durandal_1707

I suppose I'll just be screamed at again (rolls eyes) but, of course, Apple's not the first to use that design:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/30/15711170/essential-phone-announcement-price-android-andy-rubin

https://www.androidauthority.com/sharp-aquos-s2-now-official-looks-pretty-familiar-792398/

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.

melgross 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.

Well, except that:

1) the flaw wasn't really in Sparkle itself; it comes from the fact that they used Apple's WebView, which allows JavaScript by default, and the fact that the Finder can apparently download executables from FTP servers without setting the quarantine flag,

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.

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.

System 7.5.5 and earlier (with the odd exception of 7.1) were freely downloadable from Apple's archives at one point. Unfortunately, the server they were on has since been shut down, but there appears to be a mirror of it on none other than archive.org:

http://ia800501.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/8/items/download.info.apple.com.2012.11/download.info.apple.com.2012.11.zip

Algr_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.

Thunderbolt can do a lot of really cool things. You can even buy an external PCI-Express expansion box, which would let you do pretty much anything. I was super stoked when TB came out. Unfortunately, the price for pretty much everything TB is just too high for any of it to matter, and it seems intrinsic to the technology itself (even the cables need fancy circuitry in them).

dysamoria said:

Yeah, that's really not elegant at all. I'm glad it supports data, though. 

I dunno, I don't think that making it easy to accidentally disconnect the cable to your external hard drive right in the middle of a data transfer is really what you want.

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?

High Sierra does not format SSD's with encryption by default, at least not during the beta releases.

why- 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

You must be new here. On this board, "troll" is a synonym for "person who has an opinion that I personally disagree with."

Soli 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.

I see nothing irrelevant about these OSes or their associated products. On top of that, Apple has at least one OS for the iPod, I think based on Pico OS, that it's used for 15(?) years now, and then you have their firmware/OS for their AirPort devices and all the ARM-based chips that run innumerable other systems. We've been told that the T1 chip is based off of the S-series chip in Watch, but we don't know if it's running a stripped down version of watchOS—not unlike how they stripped down macOS and then built it up to be iOS—or if it's more inline as a basic firmware that runs the Touch Bar, Touch ID, and Apple Pay. We don't even know if the T1 has a GPU for the Touch Bar's display or if that is pulled from the primary system GPU, or if macOS runs that UI or if it's handled by the T1 which then relates all the data seamlessly to MacOS. Regardless, Apple is very deep into ARM development with many OSes and firmwares separated by varying degrees of complexity.

Sure, sure, let's build a laptop replacement on watchOS. Makes sense.

Soli 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.

It makes no sense to put iOS into a notebook or desktop. Regardless of what they call it, it would be based on macOS. It would have drivers for a trackpad/mouse, keyboard without a virtual keyboard being the primary keyboard input, it would have ports for accessories like a directly connected printer and external display. These are not iOS features.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.