- Last Active
Lesser-known Android phone makers copy look of Apple's iPhone XI suppose I'll just be screamed at again (rolls eyes) but, of course, Apple's not the first to use that design:
However, I'm sure there's some big reason that it's okay for Apple to jump on the bezel-free bandwagon, but not for anyone else to do it after they do.
Sparkle software updater leaves 'huge' number of Mac apps open to attackmelgross said:I love it! I get this crap about how secure open source is because there are so many "eyes" on it. That total nonsense. Open source is as vulnerable as any proprietary software is, often more so.
2) this was patched pretty much immediately as soon as it was revealed (unlike the Finder bug, which hasn't been fixed yet), and:
3) it only affects apps that are using HTTP rather than HTTPS to load resources, which has been discouraged for quite some time now (in El Cap, in fact, HTTP is disabled by default by App Transport Security, and you have to jump through some hoops before it'll allow you to use it at all in the first place).
edit: it appears that this is relying on a bug in the Finder's FTP support. Apparently, if the Finder is set as the default FTP handler, it can download executable files from FTP servers without setting the quarantine flag, so that Gatekeeper is bypassed. I hope Apple patches this soon, because it's kind of huge, and it doesn't seem specific to Sparkle. To me, it looks like someone could use this trick basically to intercept any Web traffic, including normal browsing via Safari or Chrome.
edit 2: Here's a post containing some tips on how to defend against this attack.
In-browser Mac OS 7.0.1 emulation, compatible software suite arrives at the Internet Archi...tallest skil said:Oh, that’s right, System 7 (before 7.6.5, I think) is freely downloadable and usable. Nice piece of history here. I was going to comment on how it’s amazing that it’s possible to just emulate it like this, but then I remembered that I’ve been able to emulate Windows 95 on the first-gen iPad for years now, so it’s not that impressive.
Apple won't release a GPU-equipped Thunderbolt Retina 5K display anytime soon - reportAlgr_Myx said:Ugg. What was the point of inventing Thunderbolt? They took away firewire, and told us about all these amazing things it could do. Then shipped nothing but boxes that charge you $200 for a SATA port.
Griffin expands BreakSafe magnetic cable lineup with 100W USB-C model, car charger, moredysamoria said:Yeah, that's really not elegant at all. I'm glad it supports data, though.
Apple releases macOS 10.13 High Sierra with APFS, Metal 2, new Safari, Photos improvements...rob53 said:jahaja said:Does anyone here have experience of updating from Sierra, using FileVault, to High Sierra which apparently does not have any FileVault since encryption is included from the get-go?I'm happy to report that this is not true for the final release. My encrypted HFS+ volume was automatically converted to encrypted APFS on upgrading.
More evidence of 'macOS' rebranding surfaces on Apple websitewhy- said:slurpy said:Oh sure, if you say so. It may be fine to hundreds of millions of others, but not you, so case closed. Nevermind the fact that it's iOS, tvOS, watchOS, but this one should be capitalized cause a troll like you says so.
Well Mac is a proper noun or a special word or what have you. watch and TV aren't
and I'm not sure why you're calling someone a troll for simply voicing their opinion
Intel's chip design, not Apple's choices, reason behind Thunderbolt 3 & RAM issues in new MacBook PSoli said:durandal_1707 said:Are we really going to be pedantic enough to bring clearly irrelevant things like watchOS and tvOS into this? I think it's pretty clear what I meant.
Intel's chip design, not Apple's choices, reason behind Thunderbolt 3 & RAM issues in new MacBook PSoli said:durandal_1707 said:This. If Apple makes an ARM-based laptop, which I still find unlikely, it would probably be more closely aligned with the iOS architecture than macOS. Making an ARM-based Mac would be a huge mistake, since 1) performance would decrease, and 2) with zero compatibility with existing apps, they'd have the same problem Microsoft had with the early Surface tablets, before they switched them back to Intel, where people were returning the things in record numbers because while they claimed to run Windows, their Windows software didn't work.
- Physical keyboards: Already supported by iOS. Apple is even selling a first-party one for the iPad now.
- Mouse/trackpad: Competing platforms (Android and Windows Phone) support it. It wouldn't be hard to add to iOS as well.
- Ports for:
- Printing: No ports needed, really; iOS can do that right now, with AirPrint. Chromebook does something similar, requiring Google Cloud Print or networked printers.
- External display: While this sort of thing would be arguably out of scope of a low-end product such as the hypothetical laptop being discussed, iOS can nevertheless do that right now, with this. Adopt USB-C instead of the Lightning port, and it'll be even easier; exactly the same as on Mac laptops.
The only one of these things that isn't an iOS feature right now is the mouse support, and that's easily added.
You can't take the macOS version of Pages and run it on iOS. It's a completely different app, running on a completely different architecture. Apple's previous processor jumps have been to processors sufficiently more powerful that the software for the old architecture could be emulated reasonably during the transition period. That's not possible with ARM, at least not right now.And of course they would be compatible with existing apps. Even on the iPhone Pages, for example, is compatible with Pages on macOS. And this isn't just Apple's apps, but innumerable 3rd-party developers make macOS and iOS apps that are compatible with each other. Dropbox, foe example, is only both platforms, as well on Windows and Linux. If and when this does happen you'll see Xcode updated to allow yet another (their 4th?) seamless conversation for developers with relatively little effort, but the apps will exist.
Microsoft ran into this with the first two Surface models. They weren't compatible with x86 Windows software, and people kept buying them, WTFing at why their apps wouldn't run on this supposed Windows PC, and returning them. Then they had the Surface/Surface Pro dichotomy which confused users, with one machine running their apps and another nearly identical-looking one not. Eventually Microsoft was forced to move the Surface to Intel Atom. Apple would be wise not to repeat this mistake. The obvious solution is to call any ARM-based laptop, in the unlikely case they decide to make one, something other than a Mac.