Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases - Doing Less, Faster, Is Better?
"I can't remember how long Microsoft took to release W2K service pack 1, but I know there is still no service pack 2. Even Linux kernel (stable) releases are not commonly in the 2-3 week range. So is Apple doing the right thing to get SOMETHING out there? Or are they disenfranchising their user base by coming out with too little too fast?"
An embellishment to the above: as long as there are tools to tailor the upgrades of a system to the user's specific desires, who cares how often providers update their own packages? Such an updater would check the upstream package catalog and apply multiple criterion on each updated package which would determine if that update is applied. I would suggest that the two basic criterion one would apply for updates would be severity and duration. Couple this with forced inclusion and exclusion lists and an administrator would be able to configure the system to apply only those packages that they need upgraded at the appropriate time, and quite possibly without the need of administrator intervention (depending, of course, on how much the administrator trusts the upstream).
With such a system in place, who cares how often Apple, Red Hat, Debian, Microsoft or <insert vendor here> updates their software packages? You'll have what you need, as often as you need it.
How difficult would it be to adapt the existing updating systems to serve this purpose? Is someone close to putting this into place, now?
I have. My sound seems a little flaky, like the spell checker doesn't beep when it has corrected the last word. Other people have reported worse. However there are few of them, so I'm guessing it is mostly good.
I think Apple really needs an "undo update".
However I'm use to the fast small release cycle, and I like it.
I was wondering about that, too. I quite like it, though i'd prefer to have a lot more information about what is being updated.
I think there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, nobody is really denying that as release versions go, this is very betaish. i think apple must be quietly rather glad that the big names haven't arrived yet and only the dedicated are actually using the new system. A lot of what we're downloading is stuff that didn't get finished in time, like iTunes.
The rest of what's in those packages is mostly updates to open source projects - whatever ftpd we're using, and so on. OSX is a patchwork of different systems, and i think we're benefitting from the find-it-and-fix it approach of the oss ingredients while the apple systems go on in their stately way.
My only gripe is that they're still releasing monolithic updates in the old apple tradition. If you look at a page like the cobalt raq updates list, there are dozens - they're at least as frequent as the apple ones - but smaller, and they all include a list of their ingredients and the circumstances under which you might need to use them. Then every so often they release a big one that bundles them all together and make a big fuss about it.
Which strikes me as a very good system: tiny updates for the paranoid edge, and big friendly packages for the gui crowd. As it stands, the apple system makes it hard to know whether or not you should be concerned about a problem that you've read about, for example.
On the other hand, 10.0.0.1 included a bang-up-to-date installation of ssh and sshd, without making any fuss at all, and installed it at the push of a delicately tinted button. i remember it being a little more complicated than that on my redhat box...
I use MacOS X as my mostly main OS these days. I still shuttle into 9 from time to time, but X is starting to replace it for me. 10.0.0 was not good enough to be my main OS. On my G3/300 (160M RAM), X ran too slowly. By 10.0.3, it's reasonably snappy. It's not great, but it's usable. I'm really happy with their constant updates. They aren't profound, but the OS gets faster with every one, and little things keep getting fixed. I'd rather have it this way than one big update every six months. Updating is easy. I start the update, then I go and do something else on the computer, and a while later, I hit restart. Boom, updated. If you don't want to update, nothing forces you to. If you do want to update, it's simple.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Some of you might not be as ancient to remember this, but years ago Apple took over 6 months to patch the ping-of-death problem that would instantly take out Mac boxes on the internet. So, better the current way than the way they used to handle it.
Cheers,
Updates can be configured to happen on whatever schedule the user chooses... daily, weekly, monthly, manually, whenever.
Most of the present day OSX users are power-users, though, so they're either doing it manually when they find out about updates, or they've got it set to check for updates daily.
"Keeping the updates flowing is one thing, but forcing users to update every 2-3 weeks? That might ... "
be a bit too much. I don't know much about OS X, but if the upgrades system can be configured to the users taste, and said configuration done in a user-friendly way, then maybe monthly updates might not be a bad thing
the software updates in OS X (and in 9.x as well) are done automatically by the system, tho the default configuration is to check the software updates servers periodically in the background, then ask the user which updates that are available he wants to download and install
the process is amazingly apple-like: painless and transparent, at most requiring a reboot (with system-level component updates. things like itunes are finished when the download uncompresses)
it's also user configurable to go ahead and get every update as it appears, or none at all - requiring the user to click a button to manually check for updates.
this is the kind of thing that a lot of systems are aiming for, including, among others, Red Hat's update agent, which i think falls farthest from the mark. not to criticize RH, but it's the only other example i have on my desk at the moment with which to compare. i know the W2k update agent works well anecdotally, but its little balloon popups are really annoying...
my point? did i have one?
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
Let's recap.
