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

Networking changes coming in macOS 27

eclecticlight.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 248 posts

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#121

Post by lenerdenator »

_verandaguy wrote: post #53
ryandrake wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dropping support for things just because they are old" is typical commercial software behavior. I can run the latest Linux kernel and still have access to an internal floppy disk drive if I wanted to, yet billion dollar companies can't seem to manage to support 10 year old stuff. I still am sore from when I "upgraded" macOS and suddenly support for my 1080i TV was gone. Yesterday it worked fine, today it's gone. All…

The economics make the reasoning obvious, though. With closed source IP, every bit of support, from bug fixes, to feature requests, to compatibility fixes to integrate with newer mainline/foundational tooling, costs money. With open source projects (and in particular ones like Linux where there's a huge number of contributors and interested parties), support for would-be niche facilities can keep going as long as the…

Ideally, at a certain point, you'd have some sort of upstream FLOSS project where you could let John Q. Public do that sort of low-level, maintenance-only stuff, while the proprietary "value adds" are closed source, until it becomes financially attractive to FLOSS them.

IIRC, that could exist for MacOS in the form of Darwin.

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#122

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

tracker1 wrote: post #101
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my understanding that those are (mostly?) devices where they legitimately have reason to believe there are zero users. In particular, there's a pattern where someone will discover that Linux has a driver that hasn't actually worked for a long time, and nobody's complained, so then they remove it.

I'm not suggesting they keep it all... just ironic as a statement considering Linux is literally removing a bit lately... I'm mostly okay cleaning out a lot of legacy and unsupported devices. In some ways, and for people who want to support really old hardware it may not be great, but they're most likely stuck on older versions for other reasons.

I don't think it is ironic, though; Linux isn't "Dropping support for things just because they are old", it's dropping unused things when they cause code quality problems. That's rather different than features being dropped because the vendor doesn't want to bother supporting them even though they still worked and have active users.

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#123

Post by cevn »

enaaem wrote: post #112
ndisn wrote: post #64

On an unrelated note, I use Time Machine and I’m surprised at how unpolished, not to say downright buggy, all the animations are. They used to look magical, but now they are a mess of elements popping on and off and things moving and then vanishing the next frame and so on. It looks like they kept changing Finder and Time Machine didn’t keep up; they kept fixing the bare minimum to have it compile and nothing more.

Even the new app launcher. It takes 1-2 seconds to draw a bunch of icons. Scrolling is also choppy. This even happens on their newest machines. How this possible in 2026?

It isn't even centered on my monitor, looks like an intern wrote it.

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#125

Post by throw0101c »

wtallis wrote: post #28
giantrobot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time Machine support is also dropping support over SMB1 so whatever new solution needs to support SMB2/3.

Where "new" in this case could be a NAS running Samba from 2011? Samba added official support for Time Machine much later, but I think it was possible on earlier versions with some extra steps.

Samba 4.8 from 2018:

* https://www.samba.org/samba/history/samba-4.8.0.html ("vfs_fruit")

* https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Configure_Samba_to_Work_Bet...

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#126

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #46
pvtmert wrote: post #2

Although TimeCapsule is more than decade old, it serves nicely with TimeMachine (automatic backups). Sad to see that going away permanently for Apple Silicon.

"Dropping support for things just because they are old" is typical commercial software behavior. I can run the latest Linux kernel and still have access to an internal floppy disk drive if I wanted to, yet billion dollar companies can't seem to manage to support 10 year old stuff. I still am sore from when I "upgraded" macOS and suddenly support for my 1080i TV was gone. Yesterday it worked fine, today it's gone. All…

[deleted]

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#127

Post by snapetom »

trillic wrote: post #27
bayindirh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "replacement" is not always full-on hardware. I have colleagues who are running AFP on BSD for continuous backups on their systems, and they have to reconfigure something new to be able to continue backing up their systems.

I use this for networked Time Machine backups for multiple Macs in my household. Works just as well over tailscale VPN. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Netatalk

One of my COVID projects was to set up a networked Time Machine backup on Raspberry Pi.

Every single one of the blogspam sites (lifehacker, howtogeek, etc.) told you to use AFP/HFS+/Netatalk. I had so many problems with this. Time Machine would work well the first few times and then slow to a crawl. If there was a power outage, look out. The whole thing would be corrupted. It wasn't the network. FTP and scp worked just fine.

Eventually I found one blog that told you how to do it with SMB and ext4. It was that site that I learned about the much malignment of AFP and HFS+. SMB/ext4 worked like a charm. Six years later and not a single hiccup.

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#128

Post by exe34 »

xattt wrote: post #108
Hamuko wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst feature of Time Machine is how it takes over every single display you have. Even though it only shows content on one screen, it feels the need to completely black out the others.

I don’t know what kind of time machines you’ve been using, but typically everything changes outside all the portholes when you time travel.

skeuomorphism is back, boys!

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#129

Post by somat »

shantara wrote: post #26

>Apple made SMB its primary file-sharing protocol in OS X 10.9 Mavericks, over 12 years ago… …and yet SMB support in macOS remains slow and buggy to this day. I tried all combinations of server-side settings and obscure plist tweaks to make SMB navigation and search work as fast as they do on my Linux machine out of box before giving up. It is very obviously not a priority for their services revenue, so there’s no in…

How is nfs on mac?

Not really equivalent, I know, but if smb is that bad I am curious about alternatives.

Re: Networking changes coming in macOS 27

#130

Post by Someone1234 »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #87
Someone1234 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You greatly under-estimate how much work it is to maintain old code, particularly to maintain in securely . AFP and Time Capsules add attack vectors to the OS, which can be targeted even when few users actively using them. One dev could keep both basically functional, but to what end? User counts are already small, and people that aren't using them are still exposed by their mere existence. Shrinking or removing code…

Yes, writing and maintaining less code is great for a developer. We can follow this to the logical extreme and marvel at how easy it is to write and maintain a program whose only function is to print "hello, world" to the console. Nevermind the users, what do they matter?

By the very nature of assigning development time to these antiquated features, you're assigning them away from other features, bug fixes, or requests that may have a larger user reach.

Development is a finite resource, the argument here is to allocate them to hard-to-secure, outmoded, replaced, technology instead of anything future relevant. It doesn't make sense.

Post reply on HN