If it's buggy it's better to not release anything to the public.. better safe than sorry Apple. Remember MAPS. Yeah so does everyone else.
It's impossible to release a bug free OS of this level. Because in order to actually test and OS, you have to put it on every computer/third party hardware and software and test it. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do that. But, releasing it to the developers ahead of time gives them the chance to update their software, test it as best as they can so the third party developers have their updates within a couple of months after the OS is released to the customer. Haven't you noticed that Apple is having less updates per major release? They just released 10.8.4. in about 9 months. I'm sure when 10.9 comes out, they might have or need 10.8.5, but they also might not need to update it. 10.7 had 5 builds. 10.6 had 8 builds. 10.5 had 8 builds. 10.4 had 11 builds. 10.3 had 9 builds. 10.2 had 8 builds. 10.1 had 5 builds. 10.0 had 4 builds.
So, it looks like Apple is doing much better in getting to a bug free release.
MAPS was not a bug in the software, it was the data that was being displayed. Apple can only do so much with third party data, especially when you are displaying the entire world. Even Google has bugs in the data, even to this day. Apple should have spent another 6 months to a year cleaning it up, but it's faster if they have customers submitting problems.
There's an awful lot of ignorant speculation going on here.
Please provide us with some informed speculation, then!
Perhaps Apple is testing some amazing new features that they don't want to release to developers too early. It could be for the "surprise" factor at Monday's keynote (Tim's doubling down on secrecy! lol) or there could be things that Apple doesn't want leaked during a long developer testing period like new hardware, new services, or new Jony Ive UI elements, etc.
Um.... why don't you shed some light then? Or shut up?
I can say from experience that trying to shed light on ignorance in a forum is a waste of time. That said…
If the build number is at all correct, then it is interesting. However all those people who think that Apple submits builds to devs for testing are delusional. Apple does not use devs for beta testing. They only give devs beta builds for the sole purpose of devs testing their apps against the OS and to get feedback on APIs, and let devs prepare for the new release. It is a side benefit that they get some bug testing done, but that is not its primary purpose. Apple has in-house testing tools which they rely on.
It's impossible to release a bug free OS of this level. Because in order to actually test and OS, you have to put it on every computer/third party hardware and software and test it. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do that.
Although one doesn't expect an OS of this complexity to be bug free, it's hard to attribute problems to third-party hardware when Apple builds OS X for its own hardware.
There are always third party developers who under NDA get access to OS X long before WWDC, as its going through the early to mid late build stages.
I haven't seen much of that. Last year it was the pundits that got early access with a private demo and preview build a week(?) or so before it was announced. I wonder if that has happened this time or if the doubling down on secrecy has eliminated that aspect. If we see no word from Gruber about OS X 10.9 perhaps that could be a sign that he's under a non-disclosure again this year.
Although one doesn't expect an OS of this complexity to be bug free, it's hard to attribute problems to third-party hardware when Apple builds OS X for its own hardware.
Apple builds its own machines, it does not build all the hardware within those machines. Ever seen the errata list for, say, an Intel CPU? They can sometimes be massive. Also, not all hardware bugs will plainly manifest themselves when doing development work and sometimes do not manifest until the software is in the wild and being used by regular users. So it's perfectly reasonable and easy to attribute certain issues in the OS with hardware bugs especially when they only manifest during weird edges cases (as many do).
You never know. Apple could start the build numbering from any arbitrary set of digits. 451 would be the second build if they happened to start at 450.
I want 10.9 to be all optimization like Snow Leopard was. The only feature request I have is to let us customize our notifications. Basso does not please me. I also don't want birthdays from Facebook to pop up as notifications.
I have the feeling development of OS X is becoming more like iOS, than the other way around. If you look at the build history of iOS releases, iOS 6.0 was build 10A403 - 406, depending on the device you had. With OS X being updated on a cycle thats closer to a yearly basis rather than 18-24 months, I'm confident that Apple started building 10.9 not much after 10.8 was released, which means that ~250 builds wouldn't be out of the question at this point of it's development cycle.
