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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55278 > unrolled thread

past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS

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

Contents

  past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-24 11:04 -0700
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS "zulu" <zulu.romeotangohotel@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-24 18:34 +0000
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-24 15:59 -0500
      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-24 23:32 -0700
        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 02:29 -0500
          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-25 08:11 -0700
            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-25 19:03 +0000
              Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 14:41 -0500
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-01-25 20:01 -0600
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 13:48 +1100
                    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-26 14:26 +0000
                      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 15:58 +0000
                        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-27 13:12 +0000
                          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 15:44 +0000
              Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:39 -0500
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-26 13:50 +1300
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-01-26 17:36 +1300
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-01-26 13:56 +0000
                    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:28 -0500
                    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-27 09:54 +1300
                      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-01-26 18:06 -0600
                        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-27 14:53 +1300
                          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 02:00 +0000
                          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-27 17:41 +1300
                            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-26 22:06 -0700
            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 14:41 -0500
              Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:43 -0500
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:59 -0600
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-26 15:26 +1300
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 13:44 +1100
        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 14:41 -0500
          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-25 13:48 -0700
            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 16:25 -0500
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-01-24 16:15 -0500
      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 11:54 -0500
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-24 17:44 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#55278 — past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS

For those who are concerned about the iOSization of the Mac, check this
out:

<http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/01/23/abc.to.air.interview.with.apple.
ceo.on.january.24/>

Federighi went further, saying that while iOS and OS X "cross
pollinate" each other, he believes it unlikely that the two operating
systems will ever merge. In doing so, he took a swipe at Microsoft,
which has engineered its current Windows incarnations to support both
touchscreens and traditional keyboards and mice -- a move that appears
to have alienated users or either form of input. "To say [OS X and iOS]
should be the same, independent of their purpose? Let's just converge,
for the sake of convergence? [It's] absolutely a nongoal," Federighi
said. "It's obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a piece of
hardware, but is that a good experience? We believe, no."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55281

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:240120141104047739%michelle@michelle.org...
> For those who are concerned about the iOSization of the Mac, check this
> out:
>
> <http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/01/23/abc.to.air.interview.with.apple.
> ceo.on.january.24/>
>
>>>>>>>>
> Federighi said. "It's obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a 
> piece of
> hardware, but is that a good experience? We believe, no."


He's so right....
...he might just finish up with....................... an iPad!


-- 
zulu
"The production of too many useful things results in too many useless 
people."
Karl Marx

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

#55288

In article <240120141104047739%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> For those who are concerned about the iOSization of the Mac, check this
> out:
> 
> <http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/01/23/abc.to.air.interview.with.apple.
> ceo.on.january.24/>
> 
> Federighi went further, saying that while iOS and OS X "cross
> pollinate" each other, he believes it unlikely that the two operating
> systems will ever merge.

he said 'unlikely'. he didn't say 'never'. 

and priorities can change. 

apple said they'd never make an ipod with video because nobody wants to
watch movies on a screen that small. then they did.

> In doing so, he took a swipe at Microsoft,
> which has engineered its current Windows incarnations to support both
> touchscreens and traditional keyboards and mice -- a move that appears
> to have alienated users or either form of input. "To say [OS X and iOS]
> should be the same, independent of their purpose? Let's just converge,
> for the sake of convergence? [It's] absolutely a nongoal," Federighi
> said. "It's obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a piece of
> hardware, but is that a good experience? We believe, no."

converging for the sake of converging is stupid.

that doesn't mean it won't ever converge for some *other* reason, a
non-stupid reason. 

it just says they won't do a half-assed job of it by slapping a
touchscreen on a laptop and pretending it's a good idea.

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

#55315

In article <240120141559316782%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> he said 'unlikely'. he didn't say 'never'. 

Never say "never".

> converging for the sake of converging is stupid.
> 
> that doesn't mean it won't ever converge for some *other* reason, a
> non-stupid reason. 
> 
> it just says they won't do a half-assed job of it by slapping a
> touchscreen on a laptop and pretending it's a good idea.

Right, and that would not be the iOSization of the Mac OS.

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

#55318

On 14-01-25 01:32, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Right, and that would not be the iOSization of the Mac OS.
> 


Consider the gratuitous "translucency" which accomplishes nothing but
make a display harder to read. It first appeared on OS-X and has now
propagated to IOS. This isn't about merging OSs (they could have done
away with the undesirable translicency on OS-X to emulate IOS), but
shows this is more a matter of almost religious conviction of features
that should be imposed on customers (or features designed to impress at
a keynote)

Same applies to the attempt at removing "SAVE/SAVE-AS", scroll bars etc.
 Despite a rather strong message from people sticking with Snow Leopard,
Apple only made shy attempts at toning down its unpopular policies for
desktop and did the stupid thing of adding translucency to IOS.

