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

macOS Sonoma is available today

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 691 posts

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#481

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

gnicholas wrote: post #368
aeyes wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what would be even better? If you could reliably uninstall all this junk or not even install it at all. Every time I hit some button on my keyboard and the Music app opens asking me to create an account I am reminded how hostile all commercial operating systems are.

Oh man, it gets worse than that. After updating to iOS 17 the other day, I said to my phone "play OverCast" (my podcast app). It used to start playing from that app. This time, it started playing a band called Overcast, and told me I had just started a 7 day free trial of Apple Music. What the actual fuck.

Meanwhile, at Apple: "Users really love the update! Trial signups are up 438% over the previous quarter!"

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#482

Post by chii »

cpeterso wrote: post #440
cglong wrote: post #188

So it goes... Warning: You are using macOS 11. We (and Apple) do not provide support for this old version. It is expected behaviour that some formulae will fail to build in this old version. It is expected behaviour that Homebrew will be buggy and slow. Do not create any issues about this on Homebrew's GitHub repositories. Do not create any issues even if you think this message is unrelated. Any opened issues will be…

I'm surprise Apple doesn't, even unofficially, upstream fixes to Homebrew before a new macOS version is released. Why let Homebrew break for so many macOS users on day 0? I know Apple is secretive about unreleased products, but the type of fixes for Homebrew wouldn't reveal too many Apple secrets. Do Apple engineers not use Homebrew on their own Macs while developing macOS?

> Why let Homebrew break for so many macOS users on day 0?

why pay for work when it would've been done for free and apple gets to reap the financial benefits?

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#483

Post by reacharavindh »

walteweiss wrote: post #474
baz00 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't touched OpenBSD for a few years if I'm honest but one of the things that did not enrage me about it was that it didn't nag me to change anything once I'd got it working properly. I suspect that's part of it. There is a clear separation of OS and applications. Regarding all the other stuff I remember it mostly just worked. But of course that is within the realms of the particular package actually working in…

On Linux, I enjoy the idea that all the software can be interchanged. So there is no separation between the system and user installed software. For me, it’s difficult to grasp the minimalism of those other systems. When you clearly have your system as a rock that you cannot modify. I have very little experience (some theoretical and none practical) with BSDs, but it pains me there is a base system for macOS with an a…

You can install *BSDs with only the things you want. Same like you can on Linux. However, the question of default packaging holds on both sides.

Trying installing the default .iso of Fedora workstation or Ubuntu-latest and see all the things Gnome brings along.. Maps, Photos, IM client, even a bundled browser (Evolution or something) that is based on Firefox but dependednt on the few Gnome packagers to keep up to date(instead of just letting the user download Firefox on their own or shipping the latest firefox).

Even Archlinux, if you install Gnome-desktop, you get all the cruft. You need to explicitly find a way to install just the minimal gnome desktop without all its apps.

OpenBSD however, for a server usecase, comes with a very cohesive, sane set of tools carefully maintained by the folks who ship OpenBSD. If anything, they are very conservative about adding stuff to that ecosystem.

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#484

Post by jlokier »

nose-wuzzy-pad wrote: post #214
lxgr wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

File Providers are useful in some scenarios, but they are also not really a FUSE equivalent. They're more geared towards Dropbox-like synchronizing use cases. Some developers have made it work for SSHFS too, but even that's already a bit of a stretch; for more custom solutions it definitely falls short: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/681325 The only option currently seems to be to implement a network file…

It's unfortunate that fuse-t follows the same closed source model as MacFUSE did. It's really holding things back. I was hopeful that Ganesha NFS [1] would suffice as a bridge for the various FUSE filesystems I need to use with macOS, but alas, they have abandoned the FUSE interface and moved to FSAL/FSAL_VFS [2]. It would be really nice to have a clear path to building a copy of Ganesha NFS that supported a whole ho…

Watch out for for the Mac SMB client. I found a bug in several MacOS versions which causes the SMB client to send an incorrect file handle in some file requests, causing random files to be deleted which are unrelated to the files you're operating on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37345855

If you've ever had a suspicion about files on an SMB share going missing, occasionally, when there's been a Mac client using the share, this does indeed happen.

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#485

Post by iFreilicht »

faitswulff wrote: post #354
mdaniel wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to like Nix but those installation instructions for macOS (and their removal friend) are just crazypants as compared to the `sudo mkdir /nix && sudo chown $USER /nix` from the Linux version And that's not even getting into the "waaa?" from `du -hs /nix` although I am open to that being a misleading number due to hardlinks and other trickery that du may not correctly surface

The Determinate Systems nix installer is quite smooth: https://github.com/DeterminateSystems/nix-installer/ Though it does tend to get clobbered on macOS updates.