I haven't seen much of that. Last year it was the pundits that got early access with a private demo and preview build a week(?) or so before it was announced. I wonder if that has happened this time or if the doubling down on secrecy has eliminated that aspect. If we see no word from Gruber about OS X 10.9 perhaps that could be a sign that he's under a non-disclosure again this year.
mdriftmeyer is almost certainly correct, and probably knows what he's talking about. As for Gruber, even if he's under NDA, he can most likely publish info he receives from sources other than official Apple channels.
It only makes no sense if you've never used continuous integration and automated unit/regression testing after each commit. On the other hand, this is quite a common thing to use for software groups that work on complex pieces of software, such as an OS, do.
Yeah I suppose if the 4 people working on OS X had a build every time they submitted it might have taken 100 days.
I want 10.9 to be all optimization like Snow Leopard was. The only feature request I have is to let us customize our notifications. Basso does not please me. I also don't want birthdays from Facebook to pop up as notifications.
I can say from experience that trying to shed light on ignorance in a forum is a waste of time. That said…
If the build number is at all correct, then it is interesting. However all those people who think that Apple submits builds to devs for testing are delusional. Apple does not use devs for beta testing. They only give devs beta builds for the sole purpose of devs testing their apps against the OS and to get feedback on APIs, and let devs prepare for the new release. It is a side benefit that they get some bug testing done, but that is not its primary purpose. Apple has in-house testing tools which they rely on.
That's not correct either because a few thousand devs will have more coverage of any OS than a few hundred testers.
Unless Apple run their large OS on shifts - which I doubt - they build overnight. As they do for WebKit. It's standard large project methodology. Not every build gets full testing either - it's tested for stability first. A smoke test.
No large project builds the entire project for every coders change or submission. You would get to 451 in half a day if that were the case.
Geez another total spaz of an article. Sometimes it's like people were just born in the last five years. This build number is nothing to read into whatsoever. This articles own evidence defeats its argument.
They used to do one build a day, years ago. Don't think that's always the case these days. If they started 10.9 the day after GM'ing 10.8, does that come to roughly this build number in days?
That's a remarkable build number. It makes no sense to build twice a day or even most weekends. So that's more than a years work overlapping with 10.8. I think iOS 7 might also have been co developed simultaneously with iOS 6.
Will be interesting to see what's going on here. The "13" refers to Darwin version 13, which iOS 6 is already based on. Makes me wonder if iOS 7 will be as well, or if Darwin 14 is ready to go and they're pushing the newest core updates into iOS first, since it is a little less top heavy?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdefender
If it's buggy it's better to not release anything to the public.. better safe than sorry Apple. Remember MAPS. Yeah so does everyone else.
It's impossible to release a bug free OS of this level. Because in order to actually test and OS, you have to put it on every computer/third party hardware and software and test it. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do that. But, releasing it to the developers ahead of time gives them the chance to update their software, test it as best as they can so the third party developers have their updates within a couple of months after the OS is released to the customer. Haven't you noticed that Apple is having less updates per major release? They just released 10.8.4. in about 9 months. I'm sure when 10.9 comes out, they might have or need 10.8.5, but they also might not need to update it. 10.7 had 5 builds. 10.6 had 8 builds. 10.5 had 8 builds. 10.4 had 11 builds. 10.3 had 9 builds. 10.2 had 8 builds. 10.1 had 5 builds. 10.0 had 4 builds.
So, it looks like Apple is doing much better in getting to a bug free release.
MAPS was not a bug in the software, it was the data that was being displayed. Apple can only do so much with third party data, especially when you are displaying the entire world. Even Google has bugs in the data, even to this day. Apple should have spent another 6 months to a year cleaning it up, but it's faster if they have customers submitting problems.
I heard a similar rumour that it's called Kelvin and Hobbled. (is this what we're doing now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
There's an awful lot of ignorant speculation going on here.
Please provide us with some informed speculation, then!
Perhaps Apple is testing some amazing new features that they don't want to release to developers too early. It could be for the "surprise" factor at Monday's keynote (Tim's doubling down on secrecy! lol) or there could be things that Apple doesn't want leaked during a long developer testing period like new hardware, new services, or new Jony Ive UI elements, etc.
Of course it could be much ado about nothing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Um.... why don't you shed some light then? Or shut up?
