Intel version is still 10.16, new ARM version is 11.0.
I can confirm this is false. I have MacOS Big Sur on my MacBook Pro 2017, and it identifies as 11.0.
What does it say if you run:
sw_vers -productVersion
The End of OS X
31–40 of 589 posts
Re: The End of OS X
#32OS X (the name) is gone for a while, it was replaced by macOS. The numbering change now is inconsequential.
Most people probably don't even refer to the macOS versions by number but by codename.
Sure, but version names are hard to order: was Catalina before or after X? who will remember? (maybe if it at least was like Ubuntu with names following alphabetic order)
Re: The End of OS X
#33I’ve been unhappy with macOS and Apple for the past few years and in January switched back to developing on a windows PC. I could not be happier with that decision and with the “roadmap” Apple provided yesterday, I expect it will be a long time before I go back to macOS, if ever.
Re: The End of OS X
#34That family tree is wrong, right? 1. Unix was first, then BSD came from Unix... then Mach was built quite a bit later. 2. NextStep was then built by jobs after he was let go from apple by Mr. Soda man. 3. Jobs comes back to apple, brings NextStep- reads the tea leaves with OS7-9 and sets up NextStep as the successor with OSX. Apple branded NextStep becomes OSX. Is my chronology correct?
Excepting a minor detail - NextStep brought Jobs to Apple rather than vice versa. Gil Amelio chose NextStep rather than Apple's own Copeland as the successor to System 7, bought NeXT, and never knew what hit him.
Re: The End of OS X
#35That family tree is wrong, right? 1. Unix was first, then BSD came from Unix... then Mach was built quite a bit later. 2. NextStep was then built by jobs after he was let go from apple by Mr. Soda man. 3. Jobs comes back to apple, brings NextStep- reads the tea leaves with OS7-9 and sets up NextStep as the successor with OSX. Apple branded NextStep becomes OSX. Is my chronology correct?
I think your chronology is correct, yes. The family tree in the article is not a chronology, I think, so your chronology augments it with useful information.
Re: The End of OS X
#36What many UNIX fans that abandoned their Linux and BSD distributions for OS X fail to understand is that Apple culture was never about CLI, shell scripts and daemons.
Mac OS was never like that, A/UX was a failed attempt into UNIX market while keeping the Mac OS spirit, and for NeXT is was a way to embrace UNIX workstation market and extend it with NeXTSTEP Objective-C frameworks.
Steve's opinion regarding UNIX is well known.
And then there was BeOS on the race or the failed Copland project, both without any major UNIX story.
Re: The End of OS X
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I suspect that non-App Store apps for the Mac may be seeing the twilight." What about MacOS 11 makes you think this? Literally almost nothing of consequence has changed since Catalina in OS security. Gatekeeper hasn't gotten tighter, you can still disable SIP, homebrew works great.
The move towards "iOSing" the OS. It won't be GateKeeper. It will be policies. They won't make it obvious at all, because they know how unpopular it will be. Let's see what the future brings. I'm not thrilled with it (for example, I have one app that I've written, that uses ffmpeg[0], and ffmpeg no likee sandbox). [0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_MediaServer
But once again, the only "iOS-ing" that has happened so far is the theme. Yes, the theme looks more iOS-like, but that's about it. There are almost no technical differences whatsoever underneath since Catalina and almost no security changes.
Re: The End of OS X
#38That family tree is wrong, right? 1. Unix was first, then BSD came from Unix... then Mach was built quite a bit later. 2. NextStep was then built by jobs after he was let go from apple by Mr. Soda man. 3. Jobs comes back to apple, brings NextStep- reads the tea leaves with OS7-9 and sets up NextStep as the successor with OSX. Apple branded NextStep becomes OSX. Is my chronology correct?
I think so. OSX was bought, NT was bought, Android was bought. Which big OS vendor build their own OS? Maybe Google with Fuchsia?
NT wasn't bought.
Re: The End of OS X
#39I know this is about the coming MacOS 11.0, but Catalina was the end of OS X for me, and the end of Macs in general for me. I will not be migrating from Mojave to Catalina, and will use my current generation of Macs until they are obsolete, while finally making the transition to Linux. Mac and I had a good run, but I'm clearly no longer the target demographic and their corporate goals aren't aligned with mine as a cu…
I suspect you're being downvoted because this is an empty, meaningless comment without some elaboration on why you've decided this. As it stands, there's no room for discussion: the only paths forward are for others to simply agree or disagree, or to try their best to guess at what your concerns are in order to further the conversation.
I think his comment is pretty obvious. He's basically checksumming Arch-ISOs as we speak. Welcome to Linux. The Arch to freedom, I suppose. Now you can soon say "I used macs by the way," which is quite an Archievement. Welcome to the sane world gentlemen. Arch leads the way. All the way.
Re: The End of OS X
#40That family tree is wrong, right? 1. Unix was first, then BSD came from Unix... then Mach was built quite a bit later. 2. NextStep was then built by jobs after he was let go from apple by Mr. Soda man. 3. Jobs comes back to apple, brings NextStep- reads the tea leaves with OS7-9 and sets up NextStep as the successor with OSX. Apple branded NextStep becomes OSX. Is my chronology correct?
I believe your chronology is correct, but I don't see how it differs from the (primarily hierarchal) family tree given in the article.