

We provide checksums and GPG signatures to ensure that what you get is what we uploaded (and was uploaded by who github believes us to be). If that's not sufficient, people are free to: a) lobby Microsoft to relax their increasingly draconian and unnecessarily prohibitive "security" measures; b) trust us; c) build the installer themselves; d) not use Sigil.

Sigil is free, it's open-source, and it's maintained by volunteers who don't accept (or want) money/donations for their efforts. No one has to trust my Windows binary installer if they don't want to. In fact, I provide detailed instructions so people can create their own Sigil binaries (for free) if they so choose.

Sorry for the slight rant. It's just that I often explore the options available to me to eliminate Microsoft's "frightening" Unknown Publisher installer warning. And I come away more angry and more disgusted each and every time. So I'm not paying the extortionate fees (or tolerating an identity verification proccess) just to be "allowed" to distribute free software. It doesn't sit well with me.

Thank you for your honest answer. I didn't know how it works.
Given that the Mac OS X Package is code signed with your Apple Developer signature, I thought it was simple to do the same thing in Windows

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by desk7

Thank you for your honest answer. I didn't know how it works.
Given that the Mac OS X Package is code signed with your Apple Developer signature, I thought it was simple to do the same thing in Windows

If it was a similar price and similar process to Apple's developer sig, I'd have done it long ago.

Again: sorry about the rant.

[KevinH]

BTW, Apple is getting much worse along this dimension as well. They just alerted me that a future version of OS X will require me to submit Sigil to Apple so that it can be "notarized" otherwise it will not install or run. Even if properly code signed!

FWIW, If they go through with it and prevent unnotarized software from running I will stop my devloper id completely as it would then be worthless. Censureship of opensource software and preventing user choice is simply not acceptable. At that point, I ill simply move back to Linux and the Mac version can just bitrot.

macOS Mojave is here. Give Mac users even more confidence in your software 
distributed outside the Mac App Store by submitting it to Apple to be notarized.
When users on macOS Mojave first open a notarized app, installer package, or 
disk image, they’ll see a more streamlined Gatekeeper dialog and have 
confidence that it is not known malware. 

Download Xcode 10 and submit your software today. In an upcoming 
release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer ID–signed software to 
be notarized by Apple. 

Learn about getting your software notarized 

If you have any questions, contact us. 

Best regards, 
Apple Developer Relations

[DiapDealer]

That's terrible. At least on Windows, they don't seem like they're willing (yet) to completely eliminate the user's choice in the matter. They just make it as terrifying as possible (not to mention difficult and completely unintuitive for the uninitiated) to move past the "unknown publisher" warning.

They (Windows) also don't have a straightforward, in-house solution for software devs who might want to sign their binaries. They leave it up to hundreds of third-party certificate providers/sellers. So you get to do tons of research into how much reputability (not to mention Windows compatibility) you can afford to purchase. From rock-solid and completely unaffordable, to fly-by-night reputations (and questionable Windows installer compatibility) but dirt-cheap. And everything in between.

[theducks]

This will really Kill the rapid development and bug fix cycles we enjoy with these Open Source programs.

I already knew about the M$ extortion to remove the warning.

The problem with what they did, was everyone got used to clicking 'allow' (with no clue if it really should be allowed). Signing was supposed to be a way for regular folk to know that the program was safe. Charging big $ for the seal of approval, created the reason for bypassing that process.
Now we know a reason W10 was free: Makes Software as a (FEE BASED) Service...even if M$ did not write a line of code.

[odamizu]

Originally Posted by KevinH

BTW, Apple is getting much worse along this dimension as well. They just alerted me that a future version of OS X will require me to submit Sigil to Apple so that it can be "notarized" otherwise it will not install or run. Even if properly code signed!

FWIW, If they go through with it and prevent unnotarized software from running I will stop my devloper id completely as it would then be worthless. Censureship of opensource software and preventing user choice is simply not acceptable. At that point, I ill simply move back to Linux and the Mac version can just bitrot.

macOS Mojave is here. Give Mac users even more confidence in your software 
distributed outside the Mac App Store by submitting it to Apple to be notarized.
When users on macOS Mojave first open a notarized app, installer package, or 
disk image, they’ll see a more streamlined Gatekeeper dialog and have 
confidence that it is not known malware. 

Download Xcode 10 and submit your software today. In an upcoming 
release of macOS, Gatekeeper will require Developer ID–signed software to 
be notarized by Apple. 

Learn about getting your software notarized 

If you have any questions, contact us. 

Best regards, 
Apple Developer Relations

This is indeed disturbing. If Apple does this, would a viable option be to give up your Developer ID but continue to develop Sigil for Mac as an unsigned app? I could be wrong, but I'm interpreting Apple's statement that "Gatekeeper will require Developer ID–signed software to be notarized by Apple" to mean: if you want your app to be signed, it needs to be notarized; otherwise it will be an unsigned app and users will receive a warning dialog box and need to explicitly grant permission to install.

Also, would this be another reason for Mac users to stick with High Sierra and avoid Mojave? I expect I will avoid whatever comes after Mojave because I have 32-bit apps I rely on, but I was thinking about upgrading to Mojave.

Thank you

[KevinH]

If I can find a way to not Apple sign but use a third party signing tool, I will do that. But I for one do not want to use an OS that will only run/install things that Apple decides on. That is just not right. I purchased a general desktop computing device not a glorified ipad/iphone with Apple closing everything into its walled garden.

A that point, I move back to Linux.

[odamizu]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's terrible. At least on Windows, they don't seem like they're willing (yet) to completely eliminate the user's choice in the matter. They just make it as terrifying as possible (not to mention difficult and completely unintuitive for the uninitiated) to move past the "unknown publisher" warning.

I'm confused. According to Apple's statement, "Gatekeeper will require Developer ID-signed software to be notarized." That's not the same as saying only Developer ID-signed software can be installed and run, is it?

Wouldn't this just mean software from an "unknown publisher" will throw up a warning, just as already happens on Windows?

Originally Posted by KevinH

If I can find a way to not Apple sign but use a third party signing tool, I will do that ...

Okay, thank you. I find myself feeling panicky at the possibility of losing Sigil

[exaltedwombat]

Originally Posted by KevinH

If I can find a way to not Apple sign but use a third party signing tool, I will do that. But I for one do not want to use an OS that will only run/install things that Apple decides on. That is just not right. I purchased a general desktop computing device not a glorified ipad/iphone with Apple closing everything into its walled garden.

A that point, I move back to Linux.

There's only one valid reason to choose a platform - it runs the software you want to use. Buit it must have been quite a culture shock coming from Linux to Apple!