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

Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#121

Post by [deleted] »

bitwize wrote: post #102
sneak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically they ran out some time ago, a mountain lion and a panther are the same animal.

A mountain lion (10.8) and a puma (10.1) are the same animal. A panther (10.3) is a subtype of leopard (10.5). But even with these redundancies, they are running out of large cat names to use and would have to go with the likes of "jaguarundi", "serval", and "manul" to keep the theme going. These are cool animals, but have nowhere near the emotive power that "Jaguar" or "Lion" had.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#122

Post by meerita »

ceejayoz wrote: post #58
meerita wrote: post #51

They will kill 1Password with the new keychain in the cloud. I'm a total fan of 1Password and I dislike this a bit.

Hardly. Anyone who ever has to use a non Apple device - Windows desktop, Android phone, etc. - is going to still need a cross-platform solution like 1Password.

True. Valid point I forgot they have other options.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#125

Post by smackfu »

nodata wrote: post #42
haxxorfreak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the keychain is encrypted with your OS X user login password and only unlocked on login. I imagine this will still be the case as Apple mentioned AES256 encryption on their iCloud Keychain slide, though they could change it to use your Apple ID password if they plan on having mobile device support.

So let's see... in Firefox I have FIVE apple logins saved, because they can't decide on which url to use: * appleid.apple.com * daw.apple.com * id.apple.com * secure1.store.apple.com * secure2.store.apple.com If they have trouble getting something as simple as that right, I'd like them to stay away from my keychain.

That seems like a fault of Firefox that it can't wildcard password storage. That situation works in 1Password.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#126

Post by FireBeyond »

niels_olson wrote: post #94
Watabou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too actually, Mavericks sounds pretty lame compared to the great cat releases.

Are you serious? Mavericks is awesome. One of the greatest surf breaks ever. Every bit as lethal as any of those cats and more a testament to human achievement. Personally I am looking forward to releases like Cloudbreak, Teahupoo, Waimea, and Shipsterns.

Cloudbreak would have been awesome for the introduction to the new naming scheme.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#127

Post by Someone »

binarycrusader wrote: post #99
cjensen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, Apple are claiming the ability to install both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels on a single disk, and select the correct one at boot time so that boot disks are transportable between 64-bit and 32-bit machines. OS X has had this ability since 64-bit PPC days.

I'll clarify then: I believe Solaris has had the first part (ability to boot into a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel) since 1998. That's well before Apple even provided a 64-bit kernel or ever shipped an OS X release. Solaris has long had a single, unified architecture for 32-bit and 64-bit and until recently delivered both a 32-bit and 64-bit kernel on a single disk. That's why on Solaris you'll generally find the 32-bit lib…

"It's true that (as far as I'm aware) Solaris never supported the 64-bit application on 32-bit kernel hack that OS X did"

It also is true that (as far as I am aware) Solaris never had lots of 32-bit customers running applications and drivers that neither Sun nor those customers could recompile for 64-bits.

That and the fact that some of those customers desperately wanted/needed to access more than 4 GB of memory forced Apple's hands. They had to keep the kernel 32 bits to support older drivers, and had to provide a user space that supported more than 32 bits.

The world is so much simpler if you can force al your customers to recompile their applications. If you doubt that, ask Microsoft or Intel why Itanium didn't even get a chance.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#128

Post by binarycrusader »

Someone wrote: post #127
binarycrusader wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll clarify then: I believe Solaris has had the first part (ability to boot into a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel) since 1998. That's well before Apple even provided a 64-bit kernel or ever shipped an OS X release. Solaris has long had a single, unified architecture for 32-bit and 64-bit and until recently delivered both a 32-bit and 64-bit kernel on a single disk. That's why on Solaris you'll generally find the 32-bit lib…

"It's true that (as far as I'm aware) Solaris never supported the 64-bit application on 32-bit kernel hack that OS X did" It also is true that (as far as I am aware) Solaris never had lots of 32-bit customers running applications and drivers that neither Sun nor those customers could recompile for 64-bits. That and the fact that some of those customers desperately wanted/needed to access more than 4 GB of memory forc…

  It also is true that (as far as I am aware) Solaris never had lots of 32-bit customers running applications and drivers that neither Sun nor those customers could recompile for 64-bits.
That is definitely not true. In fact, many of the binaries distributed with Solaris itself (even now that it has a 64-bit kernel) are still delivered as 32-bit because there's no need for them to be 64-bit (yet).

  The world is so much simpler if you can force al your customers to recompile their applications. If you doubt that, ask Microsoft or Intel why Itanium didn't even get a chance.
Except Sun/Oracle (Solaris) never required that. In fact, Solaris is famous for its backwards binary-compatibility. In fact, on Solaris 10 you can run binaries that were compiled decades ago without issue.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#129

Post by Someone »

binarycrusader wrote: post #128
Someone wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's true that (as far as I'm aware) Solaris never supported the 64-bit application on 32-bit kernel hack that OS X did" It also is true that (as far as I am aware) Solaris never had lots of 32-bit customers running applications and drivers that neither Sun nor those customers could recompile for 64-bits. That and the fact that some of those customers desperately wanted/needed to access more than 4 GB of memory forc…

It also is true that (as far as I am aware) Solaris never had lots of 32-bit customers running applications and drivers that neither Sun nor those customers could recompile for 64-bits. That is definitely not true. In fact, many of the binaries distributed with Solaris itself (even now that it has a 64-bit kernel) are still delivered as 32-bit because there's no need for them to be 64-bit (yet). The world is so much…

Apple would have lost many of its top of the range customers if it had jumped directly to full 64 bit, because, due to lack of drivers (note the italics in my original post), those users would have lost the use of their expensive hardware.

Sun, AFAIK, was much more in control of its drivers, so it could move its systems to 64 bit easier.

Re: Apple Announces Mac OS X 'Mavericks'

#130

Post by seclorum »

coldtea wrote: post #82
seclorum wrote: post #13

Store my keychain on the iCloud, eh? Is this going to be the default behaviour now? If so, I guess I'm abandoning Apple faster than I thought I would, a day or so ago .

Don't let the door hit you on your way out. I mean, you could tell us WHY you think it's a bad idea. Informing us of that you'll leave OS X? We could not care less.

Because I'm the kind of guy who doesn't want to share his keychain if its not necessary, is why. Its not necessary unless I reason to share a keychain .. and .. having this choice being taken away from me would be a suitable reason to abandon the platform.
Post reply on HN