Yeah, that's a long-running and pretty much unfixable issue as macOS updates overwrite /etc/zshrc. AFAIK, the determinate systems installer does somewhat resolve this as you can just run it again and it will fix the issue.

The default installer is not idempotent yet (and my work on trying to resolve that has stalled, unfortunately, see https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/7603), so trying to run it again to fix this issue will result in errors.

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#486

Post by [deleted] »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #410
travisjungroth wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems with OSS burnout is this many-to-one relationship with the users and maintainer. It’s sort of like the relationship between an outfielder and the bleacher crowd at a baseball game. Maintainers get requests to do things they have no interest in, like maintaining software for OSes past a certain date. That doesn’t sound so bad, but there are a lot, and they can even be mean. The maintainer can block…

It's not burnout. The homebrew team have been insufferable and egotistical for a long time. Max Howell (founder of homebrew) went to interview at Google, shoved a coding exercise back in their faces, made a snotty comment about how all the engineers at Google using Macs use his code and how dare they blah blah greatest engineer in the world blah blah, and walked out the door. That coding exercise was likely given to…

[deleted]

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#487

Post by flakeoil »

mrmattyboy wrote: post #475
pedalpete wrote: post #249

Does anyone else have no idea what macOS version is which? Which came first? Is there some hidden naming protocol that I just don't grasp? I've only started using a mac part-time while I've been developing an iOS app over the past few weeks, and I keep seeing different names for the OS version. I have no idea what version I'm on, or if Big Sur came before Sierra, or what. I know I could look it up, but it seems that…

I do wonder the longevity of alphabet-based naming... It _sort of_ reminds me of a time I spoke to a colleague and said I wanted to try a project (only a couple of years ago) that required Red Hat Linux 5 and he said "oh sure, here's some CDs" and realised, "nope, not RHEL" (to which the response was.. "oh, here be dragons").. If you loop the alphabet and I reckon you'll inevitably get confusion. "Hey, Android Junipe…

At least better than random naming.

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#488

Post by iFreilicht »

raunakchhatwal wrote: post #312
miniBill wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nix does not require you to be an administrator to install a package though!

I think he may be referring to installing Nix itself, which does require root even if the intention isn't to install anything system-wide. I did once think about modifying the nix installer to let me set an arbitrary nix store because I wanted nix packages in a docker container I was debugging, but never really got around to it. Let me know if you know of somebody else who tried this.

So this is possible, but there are a lot of caveats. First, the installer itself explicitly says:

```

# Please don't change this. We don't support it, because the

# default shell profile that comes with Nix doesn't support it.

readonly NIX_ROOT="/nix"

```

I haven't seen any configurations where the entire /nix is relocated, but nix _does_ support relocating the store with the environment variable `NIX_STORE_DIR`.[1]

However, this means that you can no longer use the the binary cache and *everything* you install has to be compiled from scratch, including glibc. The reason is that nix usually patches paths like `/bin/myprogram` to `/nix/store/1238f...-myprogram-1.2.3/bin/myprogram` in everything that depends on `myprogram` during build time to isolate the build outputs from the system. If you change your store, all those paths will now be invalid, including the hash part.

So using a nix store that isn't `/nix/store` is possible, but I don't think anyone is actually doing it except in a few select scenarios.

You can also compile nix itself with a different root. That will work as expected, but you still have the issue that you need to compile everything you install yourself.

[1]: https://nixos.org/manual/nix/stable/command-ref/env-common.h... (you can also relocate most other directories. The `prefix` in the paths is `/nix`)

Re: macOS Sonoma is available today

#490

Post by diffeomorphism »

mrmattyboy wrote: post #475
pedalpete wrote: post #249

Does anyone else have no idea what macOS version is which? Which came first? Is there some hidden naming protocol that I just don't grasp? I've only started using a mac part-time while I've been developing an iOS app over the past few weeks, and I keep seeing different names for the OS version. I have no idea what version I'm on, or if Big Sur came before Sierra, or what. I know I could look it up, but it seems that…

I do wonder the longevity of alphabet-based naming... It _sort of_ reminds me of a time I spoke to a colleague and said I wanted to try a project (only a couple of years ago) that required Red Hat Linux 5 and he said "oh sure, here's some CDs" and realised, "nope, not RHEL" (to which the response was.. "oh, here be dragons").. If you loop the alphabet and I reckon you'll inevitably get confusion. "Hey, Android Junipe…

> If you loop the alphabet and I reckon you'll inevitably get confusion.

These releases tend to be yearly or half-yearly at most (e.g. android or ubuntu). So a wrap around happens after 13 years at the earliest. Having a 13 year old completely un-upgraded phone (or AR brain worm or whatever we will have in 13 years) wrapping around seems quite unlikely to cause any surprise.

If you have weekly releases or something, then I would see your point.

Post reply on HN