Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #79804 > unrolled thread

Better to wait for 10.11?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Better to wait for 10.11? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-09-11 23:26 +0000
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-11 19:31 -0400
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-11 23:38 +0000
      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-09-12 01:10 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-09-12 17:31 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-09-13 20:20 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-09-14 23:48 +0000
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-11 16:45 -0700
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-11 20:00 -0400
      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 00:08 +0000
      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 00:11 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-11 20:15 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 00:26 +0000
        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-11 21:23 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-11 21:38 -0400
          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 15:50 +0000
            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 15:54 +0000
            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-12 11:55 -0400
              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-12 16:04 +0000
            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-12 13:57 -0400
              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-12 14:11 -0400
                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-13 11:27 -0600
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 17:45 +0000
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-13 13:08 -0600
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2015-09-13 19:15 -0700
                      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 14:54 +0000
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-14 12:35 +1200
              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-13 09:23 +0000
                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-13 23:41 +1200
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-13 12:17 +0000
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 12:25 -0400
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 12:46 -0400
                      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 16:59 +0000
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 15:03 -0400
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 19:13 +0000
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 15:06 -0400
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 19:43 +0000
                            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-13 13:14 -0700
                              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 20:16 +0000
                                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-09-13 13:18 -0700
                                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 20:21 +0000
                            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-09-13 19:33 -0400
                              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-13 19:35 -0400
                                Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 00:54 +0000
                              Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 00:53 +0000
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2015-09-14 13:19 +0000
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 14:57 +0000
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 16:11 -0400
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 20:15 +0000
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:19 -0400
                  Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-13 14:51 -0600
                    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-13 21:01 +0000
                      Re: Better to wait for 10.11? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-09-14 12:35 +1200
                        Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 00:57 +0000
                          Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-14 01:37 -0600
                            Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-09-14 14:54 +0000
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-09-12 12:11 -0600
    Re: Better to wait for 10.11? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-09-12 17:26 -0400

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#79852

On 2015-09-13, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <d5m3tgFs886U4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-13, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> > In article <d5m1ulFs886U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apple announced and described El Capitan (including the SIP feature)
>> >> back in June 2015 at WWDC, and El Capitan has not yet been released -
>> >> though a public beta is available. 
>> >
>> > Well, actually, a public Golden Master.  Yes, I know that's a quibble,
>> > sue me.  ;)
>> 
>> Sure, but there was a public beta long before the GM. No lawsuits
>> forthcoming. : )
>
> Yeah, but there's no longer a public beta available.  The "sue me" was
> because of the quibble.

Ah, gotcha. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79855

On 15-09-13 15:43, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple announced and described El Capitan (including the SIP feature)
> back in June 2015 at WWDC, and El Capitan has not yet been released 

June announcement for a September introduction. You seriously think that
all software developpers are ready to distribute new spoftware in just a
couple of months ?

Consider that unix open source software is NOT on an Apple scxhedule and
a new release may not be forthcoming. Consider that many users don't
constantly update their unix software (for instance I have an oplder
version of Wireshark that is in an illegal directory so I will have to
fix that before upgrading, and look for any other piece of software in
an illegal folder.

It is the inventory of the software that is being evicted that takes
time. Moving it and then setting whatever paths etc needed to make it
work is work that need to be done.

X11 XQuartz still tries to setup soft links in /usr so that will have to
stop. And a lot of older software may be programmed to look in /usr/X11
for various libraries and without the symbolic link it won't find it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79856

In article <55f607c5$0$49084$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Apple announced and described El Capitan (including the SIP feature)
> > back in June 2015 at WWDC, and El Capitan has not yet been released 
> 
> June announcement for a September introduction. You seriously think that
> all software developpers are ready to distribute new spoftware in just a
> couple of months ?

many of them certainly are, certainly the ones where the existing
version has issues.

