Looking for a volunteer tester...

[bogs]

This really has nothing at all to do with Lc, so I figure it is about as far off topic as it can get. I need a volunteer who has the capability of running OSX (probably the latest version, but certainly past snow leopard, which is the latest I have) to tell me if this standalone made on a 'nix box runs without having to do anything on your part on OSX.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y8h64wab83jn1 ... o.zip?dl=0

The program is nothing fancy, 1 button, 1 field, when you click the button the field should have "hello" in it. All I am really interested in, though, is whether after you unzip it it runs with no further interaction on your part.

I have no prize for you if you do this, but I sincerely thank you for your time

[kdjanz]

Hi bogs
I'm on Catalina, so I thought I would give it a go. I tried to download the file but could not get it. First, my computer took me to Dropbox and automatically unzipped the file to show me a folder with a .app filename. So then I right clicked the link to Save as... the file directly, but that showed up as testHello.zip.html in Downloads. I stripped off the html ending, but several unzipping and unarchiving apps complained that the file type could not be determined. So I didn't get a clean copy unzipped to click on.

Persevering however, I went back into dropbox and downloaded the folder with the .app filename. Surprising to me, it downloaded and appeared as an app with it's own icon. Just double clicking it, I got the Catalina message "The application “testInterface.app” can’t be opened." This is typical of Catalina, so not unexpected. The usual solution is to right click and choose Open from the context menu and go through a couple of dialogs to give permissions. In the case of your app, that did not work. I went through the options on the Security & Privacy control panel, but didn't see anything that might loosen restrictions and give access. I kept getting the "can't be opened" message no matter what I did.

In short, no joy. You can't double click and open that file in Catalina.

[richmond62]

I'm on Catalina as well and had absolutely no problem downloading the zip file as a zip file so I could decompress it locally.
-

-
The standalone ran without a hitch.

No security messages, no nothing.

[bogs]

I'm on Catalina, so I thought I would give it a go. I tried to download the file but could not get it.

Hm, I had tested the link from Linux and Snow Leopard and had no issue, but because of what you wrote, I opened my Snow Leopard machine and tested it again. Just curious why you had a problem downloading it now, so I took screen shots of the OSX routine to get the file (and attempt to open it).

The link in firefox on OSX looked like this when it opened:

Open wide....

On reaching that page, I clicked on "expand the sidebar" (1), then on the "Download -> Direct download" (2).

That brought up the standard download dialog ....

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the file come down...

When it finished downloading, I right clicked it and hit "Open", which extracted the contents. Unfortunately, because 10.6.7 is soooooooo old, what I see on double clicking the result is this -

DENIED....

I am *pretty* sure the result will wind up the same, that you can't run it because it won't be marked executable on your system, but I am dying to know for sure. If you wouldn't mind, could you try it again?

Thank you for attempting the first run, whatever you decide

[bogs]

I'm on Catalina as well and had absolutely no problem downloading the zip file as a zip file so I could decompress it locally.
-
Screenshot 2020-07-26 at 11.42.05.png
-
The standalone ran without a hitch.

No security messages, no nothing.

OMG, thank you Richmond!@ That is exactly the opposite of what I thought would happen. I thought that, much like when you make an app in Lc, that it might not run on the Mac Os, regardless of the settings used. Now I wonder what the difference really is, obviously it is possible to do exactly that.

*Edit - I should add that this test was an outgrowth of this thread : Re: Windows -> MacOS : file format ?, specifically (funny enough) starting shortly after a post of yours, Richmond

Now I wonder what will happen if I create the interface from Windows, the original topic of the thread.

[richmond62]

Well, I had no problem "over here" using WaterFox:

https://www.waterfox.net/

The thing ringed in red allowed me to do a direct download:
-

[richmond62]

As far as I know building standalones with LiveCode
for Macintosh on Linux or Windows is problematic.

[bogs]

You are correct, it is problematic, in that you can't do it from 'nix or windows, only from Mac. I am trying to figure out the reason why, in the thread I linked too, there were a LOT of theories listed as to why, such as ....
1.) "When you build on a Mac the executable bit is set for you, but when building on Windows it isn't possible because of the difference in the file systems."
- I don't think this is the reason now, although it made sense to me when I read it initially.
2.) "I thought it's a security thing where you have to give permission for an app of "unknown source" to run?"
- I thought this was a possibility too, but this test shot that down.
3.) "Just out of curiosity, since I have never tried it myself, if your building from Linux, which uses the same method of setting the exe bit, will it then run on a Mac with no further messing around?"
- this was my own question, the answered turned out to be 'no' in Lc, despite building it on a similar file system ('nix ->OSX), but this test showed it is possible to do in (some) other languages.