I can say from experience that trying to shed light on ignorance in a forum is a waste of time. That said…
If the build number is at all correct, then it is interesting. However all those people who think that Apple submits builds to devs for testing are delusional. Apple does not use devs for beta testing. They only give devs beta builds for the sole purpose of devs testing their apps against the OS and to get feedback on APIs, and let devs prepare for the new release. It is a side benefit that they get some bug testing done, but that is not its primary purpose. Apple has in-house testing tools which they rely on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
It's impossible to release a bug free OS of this level. Because in order to actually test and OS, you have to put it on every computer/third party hardware and software and test it. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do that.
Although one doesn't expect an OS of this complexity to be bug free, it's hard to attribute problems to third-party hardware when Apple builds OS X for its own hardware.
I haven't seen much of that. Last year it was the pundits that got early access with a private demo and preview build a week(?) or so before it was announced. I wonder if that has happened this time or if the doubling down on secrecy has eliminated that aspect. If we see no word from Gruber about OS X 10.9 perhaps that could be a sign that he's under a non-disclosure again this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
Although one doesn't expect an OS of this complexity to be bug free, it's hard to attribute problems to third-party hardware when Apple builds OS X for its own hardware.
Apple builds its own machines, it does not build all the hardware within those machines. Ever seen the errata list for, say, an Intel CPU? They can sometimes be massive. Also, not all hardware bugs will plainly manifest themselves when doing development work and sometimes do not manifest until the software is in the wild and being used by regular users. So it's perfectly reasonable and easy to attribute certain issues in the OS with hardware bugs especially when they only manifest during weird edges cases (as many do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
You never know. Apple could start the build numbering from any arbitrary set of digits. 451 would be the second build if they happened to start at 450.
What is the point in starting from 450.
I have the feeling development of OS X is becoming more like iOS, than the other way around. If you look at the build history of iOS releases, iOS 6.0 was build 10A403 - 406, depending on the device you had. With OS X being updated on a cycle thats closer to a yearly basis rather than 18-24 months, I'm confident that Apple started building 10.9 not much after 10.8 was released, which means that ~250 builds wouldn't be out of the question at this point of it's development cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I haven't seen much of that. Last year it was the pundits that got early access with a private demo and preview build a week(?) or so before it was announced. I wonder if that has happened this time or if the doubling down on secrecy has eliminated that aspect. If we see no word from Gruber about OS X 10.9 perhaps that could be a sign that he's under a non-disclosure again this year.
mdriftmeyer is almost certainly correct, and probably knows what he's talking about. As for Gruber, even if he's under NDA, he can most likely publish info he receives from sources other than official Apple channels.
Don't be an idiot. They build every day.
My kind of guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Yeah I suppose if the 4 people working on OS X had a build every time they submitted it might have taken 100 days.
Don't be an idiot. They build every day.
4 people work on OS X? Builds would have taken a 100 days (are they building OS X on Pentium 1 machines)? You're joking, right?
That's not correct either because a few thousand devs will have more coverage of any OS than a few hundred testers.
Unless Apple run their large OS on shifts - which I doubt - they build overnight. As they do for WebKit. It's standard large project methodology. Not every build gets full testing either - it's tested for stability first. A smoke test.
No large project builds the entire project for every coders change or submission. You would get to 451 in half a day if that were the case.
probably not ... unless you've got one for celsius ... otherwise, i think we're done ...
They used to do one build a day, years ago. Don't think that's always the case these days. If they started 10.9 the day after GM'ing 10.8, does that come to roughly this build number in days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
That's a remarkable build number. It makes no sense to build twice a day or even most weekends. So that's more than a years work overlapping with 10.8. I think iOS 7 might also have been co developed simultaneously with iOS 6.
Will be interesting to see what's going on here. The "13" refers to Darwin version 13, which iOS 6 is already based on. Makes me wonder if iOS 7 will be as well, or if Darwin 14 is ready to go and they're pushing the newest core updates into iOS first, since it is a little less top heavy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
No large project builds the entire project for every coders change or submission. You would get to 451 in half a day if that were the case.
So Chrome and Firefox are not large projects? Because they do the very thing you claim that "no large project" does.