> Consider that unix open source software is NOT on an Apple scxhedule and
> a new release may not be forthcoming. Consider that many users don't
> constantly update their unix software (for instance I have an oplder
> version of Wireshark that is in an illegal directory so I will have to
> fix that before upgrading, and look for any other piece of software in
> an illegal folder.

if it's open source, you can fix it yourself any time you want. 

what are you waiting for?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79860

On 2015-09-13, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <55f607c5$0$49084$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> > Apple announced and described El Capitan (including the SIP feature)
>> > back in June 2015 at WWDC, and El Capitan has not yet been released 
>> 
>> June announcement for a September introduction. You seriously think that
>> all software developpers are ready to distribute new spoftware in just a
>> couple of months ?
>
> many of them certainly are, certainly the ones where the existing
> version has issues.
>
>> Consider that unix open source software is NOT on an Apple scxhedule and
>> a new release may not be forthcoming. Consider that many users don't
>> constantly update their unix software (for instance I have an oplder
>> version of Wireshark that is in an illegal directory so I will have to
>> fix that before upgrading, and look for any other piece of software in
>> an illegal folder.
>
> if it's open source, you can fix it yourself any time you want. 
>
> what are you waiting for?

Seems like he'd rather the rest of the world (especially Apple) to wait
for *him*. ; )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79859

On 2015-09-13, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-09-13 15:43, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple announced and described El Capitan (including the SIP feature)
>> back in June 2015 at WWDC, and El Capitan has not yet been released 
>
> June announcement for a September introduction. You seriously think that
> all software developpers are ready to distribute new spoftware in just a
> couple of months ?

First, most software developers aren't developing OS X kernel extensions
- not by a long shot. The very few that do are fully aware of the fact
that they need to sign their kernel extensions for them to continue
working in 10.11. It's no secret. And second, Apple has provided
developers with detailed step-by-step instructions showing how to create
developer certificates and how to sign their code. There is nothing
especially cumbersome or time-consuming involved, and it's certainly not
beyond the means of a competent kernel extension developer.

You are desperately trying to manufacture a problem where there is none. 

> Consider that unix open source software is NOT on an Apple scxhedule and
> a new release may not be forthcoming.

Most open source software doesn't come with OS X kernel extensions.
Those that do will certainly be updated if El Capitan compatibility is
desired or needed.

> Consider that many users don't constantly update their unix software
> (for instance I have an oplder version of Wireshark that is in an
> illegal directory so I will have to fix that before upgrading, and
> look for any other piece of software in an illegal folder.
>
> It is the inventory of the software that is being evicted that takes
> time. Moving it and then setting whatever paths etc needed to make it
> work is work that need to be done.

That's a non-issue. The El Capitan installer moves (or removes) software
in the restricted directories automatically. All that is left is for you
to install updated versions. In the case of Wireshark, that takes just a
minute or two.

> X11 XQuartz still tries to setup soft links in /usr so that will have to
> stop.

There is no indication that XQuartz will not be updated for El Capitan,
just as it was updated for previous OS X releases.

> And a lot of older software may be programmed to look in /usr/X11
> for various libraries and without the symbolic link it won't find it.

Old software that depends on things that are in restricted directories
will need to be updated.

Honestly, you are complaining about shit that anyone with third-party
command-line software deals with regularly during system upgrades. You
aren't special in this regard. It doesn't present insurmountable
obstacles to anyone who is competent. If this presents problems for you,
the solution is simple: don't upgrade to El Capitan. Expecting Apple to
stay stuck in the past just for the convenience of little, old you is
unrealistic and silly.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79864

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Of course. Anyone with a clue knows it's best to install third-party
> command-line software in /usr/local. And the vast majority of open
> source software out there does just that by default. The JF Mezei troll
> is just trying to manufacture a problem out of thin air so he can
> continue to troll this new feature in OS X.

Believe it or not, this practice of using /usr/local was shunned by the
Solaris admins, probably still is.

They all suggested using like /opt for software not shipped with the OS.

The logic behind it was "someday", an OS update could move or replace the
/usr filesystem/directory path, thus losing everything under it like 
/usr/local.