All of the rest of the statements appeared to be variations on one of those themes, so the question of why you can't write it on one platform and deploy to another without requiring the end user to do anything more than click it to run is still a valid question.

[richmond62]

on a similar file system ('nix ->OSX)

Um . . . let's remember a few things;

1. Linux is NOT UNIX.

2. macOS is NOT "plain and simple" UNIX.

3. macOS being proprietary is full of "fiddle-faddles" to stop the likes of Thee and Me getting at an awful lot
of the system.

It would be interesting (especially if you've got buckets of free time and a handy spare Macintosh computer lying around )
to see if a standalone for Macintosh hived off from either Windows or Linux would run on Darwin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

If one wanted (Who, Me?) one could criticise LiveCode's

"The builder itself will let you build standalone applications for any platform it supports,
from any platform it supports with the exception that iOS standalones must be built on Mac OS X."

https://livecode.com/docs/9-5-0/deploym ... plication/

as it gives punters the impression that they can deploy to all supported systems by building standalones
on any of the supported systems . . .

What LiveCode could do (should do?) is:

1. Point out the awkwardness of building for Macintosh on Windows or Linux.

2. Provide a recipe where builds for Macintosh can be made on Windows and Linux.

Personally I'd be fairly effed-off had I bought a commercial version for Linux and Windows
and then found I could not effectively target Macintosh as well.

[bogs]

Not for nothing, but what on earth does that have to do with ... anything? hahahah.

I did not say Linux *was* unix, I said it was similar. How similar? Simlar enough that I can often write a program in Linux, and port it directly to one of the BSDs I use. In the case of OSX, the differences aren't as large as you might think.

As far as OSX not being "plain and simple" goes, I'm not sure in what respect you mean. All the current OS'es try to obscure the pain of dealing with the os directly from the end user, OSX is no different in that respect (at least, as far as it was setup as of 10.6.7, I have nothing newer to judge that against), but again, what on earth does that have to do with the question at hand, which is merely "can you write it on one OS, and run it directly from there on a different OS?

As for this -

It would be interesting (especially if you've got buckets of free time and a handy spare Macintosh computer lying around ) to see if a standalone for Macintosh hived off from either Windows or Linux would run on Darwin.

It would indeed, however, I don't have the a.) time or b.) hardware to do testing like that hahah, sorry. It also still does not relate in any way I can tell to the question at hand.

[richmond62]

It would be interesting (especially if you've got buckets of free time and a handy spare Macintosh computer lying around ) to see if a standalone for Macintosh hived off from either Windows or Linux would run on Darwin.

It would indeed, however, I don't have the a.) time or b.) hardware to do testing like that hahah, sorry. It also still does not relate in any way I can tell to the question at hand.

Why on earth do you think that any of my suggestions have got anything whatsoever to do with a 'question at hand'?

[bogs]

That is a good question, I've never been able to figure it out myself

[richmond62]

As far as OSX not being "plain and simple" goes, I'm not sure in what respect you mean.

I did not state that OSX was not plain and simple.

What I did state was that OSX was not plain and simple UNIX.

And therein lies a world of difference.

OSX is not like UNIX with KDE or something like that strapped on the front to prettify it for the end-user.

For starters OSX bungs an app's files inside an obscured folder so it appears to be a unitary whole
(and it functions as such as one can drag an app between folders in the file system), while non-Apple
UNIX (if that makes sense) and Linux spreads components of an "app" all over the place.

[bogs]

I did not state that OSX was not plain and simple.

What I did state was that OSX was not plain and simple UNIX.

Um, yes it is.

macOS is a UNIX 03-compliant operating system certified by The Open Group. It has been since 2007, starting with MAC OS X 10.5. The only exception was Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, but compliance was regained with OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion.

As far as folders being apps go, I'm not aware of any (major desktop OS) that doesn't have this capability. You can navigate the .app folder in OSX just as any other folder, you can find the 'actual' exe files just as any other OS.

Again, though, the question pertained to writing software once, and exporting it (from which ever OS you wrote it on) to another without requiring the end user to do anything more than normal to run it. It is apparently possible, so why isn't it the case with this language.

[bogs]

Just to be clear(er) in the question, I am not saying that if you write an application on (OS x), you should not test it on (OS y) before deployment, that is a good practice.

The original question linked above still remains a valid question.