It looks like Big Sur marks the end of standalone updater packages for macOS.
It looks like Big Sur marks the end of standalone updater packages for macOS.
<https://eclecticlight.co/2020/12/17/apple-has-stopped-providing-standalone-installers-for-macos-updates/>
It looks like Big Sur marks the end of standalone updater packages for macOS.
<https://eclecticlight.co/2020/12/17/apple-has-stopped-providing-standalone-installers-for-macos-updates/>
The reason for the change seems to lie in the complexities introduced by the new Sealed System Volume (SSV).
<https://eclecticlight.co/2020/12/20/last-week-on-my-mac-begging-from-apple/>
There were variants of Unix, VMS.
On 2020-12-20 14:57, Neill Massello wrote:
The reason for the change seems to lie in the complexities introduced by the >> new Sealed System Volume (SSV).
<https://eclecticlight.co/2020/12/20/last-week-on-my-mac-begging-from-apple/>
In the 1990s,
here follows blithering nonsense that is entirely irrelevant, and best ignored, ending with the usual shitshow of FUD spreading delusion.
Ignore history at your own risk. The SE variants of UNIX failed because
they were too haverd t manage and limited in use.
Moving the Macs to "closed apliances" may have advantages in greater
public, but business will hate it because they become too hard to manage.
Moving the Macs to "closed apliances" may have advantages in greater
public, but business will hate it because they become too hard to manage.
No, IT managers in business always hate what Apple does. IT managers are a PC necessity. They have never been necessary in the Apple world. It's a widely known secret.
On 2020-12-20 20:19, Lewis wrote:
here follows blithering nonsense that is entirely irrelevant, and best
ignored, ending with the usual shitshow of FUD spreading delusion.
Ignore history at your own risk. The SE variants of UNIX
On 2020-12-20 21:10, Leo wrote:
No, IT managers in business always hate what Apple does. IT managers are a >> PC
necessity. They have never been necessary in the Apple world. It's a widely >> known secret.
Gross exaggeration. If a business has hundreds or thousands of Macs you
can be sure it is like herding cats for IT as everyone will have their particular needs in the business. Not the cluster mess of Windows of course.
I wonder with that Solar Winds exploit will do now to such organizations. I'd
have thought that any corporate resource used by the USGov had to be conform to a specific security level called FEDRAMP.
On 2020-12-21 20:02, Percival John Hackworth wrote:
I wonder with that Solar Winds exploit will do now to such organizations. I'd
have thought that any corporate resource used by the USGov had to be conform >> to a specific security level called FEDRAMP.
In the days of the Secure Environment SE version of an OS, it was
cleared only on an approved version. Each subversion had to be
approved. Secure, but so heavy/burdensome and why it didn't last.
If this Solar Winds thing got vetted and approved, it is unlikely that
the product was aprpoved as opposed to a single specific version, so
very easy for a patch or new subvcersion to introduce the vulnerability.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how any of
this actually works. You have not a single clue how vetting works or
approval or anything about this situation at all.
In an Apple context, if the same hack happened, it would happen to
Apple's source and would get signed by Apple and customers would istall
a piece of software signed and validated by Apple despite all the OS-X protectiosn such as SIP.
On 2020-12-21 22:58, Lewis wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how any of
this actually works. You have not a single clue how vetting works or
approval or anything about this situation at all.
Although not obvious anymore, SolarWinds web site had the warning on the
hack a few days ago and they were specific to a subversion. Customers
told to installer the later version.
So most customers would have purchased and installed a clean product
only once a patch/subversion upgreade was installed did the hack get installed with it.
In an Apple context, if the same hack happened, it would happen to
Apple's source and would get signed by Apple and customers would istall
a piece of software signed and validated by Apple despite all the OS-X protectiosn such as SIP.
Apple appears to be moving in that direction and there is a danger that
if they go too far, it will make the operating system too unweildy to
use as an OS and turn the Macs into appliances with "firmware" in it
that make it extremely easy to use for what Apple has decided you can
do, but impossible to do what Apple hasn't allowed.
