Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

sentinelone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 193 posts

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#91

Post by ksec »

ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with macOS's naming scheme? I have no idea what the latest version is. Ubuntu versioning gets this right; you can parse their codenames alphabetically to derive the semantic version. But Apple's heuristic here seems to be "throw a dart at a map of California".

Yes. In Big Cat era, you could at least memorise those names which have some meaning to nearly everyone around the world, and it always had a version number.

Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" – 2010

Mac OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion" – 2012

Now it is only a name I guess only people in US / California will know or understand. The same joke From Apple's "crack marketing team" and played out by Craig Federighi for something like 10 years[1].

But I guess that is post Steve Jobs's Apple for you.

[1] Just guessing since I remember they started using this line after Forstall left.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#92

Post by philistine »

crest wrote: post #52
brundolf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will non-Ventura devices still get vulnerabilities patched, or are they dead in the water?

Apple has established a pattern of haphazardly offering partial and late security updates for the two more releases (e.g. Big Sur, Monterey, Ventura).

Looking from the outside, it sure does look like every security patch is assessed on its difficulty to port to older OSes, its severity, and its reach.

It can be maddening.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#93

Post by RONROC »

Lammy wrote: post #84

> Gatekeeper’s role is to ensure that when users execute some code, that code meets the local system policy. The policy includes checks such as whether the code is validly signed and whether it has been tampered with in certain ways. Weasel-word alert. I never thought I’d see the day when technologists would applaud the gradual death of general-purpose computing, but here we are. A decade from now Apple probably won’…

There is no more prescient of a take on this news as this one.

Once the singularity is nearly complete you'll know: macOS and iOS will merge into one monolithic OS.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#94

Post by eknkc »

ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with macOS's naming scheme? I have no idea what the latest version is. Ubuntu versioning gets this right; you can parse their codenames alphabetically to derive the semantic version. But Apple's heuristic here seems to be "throw a dart at a map of California".

Just use years. You are already releasing shit yearly. Name it macOS 22.

These places mean nothing to me.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#95

Post by kccqzy »

Lammy wrote: post #84

> Gatekeeper’s role is to ensure that when users execute some code, that code meets the local system policy. The policy includes checks such as whether the code is validly signed and whether it has been tampered with in certain ways. Weasel-word alert. I never thought I’d see the day when technologists would applaud the gradual death of general-purpose computing, but here we are. A decade from now Apple probably won’…

Gatekeeper was introduced in 2011 in Lion. It has already been a decade. I didn't see that transformation happening.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#96

Post by muterad_murilax »

ksec wrote: post #91
ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with macOS's naming scheme? I have no idea what the latest version is. Ubuntu versioning gets this right; you can parse their codenames alphabetically to derive the semantic version. But Apple's heuristic here seems to be "throw a dart at a map of California".

Yes. In Big Cat era, you could at least memorise those names which have some meaning to nearly everyone around the world, and it always had a version number. Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" – 2010 Mac OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion" – 2012 Now it is only a name I guess only people in US / California will know or understand. The same joke From Apple's "crack marketing team" and played out by Craig Federighi for something like 10 years…

Small correction:

Mac OS X 10.7 Lion was released in 2011.

Also, there's no "Mac" in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#97

Post by ksec »

filoleg wrote: post #90
ksec wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Butterfly Keyboard ( And arguably the new Magic Keyboard ) with little to no Key travel distance, along with Larger Trackpad which create false positive input were two key minus design features. Unfortunately every time I pointed this out most of HN were quick to answer this is an user issue and not a design flaw.

I can see why most on HN (and actually outside of HN too) would say a larger trackpad is great, so I think you might indeed be in the minority opinion on this one. Even mainstream reviewers tended to list it as a positive. But butterfly keyboard had been pretty much universally decried as a terrible mistake almost everywhere, including HN.

>But butterfly keyboard had been pretty much universally decried as a terrible mistake almost everywhere, including HN.

That was certainly not the case until the reliability problem got magnified in 2018. When the problem has been there since 2016. Before that Butterfly was somehow the holy grail for touch typist.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#98

Post by dagmx »

sharikous wrote: post #79
dagmx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any links on the userspace filesystems? There's a few things I'd like to develop in that regard without getting into kexts

There is that: https://threedots.ovh/blog/2022/06/quick-look-at-user-mode-f... But userspace filesystems are already present in iOS so you can find some reverse engineered info on that (e.g. in Jonathan Levin's books)

Thanks

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#99

Post by ntoskrnl »

ksec wrote: post #91
ramesh31 wrote: post #3

Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with macOS's naming scheme? I have no idea what the latest version is. Ubuntu versioning gets this right; you can parse their codenames alphabetically to derive the semantic version. But Apple's heuristic here seems to be "throw a dart at a map of California".

Yes. In Big Cat era, you could at least memorise those names which have some meaning to nearly everyone around the world, and it always had a version number. Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" – 2010 Mac OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion" – 2012 Now it is only a name I guess only people in US / California will know or understand. The same joke From Apple's "crack marketing team" and played out by Craig Federighi for something like 10 years…

Let's go back to cats. Since macOS is becoming more and more like iOS, we don't have to limit ourselves to big cats anymore. Small cats are on the table too. There's gotta be at least 100 cat breeds, that should last us a while.

Re: Apple’s macOS Ventura – New Security Changes

#100

Post by dagmx »

jessriedel wrote: post #76
dagmx wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as to your background if you consider any of the things mentioned in the articles as "trivial" changes. Have you worked in systems development before? I similarly question your definition of "modest". The first one alone is incredibly radical, and has been tried several times in the past but people keep asking for hierarchical file systems. It's far from modest. 1. How do you propose users organize things…

I’m not using “trivial” as a measure of ease of back-end implementation, but rather of how it actually changes user experience and productivity. There is no limit to how hard it can become to implement trivial changes behind the scenes; it would be silly to ignore or downplay the ossification of desktop OS capability just because software developers continue to expend more and more effort to make smaller and smaller…

Again, that's why I'm delineating between scale and complexity. Trivial implies complexity, but you seem to keep going back to scale of the change.

Saying something is trivial, by definition, implies its a simple change. Nothing mentioned so far is simple. None of your suggestions were modest.

I understand you're using the word according to how you think of it, but I'm trying to point out that you're incorrect, and that many of the things you say are modest are not so.

You're actively down playing the amount of work and it either feels disingenuous to make your point, or divorced from the reality of implementation.

Post reply on HN