The retail version, Mac OS X 10.0, was released on March 24. The 10.0.1 update followed about 1-2 weeks later. This was mainly bug fixes and minor performance enhancements. This update was anticipated. On May 1, 10.0.2 was posted. This brought CD burning in Tunes, a fix for a possible ftp daemon exploit, and some updates to the mail client. Again, not an unexpected update. Apple had announced this would be coming.
I suspect the point at which people were a bit suprised is when 10.0.3 showed up a few days ago. It had only been about a week since the last update. This was probably an unscheduled update. The main (and perhaps, only) purpose of this update was to fix a bug where HFS+ volumes would not list the entire contents of directories in certain situations with many (>300) files.
Here's some details that I think were missed:
o The 10.0.3 update incorporates everything in 10.0.2
o The updates are optional
o You can configure your machine to check for updates automatically or manually
o Apple eventually posts the updates as self-contained archives
It's not surprising that the Mac people would be surprised and perhaps distraught at the idea of frequent updates. It was not unusual for updates of Mac OS 8/9 (aka "Classic Mac OS") to break applications/extensions or cause them to behave erratically. This was largely due to the architecture. However, I don't think some poeple realize how drastically different the architecture is in Mac Os X.
Previously, Apple would let bugs (even some relatively serious ones) go unfixed in Mac OS 8/9 until the next scheduled update. This was probably due to the fact that the operating system was a mountain of procedural spagetti code dating back to 1984. Not only did this make things hard to fix, but putting out one fire might cause another to flare up.
Now that Apple is working with a reasonable software foundation, they can move updates out the door much more swiftly, and with less fear that they're going to tumble the house of cards. I think this is a good thing, especially when update addresses a filesystem bug. But the Mac community is not exactly known for embracing change with open arms...
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
I'm also not sure when SP1 was released but SP2 *just* appeared today so the article intro is slightly incorrect. Also, remember that Microsoft do provide other updates than just service packs - that's what the whole "Windows Update" thing is for.
We* use distributions that come with literally thousands of programs. We complain when Microsoft adds a couple to their new OS/Distro.
Except that when Microsoft adds a couple new one it's plan is to eliminate competition from the other companies who have been traditionally been selling their products. If MS ships a version that does most everything about as well as the competition bundled with the OS, must people won't look to someone else to write a slightly better version. The distros are shipping others software, usually not righting their own. The software being shipped is also free in most cases, so noone is losing out here.
We call Windows bloated at 400MB, but when someone points out that distro X takes 7 CD's, we defend that distro
The 7 cds doesnt necesarrily reflect the installed size. Debian's package archive is about 4 gigs, yet it can happily be installed and used on a 1 gig hard drive, and the default install takes 50 megs. Redhat seems to take about 600 megs in it's default install, but it can be adjusted down to maybe 300 megs. Too me the big difference is that I look at Windows with it's 400 meg install and then look at a 400 meg RedHat install, and compare the functionality. With most Linux distro's I get a majority of the tools I need for my daily use. I get a gui, development tools, word proccessing, internet, and multimedia players. From their I may have to do updates if I want more recent versions and a few extra apps, but most stuff is there. With Windows I still would have to install Office, Ms Dev Studio, WinAmp, and all of the little tools that I may want.
We're happy to use software that updates several times a month, some update daily. When Apple releases two patches in one month, we say their forcing people to update against their will or something.
Agreed on this one, as long as the patches are free I say update them on a reular basis. I only have problems with the way Microsoft used to do updates, sell a new version of Windows. I for one usually update my debian systems every other day or so.
The bug fixes so far have fixed some rather significant problems, and added features that were essentially "missing" from OS X (as in, they'd been there in OS 9).
The thing to keep in mind is that OS X 10.0.x is still an "early adopters'" release, and early adopters have been screaming for these updates. I'm sure the 10.1 release in July will be more stable with respect to updates (as far as stability - with respect to SYSTEM stability, 10.0.x is solid so far.
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
You've been spoiled by the "oh, one more thing" that Steve Jobs does. Perhaps you miss the old days when a system update meant you could spend the weekend after an update was released to hunt for Easter eggs, play with new features, give speech recognition another try, etc.
Apple used to be big into monolithic updates because users expected it. The dot-oh release had some huge features -- 7.0 brought new multitasking management, new system folder structure, and plenty of user interface improvements. 8.0 brought the new Platinum look, PowerPC native almost everything and additional features. 9.0 brought multiple users, speech recognition improvements, and true Carbon support.
Then we waited for the inevitable dot-one release where users were absolved for all the sins from the dot-oh release. Eventually a dot-five release would roll around bring a few more feature, followed by a dot-six release meaning Mac users should get ready for the next dot-oh release in six months.
Minor releases came for new Macs to support new hardware, but any way you looked at it, the updates came once every 6-8 months.
Today's world is different. Apple is pushing periodic updates bringing incremental updates more often, with a large dot-one release planned for June.