So this isn't about "merging" the 2 operating systems, but rather Apple
deciding to go in certain directions based on what they did with IOS and
assuming that merging thsoe features to desktop is good.

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

#55324

In article <52e367e0$0$9753$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Despite a rather strong message from people sticking with Snow Leopard,
> Apple only made shy attempts at toning down its unpopular policies for
> desktop and did the stupid thing of adding translucency to IOS.

That rather strong message is "I need or want Rosetta."  Or in the case
of two friends of mine, "I like what I have; I see no reason to
change."  Both of them said that even before they knew what the changes
were.  And one of them upgraded to Snow Leopard from Tiger only because
she bought a new computer that came with Snow Leopard.  (The other's
first Mac came with Snow Leopard.)

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

#55338

In message <250120140811350980%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <52e367e0$0$9753$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>> Despite a rather strong message from people sticking with Snow Leopard,
>> Apple only made shy attempts at toning down its unpopular policies for
>> desktop and did the stupid thing of adding translucency to IOS.

> That rather strong message is "I need or want Rosetta."  Or in the case
> of two friends of mine, "I like what I have; I see no reason to
> change."  Both of them said that even before they knew what the changes
> were.  And one of them upgraded to Snow Leopard from Tiger only because
> she bought a new computer that came with Snow Leopard.  (The other's
> first Mac came with Snow Leopard.)

Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
issues as well.

-- 
'It's always a good thing to let a few tales spread, you know. Pour
encouragy le-poor encoura-to make everyone sit up and damn well take
notice.' --Eric

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

#55340

In article <slrnle82k6.38b.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
> critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
> issues as well.

disable java. that fixes that problem. java isn't included anymore in
later versions anyway and it's rarely needed anymore anyway. 

there isn't a massive compromising of those still using snow leopard so
as 'critical' as it  may be, it's not at all critical.

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

#55388

In article <250120141441380334%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnle82k6.38b.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
> > critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
> > issues as well.
> 
> disable java. that fixes that problem. java isn't included anymore in
> later versions anyway and it's rarely needed anymore anyway. 
> 
> there isn't a massive compromising of those still using snow leopard so
> as 'critical' as it  may be, it's not at all critical.

I've had it disabled for some time 8-)

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

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

#55394

In article <drache-DF007B.20015325012014@news.eternal-september.org>,
 erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <250120141441380334%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnle82k6.38b.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
> > > critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
> > > issues as well.
> > 
> > disable java. that fixes that problem. java isn't included anymore in
> > later versions anyway and it's rarely needed anymore anyway. 
> > 
> > there isn't a massive compromising of those still using snow leopard so
> > as 'critical' as it  may be, it's not at all critical.

Does this mean that 

<http://sudoku.sourceforge.net/>

would no longer be able to see the solver and puzzle generator?

Is one able to install Java as an extra on Mavericks (that can be 
switched on and off by the user)?

-- 
dorayme

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

#55425

In message <do_ray_me-AEE523.13481226012014@news.albasani.net> 
  dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <drache-DF007B.20015325012014@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

>> In article <250120141441380334%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <slrnle82k6.38b.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
>> > > critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
>> > > issues as well.
>> > 
>> > disable java. that fixes that problem. java isn't included anymore in
>> > later versions anyway and it's rarely needed anymore anyway. 
>> > 
>> > there isn't a massive compromising of those still using snow leopard so
>> > as 'critical' as it  may be, it's not at all critical.

> Does this mean that 

> <http://sudoku.sourceforge.net/>

> would no longer be able to see the solver and puzzle generator?

> Is one able to install Java as an extra on Mavericks (that can be 
> switched on and off by the user)?

You *can* install Java, if you are a blithering idiot and don't care
about your computer at all.

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of critical remote exploit
pwn-your-computer security issues in Java over the last few years and
Oracle has proven themselves to be utterly incapable of securing Java.
So, if you have Java allowed to run in your browser, you're dumber than
nospam.

-- 
Don't be afraid to be weak, Don't be too proud to be strong.

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

#55431

On 2014-01-26, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <do_ray_me-AEE523.13481226012014@news.albasani.net> 
>   dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is one able to install Java as an extra on Mavericks (that can be 
>> switched on and off by the user)?
>
> You *can* install Java, if you are a blithering idiot and don't care
> about your computer at all.

