271–280 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make a boot object and use that to point your Mac at it.
If that is your idea of Own OS I am happy for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, this is 90% likely malicious. The non-malicious usage I can imagine is that for debugging the firewall you don't want to lock your other services out of it in case something goes wrong (or as you said, for reliability issues)
My fear is that Apple will now make the design decision to make these services more unreliable if blocked. Like I experienced, others too have noticed similar behaviour: > It’s worth noting that Big Sur and its predecessors are built to assume that they can talk to Apple at any time, but when we don’t allow it, a few unwanted side effects pop up. For example, the keyboard sometimes takes longer to wake up from sleep…
Why wouldn't you, though? That seems like a pretty big oversight. Lazy at best, negligent at worst. Not everyone in the world has constant internet access, and it seems ridiculous to design an _operating system_ with that assumption. I like to take an eBook reader to the park, for example. Prior to owning that device, I took a laptop when learning a new programming language. If that laptop had been running BigSur, I'd see all these same issues based on Apple's un-thought-out "design decisions".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How a 'ContentFilterExclusionList' creation can be a bug? Somebody hit the wrong keys by mistake and nobody noticed during the pull request review?
Entirely possible if an infinite number of monkeys type along on an infinite number of keyboards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they lie and not just shut the hell up? It makes no sense.
Sometimes people talk, even when they should shut the hell up. (The Apple developer has since deleted his tweet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having been a programmer through the 90's, and watched Microsoft (and Oracle, et. al.) through their most malfeasant years, I'm very cautious about giving companies the benefit of the doubt. However, the fact that Apple is leaving hundreds of billions of dollars on the table by NOT monetizing their aggregated user data does seem to indicate that their will is strong here, and that "they" mean what "they" say about pr…
Or it wouldn’t really be that much more. How do you come up with hundreds of billions of dollars? Who are the buyers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having been a programmer through the 90's, and watched Microsoft (and Oracle, et. al.) through their most malfeasant years, I'm very cautious about giving companies the benefit of the doubt. However, the fact that Apple is leaving hundreds of billions of dollars on the table by NOT monetizing their aggregated user data does seem to indicate that their will is strong here, and that "they" mean what "they" say about pr…
Or it wouldn’t really be that much more. How do you come up with hundreds of billions of dollars? Who are the buyers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My fear is that Apple will now make the design decision to make these services more unreliable if blocked. Like I experienced, others too have noticed similar behaviour: > It’s worth noting that Big Sur and its predecessors are built to assume that they can talk to Apple at any time, but when we don’t allow it, a few unwanted side effects pop up. For example, the keyboard sometimes takes longer to wake up from sleep…
> when you design a product to use the internet, you don't really think hard about all kinds of use cases where internet access is deliberately denied Why wouldn't you, though? That seems like a pretty big oversight. Lazy at best, negligent at worst. Not everyone in the world has constant internet access, and it seems ridiculous to design an _operating system_ with that assumption. I like to take an eBook reader to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why us it poor? (Genuinely asking).
No real push to use sandboxing or to limit access to personal information. Any app you install can do anything it wants with all of your data.
But breaking almost all software by default just because some incompetent users keep choosing to install malware is not a great strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has no love for privacy nor ever had. They are in a market position where their main competitors - Google primarily, Microsoft and Amazon - are highly dependent on revenue streams extracted by monetizing personal information. Apple is in a position to cut that stream without affecting its bottom line, so it does it and claims privacy as a core value. I won't look a gift horse in the mouth, but I have no doubt t…
When Apple launched iOS 6, it was the first operating system to include per-app privacy controls around access to things like microphone, camera, photos, etc. Controls we consider fundamental today. It did not mention it a single time in any of its PR or marketing at all. The first reference you find to it will be from Apple blogs who were surprised to stumble upon it in the iOS 6 beta. It took Android two more years…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39iKLwlUqBo
Jobs @ D8
People are quick to forget because back then everyone (including HN) was praising Google for everything under the sun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No real push to use sandboxing or to limit access to personal information. Any app you install can do anything it wants with all of your data.
This definitely is a feature. You can use sandboxing if you want to. See kernel namespaces (used by Docker), Ubuntu's snaps, etc. But breaking almost all software by default just because some incompetent users keep choosing to install malware is not a great strategy.
You're making excuses for the lack of security innovation on Linux workstations. They've fallen behind.