libertymatters

About

Username
libertymatters
Joined
Visits
20
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
124
Badges
0
Posts
34
  • Apple praised and slammed for representation of women at March event

    red oak said:
    The best, most impactful employees are the ones who should get to present.   Period.  

    When one group is significantly over-represented, it's transparent and looks forced.  And, it de-values those presenters  as just on stage to achieve a "quota".    What happens to the morale of the over-achieving, highly qualified white males at Apple who were passed over just so a woman could be on stage?    That undermines the whole meritocracy of the company culture.  It is a cancer

    IMO
    Exactly.  Progressives will and are ripping apart the social fabric of companies in the name of equity.
    red oakmike1magman1979omasouGG1elijahgMicDorseywatto_cobra
  • Apple execs explain why you should use Apple Maps over competitors

    If they're doing PR to tell you it is better than the competition you know it isn't.  The best that can be said is it is better than it use to be.  I say this using Apple Maps often over Google Maps, but I'm not under any allusions that it is better than Google Maps.  It isn't.  The reason I use Apple Maps more often is privacy from Google's spying.  Sometimes though, you just gotta use Google Maps because Apple's doesn't cut it.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Time Machine backups causing issues for some Apple Silicon Mac users

    elijahg said:
    Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots, but Time Machine still uses the legacy pre-APFS approach and has been proven to be incredibly inefficient compared to third-party solutions.
    I know Apple is focusing on services so they actually rather want us to back-up on their cloud VS locally, so why aren't they just EOL'ing this thing altogether, and instead support third-party developers in providing a back-up solution?

    And who in their right mind is still "travelling back in time" by traversing through Finder or app time instances (the latter only working with a few 1st-part apps) in 2021? I mean, the Steve Jobs-era visualisation of using Z-depth for time is novel, but hardly practical.

    Time Machine can use APFS disks for backup as of Big Sur.
    https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/types-of-disks-you-can-use-with-time-machine-mh15139/mac
    @CheeseFreeze isn't talking about APFS backup destinations, but using a filesystem feature of APFS rather than the ancient HFS+ hard links (and their equivalent in APFS) that Time Machine uses now. New Time Machine backups stored on networked disks do now use APFS disk images rather than HFS+.

    athempel said:
    Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots
    How would an APFS snapshot on the same physical disk save your data from the failure of said disk?
    It wouldn't. However, snapshots don't technically have to be stored on the source drive. Whether APFS supports this right now, I'm not sure.

    @CheeseFreeze is completely right with his comment. TM is archaic and inefficient. A snapshot stores only the block-level difference between files, whereas Time Machine copies the entire file across again even if there's one single bit changed. For a 1kb file that doesn't matter, but nowadays with file sizes ballooning, 1GB+ files are pretty common. Change the title of that file and the entire thing gets copied across again, without the other file being deleted on the backup. So wasting 2x space for one identical file.

    Also TM is sluggish on networked disks and the UI is pretty awful. I'd much rather pick a file, see a list of previous versions of that file with previews, and maybe a diff, all integrated properly into the Finder. Not the outdated full-screen TM UI that we have now.
    So Time Machine in Big Sur and later does use snapshots with APFS.  It is not using hard links(nor their equivalent) like HFS+ as APFS doesn't even support hard links.  CheeseFreeze is mistaken that Time Machine is archaic and inefficient.  It was updated in Big Sur to be more modern using block based snapshots.  

    https://eclecticlight.co/2021/10/07/upgrading-to-big-sur-or-monterey-migrating-time-machine-backups/
    https://eclecticlight.co/2020/06/29/apfs-changes-in-big-sur-how-time-machine-backs-up-to-apfs-and-more/
    dewmeelijahgprairiewalkerwatto_cobra
  • Time Machine backups causing issues for some Apple Silicon Mac users

    Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots, but Time Machine still uses the legacy pre-APFS approach and has been proven to be incredibly inefficient compared to third-party solutions.
    I know Apple is focusing on services so they actually rather want us to back-up on their cloud VS locally, so why aren't they just EOL'ing this thing altogether, and instead support third-party developers in providing a back-up solution?

    And who in their right mind is still "travelling back in time" by traversing through Finder or app time instances (the latter only working with a few 1st-part apps) in 2021? I mean, the Steve Jobs-era visualisation of using Z-depth for time is novel, but hardly practical.

    Time Machine can use APFS disks for backup as of Big Sur.
    https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/types-of-disks-you-can-use-with-time-machine-mh15139/mac
    magman1979mwhitewatto_cobra
  • Apple chief says Apple Business Essentials doesn't compete with Jamf

    Apple themselves are still Jamf customers. Eventually, I can see them trying to move into Jamf's space, but Apple's own design has made that hard to do. Sure the MDM framework is written by Apple, but so much is provided by 3rd party MDMs (UI, cloud services, support). Apple can absolutely move into that space, but as someone who manages MDM for Apple devices for a living, I wouldn't give them a glance. Not because they won't do it will (they absolutely will). Not because they won't provide the cloud services (they will). Not because they don't have the ability to support the product (they do). They could beat Mosyle's pricing (cheapest full feature MDM on the market) and I still wouldn't give it a thought. The issue is that moving between MDM platforms is basically impossible. It's hard enough to move devices between Apple Business Manager instances (think mergers/acquisitions). When I was managing 500 devices I would have bolted if I had to change MDMs. Now that I'm managing thousands, it's just not going to happen. Apple knows this. They're targeting the small businesses that don't have anything at all. They're offering something as powerful as Jamf Pro that is supposed to be easier to manage than Jamf now.
    Your argument sounds reasonable at first glance and is reasonable given the present state of MDM Mac management.  However, Apple controls the OS and the MDM protocol.  If they want to make it possible to easily migrate MDM servers in a future version of macOS because it would be profitable for them then they could modify macOS and the protocol to make it easier to migrate.  It didn't get hard to migrate Macs between Jamf servers until MDM.  
    byronl