Careful with that blanket statement. By that definition, all employees
of corporations that require use of Java software, and all Java software
developers are "blithering idiots who don;t care about their computers
at all". ; )

-- 
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]

#55477

In message <bkkplqFccv0U6@mid.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-26, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <do_ray_me-AEE523.13481226012014@news.albasani.net> 
>>   dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is one able to install Java as an extra on Mavericks (that can be 
>>> switched on and off by the user)?
>>
>> You *can* install Java, if you are a blithering idiot and don't care
>> about your computer at all.

> Careful with that blanket statement. By that definition, all employees
> of corporations that require use of Java software, and all Java software
> developers are "blithering idiots who don;t care about their computers
> at all". ; )

I thought I mentioned web-access specifically.

But in the case you cite, it's the corporation that is the blithering
idiots, not the users without a choice.

-- 
There is a road, no simple highway, between the dawn and the dark of
night

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

#55480

On 2014-01-27, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <bkkplqFccv0U6@mid.individual.net> 
>   Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-26, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <do_ray_me-AEE523.13481226012014@news.albasani.net> 
>>>   dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is one able to install Java as an extra on Mavericks (that can be 
>>>> switched on and off by the user)?
>>>
>>> You *can* install Java, if you are a blithering idiot and don't care
>>> about your computer at all.
>
>> Careful with that blanket statement. By that definition, all employees
>> of corporations that require use of Java software, and all Java software
>> developers are "blithering idiots who don;t care about their computers
>> at all". ; )
>
> I thought I mentioned web-access specifically.

Ah, yes, that would help.

> But in the case you cite, it's the corporation that is the blithering
> idiots, not the users without a choice.

You'll get no argument from me on that one! : )

-- 
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]

#55348

On 14-01-25 14:03, Lewis wrote:

> Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
> critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
> issues as well.


Snow Leopard did get a number of Java patches last year. And depending
on adoption rates for Mavericks, Apple may decide to it has to continue
to provide some security patches for a while.

Snow Leopard is to Apple what XP is to Microsoft.

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

#55374

In article <52e420ec$0$61311$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-01-25 14:03, Lewis wrote:
> 
> > Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
> > critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
> > issues as well.
> 
> Snow Leopard did get a number of Java patches last year. And depending
> on adoption rates for Mavericks, Apple may decide to it has to continue
> to provide some security patches for a while.
> 
> Snow Leopard is to Apple what XP is to Microsoft.

Except Snow Leopard actually works.  ;-)

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

#55415

[Offtopic for iPhone and iPad, so followups to the Mac group only]

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-01-25 14:03, Lewis wrote:
> 
> > Well, Snow Leopard is no longer getting security patches and is
> > critically vulnerable to many Java remote exploits. Probably some other
> > issues as well.
> 
> Snow Leopard did get a number of Java patches last year. And depending
> on adoption rates for Mavericks, Apple may decide to it has to continue
> to provide some security patches for a while.

Not likely, unless Apple have changed their apparent (unpublished)
policy.

Using the stats from martketshare.hitslink.com (which measure web usage
by platform and OS version), at the point Tiger got its final security
update, it was being used for about 20% of Mac web browsing. Leopard was
down to about 22% when it got its final full security update (not
counting the Flashback fix almost a year later).

As of December, Snow Leopard was down to 19% by those stats, so it is
_less_ popular than Tiger and Leopard were at the point Apple released
the last full security updates for those versions. Age is also against
Snow Leopard: Leopard's last security update was less than four years
after the introduction of Leopard, Tiger got almost four and a half
years; Snow Leopard got just over four years up to its latest security
update in September 2013.

Lion's current usage level is even lower (15.9%), but Apple's apparent
minimum support timeframe should mean it gets security updates for a
while longer, otherwise Macs which can't upgrade beyond Lion and were
sold new as recently as early 2009 might lose support too soon, but it
might not get the full four years (mid 2015). Lion is still getting
Safari updates.

With the notable exception of the initial release of 10.9 including
documented security fixes, Apple hasn't yet done any security updates
for Mavericks. There weren't any in 10.9.1. The normal pattern is that
earlier systems get a security update coinciding with minor updates of
the latest system which include any security fixes.

Based on historic patterns, it is likely that 10.9.2 will include
security fixes, at which point we will see which older major versions
are still getting security updates.

Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#55423

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
.
> 
> Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
> timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
> Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.

I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

#55448

In article <lc346h$j5u$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> > Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
> > timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
> > Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.
> 
> I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.

10.6 snow leopard
10.7 lion
10.8 mountain lion
10.9 mavericks

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

#55452

In article <lc346h$j5u$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
<drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
> > timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
> > Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.
> 
> I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.

Snow Leopard  ->  Lion  ->  Mountain Lion  ->  Mavericks
or in more useful terms:
    10.6  ->  10.7  ->  10.8  ->  10.9

Using codenames is a meaninglessly silly idea which Apple should
abandon.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web