That of course never happend in the 25+ years Solaris has been around but 
still seems to be a voodoo they avoid.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79867

On 2015-09-14, Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course. Anyone with a clue knows it's best to install third-party
>> command-line software in /usr/local. And the vast majority of open
>> source software out there does just that by default. The JF Mezei troll
>> is just trying to manufacture a problem out of thin air so he can
>> continue to troll this new feature in OS X.
>
> Believe it or not, this practice of using /usr/local was shunned by the
> Solaris admins, probably still is.
>
> They all suggested using like /opt for software not shipped with the OS.
>
> The logic behind it was "someday", an OS update could move or replace the
> /usr filesystem/directory path, thus losing everything under it like 
> /usr/local.
>
> That of course never happend in the 25+ years Solaris has been around but 
> still seems to be a voodoo they avoid.

I believe it. I hope nobody held their breath!  : D

OS X isn't Solaris, though. Apple seems to understand that /usr/local is
used by end users and shouldn't be restricted or removed.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79844

On 2015-09-13 11:41:42 +0000, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) said:

> 
> The feature in question is called "System Integrity Protection". It is a
> new feature in OS X El Capitan and is enabled by default. The user can
> disable it, which is done by starting up from the recovery partition and
> using a command line utility (the setting is stored in NVRAM, not on
> disk).
> 
> The main feature of SIP is that certain directories in the operating
> system are protected so that arbitrary processes running as root cannot
> modify them. Only Apple-signed software has the ability to modify those
> directories, which it will only do in approved situations, such as
> Installer.app doing a software update from a package signed by Apple.

That would explain why FinderPop doesn't work under Yosemite.

I think that's the only piece of software I have that appears to be affected.

What critical need does SIP provide that we don't have now, I wonder?
-- 
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." -Barry Goldwater

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79846

On 2015-09-13, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-09-13 11:41:42 +0000, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) said:
>
>> The feature in question is called "System Integrity Protection". It is a
>> new feature in OS X El Capitan and is enabled by default. The user can
>> disable it, which is done by starting up from the recovery partition and
>> using a command line utility (the setting is stored in NVRAM, not on
>> disk).
>> 
>> The main feature of SIP is that certain directories in the operating
>> system are protected so that arbitrary processes running as root cannot
>> modify them. Only Apple-signed software has the ability to modify those
>> directories, which it will only do in approved situations, such as
>> Installer.app doing a software update from a package signed by Apple.
>
> That would explain why FinderPop doesn't work under Yosemite.
>
> I think that's the only piece of software I have that appears to be affected.
>
> What critical need does SIP provide that we don't have now, I wonder?

Watch and learn:

<https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=706>

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79850

In article <mt4l67$4pn$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The feature in question is called "System Integrity Protection". It is a
> > new feature in OS X El Capitan and is enabled by default. The user can
> > disable it, which is done by starting up from the recovery partition and
> > using a command line utility (the setting is stored in NVRAM, not on
> > disk).
> > 
> > The main feature of SIP is that certain directories in the operating
> > system are protected so that arbitrary processes running as root cannot
> > modify them. Only Apple-signed software has the ability to modify those
> > directories, which it will only do in approved situations, such as
> > Installer.app doing a software update from a package signed by Apple.
> 
> That would explain why FinderPop doesn't work under Yosemite.

no it wouldn't, because yosemite doesn't have sip.

> I think that's the only piece of software I have that appears to be affected.

then you'll need to find a replacement or hope that they update it.

> What critical need does SIP provide that we don't have now, I wonder?

making the computer more secure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79853

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> The protected directories are everything under:
> 
> /bin
> /sbin
> /usr (except for /usr/local)
> /System
> /Applications/Utilities
> 
> Apple-supplied applications in /Applications are also protected (e.g.
> you won't be able to modify the contents of Mail.app unless you disabled
> SIP).

I don't quite get Apple's logic in protecting /Applications/Utilities as
a folder. If you're going to protect particular items in /Applications,
why not do the same for particular items in its Utilities subfolder
while preserving the user's ability to add non-Apple items to it? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79854

On 2015-09-13, Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> The protected directories are everything under:
>> 
>> /bin
>> /sbin
>> /usr (except for /usr/local)
>> /System
>> /Applications/Utilities
>> 
>> Apple-supplied applications in /Applications are also protected (e.g.
>> you won't be able to modify the contents of Mail.app unless you disabled
>> SIP).
>
> I don't quite get Apple's logic in protecting /Applications/Utilities as
> a folder. If you're going to protect particular items in /Applications,
> why not do the same for particular items in its Utilities subfolder
> while preserving the user's ability to add non-Apple items to it? 

