I know apple isn't the company it used to be and with all the FUD going around I was reluctant to install the latest version but it works perfectly. This is article of +3000 words, don't take the time to write this and then complain about having to click a number of popups.
Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
61–70 of 327 posts
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#62That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager. If the entire argument boils down to "I don't wanna!", then what's the point? Don't upgrade. Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade at all. If you need to run all your old software, don't upgrade. That's not a fault of the new OS. Technology changes. That's a fact of life. Even the example of Aper…
The point is it's always slightly risky to upgrade, and if there aren't life-changing new features this time around (which there aren't) then in the short term you're simply rolling the dice and simultaneously losing compatibility with all 32-bit apps. It's for these reasons that for the first time in years, I'm not immediately updating.
That's fine, though. There's nothing that says that you can't stay on the version of the OS that you're using until you decide not to.
That decision, though, comes with the consequence that you likely won't be able to run new software. If you're not worried about new software and don't want to be until the point comes where you need new software, the updates have always been optional.
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I avoid arbitrary web browsing on my Linux laptop and just use it for coding. What makes web browsers less secure on Linux than on macOS?
Well, lack of DRM support for one. Disney+ won't work on Linux browsers.
WTF does DRM have to do with browser security?
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#64As an owner of a nvidia650m macbookpro, the fact apple actually made it work again with discrete graphics is the best part of the upgrade (in the previous os, it would slow down till it was unuseable)
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#65I couldn’t tell from the article if the author had actually tried Catalina. I have been running the beta since day one of the beta release and the only issue is that applications have to be signed or built locally. Apple wants macOS to be a safe walled garden like iOS and Chromebooks. I am fine with this, but I also have a very nice Linux laptop to play with. I expect organized crime and most governments to continue…
How does a user "try out" Catalina, decide that its not for him and then revert back to Mojave ?
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#66I couldn’t tell from the article if the author had actually tried Catalina. I have been running the beta since day one of the beta release and the only issue is that applications have to be signed or built locally. Apple wants macOS to be a safe walled garden like iOS and Chromebooks. I am fine with this, but I also have a very nice Linux laptop to play with. I expect organized crime and most governments to continue…
>I avoid arbitrary web browsing on my Linux laptop and just use it for coding. What makes web browsers less secure on Linux than on macOS?
Unless you're going out of your way to run your browser in a container or dedicated VM on Linux, there are substantial risks associated with browsing the web in terms of exposing all of your information in /home, which might include ssh and pgp private keys, basically everything your user can access.
But we have a number of solutions for running things in containers if you just use them. Early on firejail was popular, these days I just run nspawn containers for browser instances and bind mount in some stuff for a shared Downloads directory etc.
I can't speak to how that compares to OSX as I've never used it, but it is worth noting that the security story on Linux can range from bad to somewhat OK depending on your setup.
Edit:
In responses people seem to be completely ignoring that I already stated above in my original comment that I can't speak to how it compares to OSX. I don't know what OSX is doing for application sandboxing defaults.
I can however speak with some authority on the Linux situation. And today, if you're running firefox/chrome as your regular user as installed by apt/yum etc, without any additional sandboxing, and that user has access to secrets like ssh/gpg private keys, you're being unnecessarily reckless. And unfortunately that is basically the default way browsers are run today on most distributions
This is a major reason why the Flatpak/GNOME people have been working so hard on portals and namespaces are an integral component of the runtime. It's not just about application distribution. They're trying to close a major security hole in desktop linux as it's often used today. They want applications like the browser run in its own namespaces with just the minimum of host filesystem paths bind mounted in.
There's absolutely no reason for your browser process to have the ability to access all of your private keys, just because they happen to be under the home directory it happens to have access to, full stop.
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#67I have too many 32bit games that will never be updated to 64bit. For the first time in 18 years, I am not going to upgrade to the latest mac os.
Apple orchestrated a much smoother transition from OS 9 to OS X and RISC to x84 than from 32bit to 64bit.
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, lack of DRM support for one. Disney+ won't work on Linux browsers.
WTF does DRM have to do with browser security ?
I think OP got confused and gave an example of how allegedly browsers on Linux are more secure because there is no DRM (because DRM to an extent allows another party to control what your computer can and can not do, through an unvetted binary blob). But even then they are wrong, as DRM works on browsers running on Linux.
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#69I couldn’t tell from the article if the author had actually tried Catalina. I have been running the beta since day one of the beta release and the only issue is that applications have to be signed or built locally. Apple wants macOS to be a safe walled garden like iOS and Chromebooks. I am fine with this, but I also have a very nice Linux laptop to play with. I expect organized crime and most governments to continue…
Hello! I am the author, and no, I haven't tried Catalina because, as I state at the very end of my article:
"Both my main Macs are really working flawlessly at the moment, and Catalina is beta-quality software that’s likely to give me headaches I don’t need right now. Who knows, maybe down the road I could acquire a cheap used Mac that can run Catalina (something like a 2014 Mac mini) and use it as a test machine. As things are now, I absolutely do not want Catalina to mess with my current setups and data."
I'll add — I'm in a position (work-wise) where I can't afford to risk Catalina messing with my current setups and data.
Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth
#70I have too many 32bit games that will never be updated to 64bit. For the first time in 18 years, I am not going to upgrade to the latest mac os. Apple orchestrated a much smoother transition from OS 9 to OS X and RISC to x84 than from 32bit to 64bit.
They did? 32-bit apps continued to be supported for a full decade after the hardware architecture went 64-bit.
During that entire decade, Apple issued steadily-increasing warnings to users that eventually, the 32-bit support would cease.
Seems like a smooth transition to me.