I think all these bug fixes are a sign of the efforts being put into Snow Leopard. With SL focused mainly on security / stability (as one of the main "features"), it makes sense that they decided to fix some of the current problems they might have discovered in Tiger.
If 10.5.5 is going to applied on top of this security update then why would the security update have been held back?
My gosh, Mac OS X is complex software, not a tip calculator. Bind itself wouldn't have been difficult to update alone, but there could be dependencies and other security holes Apple wished to plug in the same security update. And/or risk assessment might have indicated bind could wait. Or I might just be pissing fizzy water.
As there have been loads of graphic driver problems since 10.5.3 (see e.g. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...57755813&sid=1 ) with lots of ppl having to revert to 10.5.2 drivers because of them (and others - like myself - not updating past 10.5.2).
WTB fixes to graphical corruption fixes - in the spirit of someone having mentioned WoW .
Seriously though, those fixes along with sorting out sleep issues, networking reliability issues, and my favourite - making the iTunes dashboard widget work at all! Would be really nice.
It annoys me that they're not far off updating the MBPs and the last revision still has widespread graphics issues that have been paid no mind.
82 bug fixes sounds good, but so did 250+ in 10.5.3 and none of mine made it . I also like how open they are with this present security patch, re exactly what it fixes, way to go.
My gosh, Mac OS X is complex software, not a tip calculator. Bind itself wouldn't have been difficult to update alone, but there could be dependencies and other security holes Apple wished to plug in the same security update. And/or risk assessment might have indicated bind could wait. Or I might just be pissing fizzy water.
That still doesn't answer your logical fallacy as to why you think a security update would be held back so an alpha release of a point update could be seeded to developers before the security update is released.
My gosh, Mac OS X is complex software, not a tip calculator. Bind itself wouldn't have been difficult to update alone, but there could be dependencies and other security holes Apple wished to plug in the same security update. And/or risk assessment might have indicated bind could wait. Or I might just be pissing fizzy water.
From the uproar I would say that a risk assessment would indicate that Apple should had dropped everything and gotten that BIND update out. When I hear so many security experts from so many different sources make these complaints I think it is serious and very risky.
You do know that until this update was released every Mac DNS Server was vulnerable to releasing incorrect IP addresses? And there was no way for us, the browser users to know that we were being redirected to the wrong site. And if we failed to respond correctly to security certificate warning we could even be redirected to phony https sites. This is very much a high level risk. Fixing this is more important than getting a private alpha release to a point update to the developers. 10.5.5 could have waited a week or two. This problem shouldn't have waited at all.
Comments
You do realize the developer release of 10.5.5 is going to be applied on top of this security release?
If 10.5.5 is going to applied on top of this security update then why would the security update have been held back?
If 10.5.5 is going to applied on top of this security update then why would the security update have been held back?
My gosh, Mac OS X is complex software, not a tip calculator. Bind itself wouldn't have been difficult to update alone, but there could be dependencies and other security holes Apple wished to plug in the same security update. And/or risk assessment might have indicated bind could wait. Or I might just be pissing fizzy water.
So, the biggest question of all, will 10.5.5 fix the driver issue for Diablo II / Starcraft on Nvidia Macs?
Re: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=490676
And World of Warcraft too!
As there have been loads of graphic driver problems since 10.5.3 (see e.g. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...57755813&sid=1 ) with lots of ppl having to revert to 10.5.2 drivers because of them (and others - like myself - not updating past 10.5.2).
So I am doubly hopeful for this patch!
Seriously though, those fixes along with sorting out sleep issues, networking reliability issues, and my favourite - making the iTunes dashboard widget work at all! Would be really nice.
It annoys me that they're not far off updating the MBPs and the last revision still has widespread graphics issues that have been paid no mind.
82 bug fixes sounds good, but so did 250+ in 10.5.3 and none of mine made it
My gosh, Mac OS X is complex software, not a tip calculator. Bind itself wouldn't have been difficult to update alone, but there could be dependencies and other security holes Apple wished to plug in the same security update. And/or risk assessment might have indicated bind could wait. Or I might just be pissing fizzy water.
That still doesn't answer your logical fallacy as to why you think a security update would be held back so an alpha release of a point update could be seeded to developers before the security update is released.
My gosh, Mac OS X is complex software, not a tip calculator. Bind itself wouldn't have been difficult to update alone, but there could be dependencies and other security holes Apple wished to plug in the same security update. And/or risk assessment might have indicated bind could wait. Or I might just be pissing fizzy water.
From the uproar I would say that a risk assessment would indicate that Apple should had dropped everything and gotten that BIND update out. When I hear so many security experts from so many different sources make these complaints I think it is serious and very risky.
You do know that until this update was released every Mac DNS Server was vulnerable to releasing incorrect IP addresses? And there was no way for us, the browser users to know that we were being redirected to the wrong site. And if we failed to respond correctly to security certificate warning we could even be redirected to phony https sites. This is very much a high level risk. Fixing this is more important than getting a private alpha release to a point update to the developers. 10.5.5 could have waited a week or two. This problem shouldn't have waited at all.
I am curious, how long does it normally take from developer testing to live release?
Thankful for answers.