I would imagine most end users don't bother to install third-party
applications in /Applications/Utilities (and most third-party installers
place their applications into /Applications or ~/Applications). So what
remains is Apple applications. I guess Apple wants to keep it that way.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79857

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-13, Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> The protected directories are everything under:
> >> 
> >> /bin
> >> /sbin
> >> /usr (except for /usr/local)
> >> /System
> >> /Applications/Utilities
> >> 
> >> Apple-supplied applications in /Applications are also protected (e.g.
> >> you won't be able to modify the contents of Mail.app unless you disabled
> >> SIP).
> >
> > I don't quite get Apple's logic in protecting /Applications/Utilities as
> > a folder. If you're going to protect particular items in /Applications,
> > why not do the same for particular items in its Utilities subfolder
> > while preserving the user's ability to add non-Apple items to it? 
> 
> I would imagine most end users don't bother to install third-party
> applications in /Applications/Utilities (and most third-party installers
> place their applications into /Applications or ~/Applications). So what
> remains is Apple applications. I guess Apple wants to keep it that way.

It appears to be a strengthening of a recent rule change.

Back when I was running Snow Leopard (or earlier), I put most of my
third party utilities (which were installed by drag-and-drop) in
/Applications/Utilities, without needing special permissions.

In Lion or Mountain Lion, the permissions changed so that it was
necessary to authenticate as an administrator to add anything to
Utilities. I took that as a hint and changed my habits by putting third
party utilities in Applications instead.

El Capitan completes the transition by enforcing the "Apple-only" rule
for Utilities.
-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79861

On 2015-09-14, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I would imagine most end users don't bother to install third-party
>> applications in /Applications/Utilities (and most third-party installers
>> place their applications into /Applications or ~/Applications). So what
>> remains is Apple applications. I guess Apple wants to keep it that way.
>
> It appears to be a strengthening of a recent rule change.
>
> Back when I was running Snow Leopard (or earlier), I put most of my
> third party utilities (which were installed by drag-and-drop) in
> /Applications/Utilities, without needing special permissions.
>
> In Lion or Mountain Lion, the permissions changed so that it was
> necessary to authenticate as an administrator to add anything to
> Utilities. I took that as a hint and changed my habits by putting third
> party utilities in Applications instead.
>
> El Capitan completes the transition by enforcing the "Apple-only" rule
> for Utilities.

Sounds right. 

As it happens I stopped installing things into Utilities (and other
subordinate folders in Applications) with early OS X releases after
finding that some application updaters refused to update applications
that were not in the root /Applications folder. So I guess I lucked out
in this respect. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79863

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> So I guess I lucked out
> in this respect. 

It's no big deal. A simple command-drag in Finder moved all my non-Apple
stuff from Utilities to the enclosing Applications folder, preserving
all the permissions. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79866

On 2015-09-14, Neill Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> So I guess I lucked out in this respect. 
>
> It's no big deal. A simple command-drag in Finder moved all my non-Apple
> stuff from Utilities to the enclosing Applications folder, preserving
> all the permissions. 

Right, but some folks will make a big deal out of it anyway.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79823

sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:

> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be
> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2
> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running
> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".

IMHO, it's better to upgrade sequentially, even if you only stay on the
interim version for a month or two while reports about the new version
roll in. It's a more comfortable way to get used to the new. (Moving
from 10.8, there will be quite a bit of new to get used to.) It also
gives you a better sense of when old bugs were fixed and new ones
introduced, so you can decide whether to stick with version N or drop
back to version N-1. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79826

On 2015-09-11 19:26, sctvguy1 wrote:
> Thinking of upgrading the OS, but at this late date, would it probably be
> better to wait for El Capitan?  I know I should probably wait for the .2
> or .3 release, as the first ones are usually buggy.  Currently running
> 10.8.5 with no problems on a Core2Duo iMac/8gigs of ram/20".

I usually wait for .1 at least, preferably .2.  But I confess a certain 
anxiousness to test the new graphics on a lower power machine (SO's MBA) 
as well as the improved Spotlight.

Things like split screen too in at least one use case where it might 
make things easier.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web