On 12/20/20 6:34 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
Apple appears to be moving in that direction and there is a danger that
if they go too far, it will make the operating system too unweildy to
use as an OS and turn the Macs into appliances with "firmware" in it
that make it extremely easy to use for what Apple has decided you can
do, but impossible to do what Apple hasn't allowed.
In other words, "an iPad in a Mac".
Or, the "iOS-ization" of the Mac OS.
On 2020-12-22 18:14:13 +0000, Fishrrman said:
On 12/20/20 6:34 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
Apple appears to be moving in that direction and there is a danger that
if they go too far, it will make the operating system too unweildy to
use as an OS and turn the Macs into appliances with "firmware" in it
that make it extremely easy to use for what Apple has decided you can
do, but impossible to do what Apple hasn't allowed.
In other words, "an iPad in a Mac".
Or, the "iOS-ization" of the Mac OS.
It has already begun, and become even more evident with macOS Big Sur
and Apple Silicon. :-(
Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
On 2020-12-22 18:14:13 +0000, Fishrrman said:
On 12/20/20 6:34 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
Apple appears to be moving in that direction and there is a danger that >>>> if they go too far, it will make the operating system too unweildy to
use as an OS and turn the Macs into appliances with "firmware" in it
that make it extremely easy to use for what Apple has decided you can
do, but impossible to do what Apple hasn't allowed.
In other words, "an iPad in a Mac".
Or, the "iOS-ization" of the Mac OS.
It has already begun, and become even more evident with macOS Big Sur
and Apple Silicon. :-(
:( It would be nice if Macs had touch screen displays too. I wonder if Apple will ever
merge their iPads and MacBooks together as one in the future.
On 2020-12-22 7:15 p.m., Ant wrote:
Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:
On 2020-12-22 18:14:13 +0000, Fishrrman said:
On 12/20/20 6:34 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
Apple appears to be moving in that direction and there is a danger that >>>>> if they go too far, it will make the operating system too unweildy to >>>>> use as an OS and turn the Macs into appliances with "firmware" in it >>>>> that make it extremely easy to use for what Apple has decided you can >>>>> do, but impossible to do what Apple hasn't allowed.
In other words, "an iPad in a Mac".
Or, the "iOS-ization" of the Mac OS.
It has already begun, and become even more evident with macOS Big Sur
and Apple Silicon. :-(
:( It would be nice if Macs had touch screen displays too. I wonder if
Apple will ever merge their iPads and MacBooks together as one in the
future.
I've already seen an analysis of Big Sur that suggests they're getting prepared for touchscreen Macs.
In article <kTjEH.33234$lZ1.18686@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
In an Apple context, if the same hack happened, it would happen to
Apple's source and would get signed by Apple and customers would istall
a piece of software signed and validated by Apple despite all the OS-X
protectiosn such as SIP.
no
A touchscreen computer, more especially a desktop computer, simply
doesn't work for longterm use.
In an Apple context, if the same hack happened, it would happen to
Apple's source and would get signed by Apple and customers would istall >> a piece of software signed and validated by Apple despite all the OS-X
protectiosn such as SIP.
no
Did you read about Solarwinds? the hackers introduced backdoors into
the application source code at Solarwinds without Solarwinds being
aware, Solarwinds build a version/update from their source code, not
knowing it included those modifications. Customers got a secure kit and installed the update with no reason to doubt its integrity.
On 2020-12-23 00:26, Your Name wrote:
A touchscreen computer, more especially a desktop computer, simply
doesn't work for longterm use.
Apple sales point to laptops, not desktops. However, sales numbers don't
tell the full story because desktops are still being used plenty, but
they just last longer so sales numbers don't reflect it.
In message <tqFEH.54689$d12.18950@fx33.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2020-12-23 00:26, Your Name wrote:
A touchscreen computer, more especially a desktop computer, simply
doesn't work for longterm use.
Apple sales point to laptops, not desktops. However, sales numbers don't tell the full story because desktops are still being used plenty, but
they just last longer so sales numbers don't reflect it.
Mac laptops seem to last a very long time. My wife is using a 2020 M1
MBA and a 2012 MBP. That is currently the oldest running machine in the house.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 713 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 15:47:56 |
| Calls: | 9,039 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
51 files (16,702K bytes) |
| Messages: | 464,411 |
| Posted today: | 2 |