Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth • Hacker News Board

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#151

Post by Wowfunhappy » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

dkonofalski wrote: post #122

jeremyjh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No computer that is not getting security hotfixes is "just as good" as it was when it was getting those updates.

Yes it is. Those updates have been applied to it. It does not magically get worse simply because time passes. It does literally everything it did when I bought it and then some because new software came out after it was purchased. Just because it can't run everything else that's come out since then doesn't magically make it stop doing what it's already been able to do.

> It does literally everything it did when I bought it and then some because new software came out after it was purchased.

It quite literally does not.

In 2008, I would have felt comfortable running a Snow Leopard machine with Web Sharing enabled accessible over WAN. Then I could throw whatever I wanted into the ~/Sites folder and access it anywhere.

In 2018 I wouldn't dare do this because Snow Leopard's apache is outdated and vulnerable.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#152

Post by mrbonner » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

Is Apple release cadence a 6-month length now? My company just suggests an upgrade to High Sierra a month ago. They don't even go for Mojave yet let alone Catalina. No wonder everyone is complaining about the quality.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#153

Post by newnewpdro » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 3:27 AM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #113

newnewpdro wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different OSes have different sandboxing capabilities. Until relatively recently, Linux had effectively none , just chroot, and selinux which almost everyone disabled for a decade. The point, which you seem to be missing, is that with generalized sandboxing tools like containers, you can isolate any application to limit the potential damage of application exploits. It's a form of defense in depth. We must assume brow…

>Until relatively recently, Linux has effectively none, just chroot, and selinux which almost everyone disabled for a decade. Chrome has long used several Linux sandboxing features, namely user namespaces and seccomp-bpf [1]. [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/master/...

Chrome was also found to be secretly downloading binary blobs for execution, we should not be trusting Chrome's sandboxing exclusively to protect us from the internet, we can't even trust Chrome itself. [0]

In-browser sandboxing is more for attempting to isolate tabs from accessing one another's state. It can't be relied upon exclusively for protecting the larger host from the browser itself.

One should really put the entire browser in a sandbox where it can only access data and functionality necessary for its operation. Nothing more.

How one achieves that, what tools is at their disposal, is greatly OS-dependent and that's the core of my point. On Linux systems, the out-of-box configuration for most distros is to just run the browser on the host with no sandboxing. It's not sufficient.

Flatpak is one of the active efforts to fix this. If you run firefox or chrome from a flatpak, it will be run in isolation, and accessing external host resources will be done in a controlled fashion via portals or explicitly enumerated mounts in the manifest.

As mentioned elsewhere, I used firejail in the past but now prefer systemd-nspawn containers, often ephemeral ones that are spun up and thrown away per browser session.

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/17/debian_chromium_hub...

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#154

Post by jinonoel » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 3:41 AM UTC

I really, really miss Dashboard. It was a nice quick way to have access to my stickies, a calculator, the weather, and a calendar all in one place

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#155

Post by lostgame » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 3:41 AM UTC

morrick wrote: post #148

I'm the author of the article, and I would like to add a few things to hopefully make my point clearer. - While I'm flattered by the attention my piece got by 'making Hacker News', it is simply a personal view and a personal disappointment towards the direction Apple is going with Mac OS. It's not a prescriptive article. I'm not telling people to avoid upgrading to Mac OS 10.15. It's your Mac, it's your work, it's yo…

Hey - thanks for commenting on this thread. I personally enjoyed the article.

>> I think I'm allowed to share a few criticisms about the direction Mac OS is going without being called a 'whiny entitled teenager'.

I do as well - and, to boot - I wholeheartedly agree with your critique for the most part.

>> Progress should mean making things better, improve what we do with the help of computers and devices.

For sure, and removing access to a lot of my commonly-used applications doesn't help with that, for sure.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#156

Post by lostgame » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:09 AM UTC

morrick wrote: post #138

whalesalad wrote: post #42

> my desktop workhorse, a 2017 4K retina iMac > 5400 rpm hard drive as its main internal volume Regardless of OS, the author _really_ needs to bail on the 5400rpm HDD and get a solid state disk in there... especially if you're gonna call it a workhorse!

When it was time to get that 4K retina iMac, I only had money for one built-to-order upgrade. It was a tough decision. It was either leaving the internal 1TB hard drive and choose to have 16GB of RAM instead of the base 8GB, or choosing a 256GB internal SSD and keeping the base 8GB of RAM. Since RAM in that 21.5-inch retina iMac is only upgradable at purchase, not down the road, I opted for the 16GB of RAM and stayin…

>> RAM is not upgradable later.

Biggest reason I will never buy another Mac. It seems like they just don't want this to be the case. Terrible for the environment.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#157

Post by diminoten » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:38 AM UTC

I'm just... confused. Is the author using the same OS I am? I upgraded the day it came out, and I haven't even noticed in any meaningful way. ZSH is the biggest change, but I've already gotten used to it.

Nothing I use is breaking, none of my workflows or habits needed changing, it was fine.

The author ought to take a good, long look in the mirror and ask if maybe they've got some problems with change.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#158

Post by allset_ » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:44 AM UTC

dkonofalski wrote: post #59

semiotagonal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager. A customer is legitimately entitled to upgrades that aren't actually downgrades. > Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade at all. > Just don't act surprised and attacked when it doesn't work anymore years from now. Well... if Apple isn't forcing people to upgrade now, but will later, then there'…

>legitimately entitled No, they are not. This isn't an upgrade to their existing OS like a patch release. This is a new OS completely and developers were all warned years in advance that Catalina would drop 32-bit support. This is not a downgrade in the slightest. >but will later I have a Mac Mini from 2005 that still runs MacOS Leopard just as well as the day I bought it. I can't install all the latest, greatest sof…

>This is a new OS completely

I don't disagree with your point as a whole, but Catalina is is not a new OS, it's an incremental upgrade.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#159

Post by cycloptic » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:51 AM UTC

jolmg wrote: post #111

newnewpdro wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different OSes have different sandboxing capabilities. Until relatively recently, Linux had effectively none , just chroot, and selinux which almost everyone disabled for a decade. The point, which you seem to be missing, is that with generalized sandboxing tools like containers, you can isolate any application to limit the potential damage of application exploits. It's a form of defense in depth. We must assume brow…

You keep trying to shift this conversation into sandboxing. Of course, any form of sandboxing is going to add defense in depth to anything . It isn't of any particular relevance to this conversation. You said: > 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 /h…

It's not FUD, that person is telling the truth. Don't interpret it the wrong way though. Browser exploits are a popular 0-day on any platform and it is indeed likely the security situation on other platforms is just as bad.

Re: Mac OS Catalina: more trouble than it’s worth

#160

Post by chrischen » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #145

berberous wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative possibility: you just got old. In all seriousness, older people are more opposed to UI and other types of change.

He is evidently NOT opposed to changes, read these quotes from him: > I don't like change when it unnecessarily breaks things that used to work just fine. > I used to like change more when it actually made me work better, when the advantages clearly outweighed the downsides, when progress and improvements were noticeable and thoughtfully implemented. He is opposed to changes that 1) break things that used to work fin…

> I don't like change when it unnecessarily breaks things that used to work just fine.

This is by definition what change is. It's an improvement, and if changes didn't break things there'd never be progress and nothing would get changed.