In my opinion, that's the way to do it. If Apple knows of something that can be fixed, then they should do it as soon as it's been quality-tested, and not wait for a big monolithic release. This is particular true for security holes (Mac OS !0.1.3 brought an improved ftpd), but it's also nice for system performance and minor bugs. I'm glad to see Apple taking this approach.
I've used Mac OS X exclusively since its release, except to play the occasional DVD on plane or backup my system. It's not as far a long as Mac OS 9 with some things, but for others it's way beyond it. Each week brings an update from Apple or another carbon-compliant application, which means that I can strip the System Folder in the Classic environment for even more performance gains and stability for those apps still left in the Classic Environment. I'm glad that I didn't have to wait until June for the system to become really usable.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Actually, I believe that IE allows you to look at NS all you want - in fact, it lets you look at just about everything out there on the web, since *that* is what it was designed for.
Outlook Express, an email client, designed to prevent users from looking at many other third party, and standards compliant, email packages
You're starting to sound a a bit off... OE, an email client. That's it. No conspiracies. It complies with mail standards just fine, AND I can check Hotmail without having to use the web interface. Oh no, it's the tool of Satan!
MSN Messenger, an IM client designed to prevent users from using AOL IM, Windows Media Player, a streaming media player, designed to prevent users from looking at RealPlayer, or worse, non-proprietry formats such as MP3, and many others
Good god man, you're so far off your rocker you're beyond help by any modern psychiatric treatments and drugs. MSN Msgr, WMP, a IM client (and that's all, again, no conspiracy) and a Media Player that blows away anything else that's available (or, at least, it blows away the competition you suggested (Real... blech)).
The specific intent of Microsoft's 'add-ons' is to avoid choice
Well, no, actually, their addons don't limit anyone's choice. Unless you feel that if you've already got MSN Messenger then it'd be an unholy act for you to install AIM as well.
By forcing the users to install this software, it becomes inefficient and potentially destructive to the stability of the system, to install third party competitors
Nobody's forcing anything. The software simply comes as part of the OS. Nobody goes out, buys the OS, installs it, only to have the MS Gestapo knocking on their door five minutes later, carrying Uzi's and WMP/IE/MSNM CD's, demanding that the software they bring be put on the machine. If some brave soul decides to take the plunge and sully their machine with RealPlayer or ICQ or some other monstrosity that you advocate as the preferable alternative to the default MS programs for those tasks, these alternatives work just fine and dandy alongside the MS software.
h as Real and AOL, or because they encourage use of commodity protocols
Oh, bravo! Real and AOL, the pioneers of all things good in this MS-dominated world. Great example.
In short, there's no comparison. Microsoft is forcing you to install software you don't necessarily want, in order to cripple the competition.
Again, they're not forcing anything. They are including it for a) their market share (duh) and b) because it actually IS convenient to have all sorts of goodies already installed on the machine without having to hunt around and download'em once you get the machine.
Anyways, yeah, I know, I got trolled, but I'm sure there's some impressionable people out there who might take what you say seriously, and possibly even buy into some of it. It's not very healthy t spread your mentality around like some sort of disease.
---
non-proprietry formats such as MP3
MP3 is NOT non-proprietary; it's patented. The token non-proprietary free audio standard isn't MP3; it's Ogg Vorbis.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Such an updater would check the upstream package catalog and apply multiple criterion on each updated package which would determine if that update is applied.
It seems easy enough to do this by hand. Whenever I have spare time, I check to see if there are new updates. If there are, then I read the release notes to see if they do anything I care about. If they do, then I install the update.
I wouldn't use automatic updates in any circumstance, even if I had some super-smart filter.
We call Windows bloated at 400MB, but when someone points out that distro X takes 7 CD's, we defend that distro
We're happy to use software that updates several times a month, some update daily. When Apple releases two patches in one month, we say their forcing people to update against their will or something.
*Yes, I know this doesn't apply to every single reader.
--
If the goal is to ship OS X with every machine Apple sells starting this summer, now is the time to get things straight. If that means "updates on Friday" then send them. Do it before it's flung unto the masses.
Personally, I'd rather have a bunch of close together updates then the monolithic updates that non-OS vendors force these days. For example the last releases of Photoshop and Illustrator had a disastrous effect on my business. The artists couldn't deal with the sweeping changes made by Adobe.
Finally, I imagine that it's easier for engineering and QA get their jobs done by shipping micro updates. Especially since there are so many different parts of this OS.
There is no such thing as updating too often. If I could, I'd download patches every few hours, right off the bug team's computers.
"Release early, release often." -- Linus Torvalds
I'd rather have lots of updates than not enough (as long as they don't break things!)
How many people complain that RedHat doesn't release update RPMs fast enough (though you can now grab them from RawHide) and they don't show up in RedCarpet in a timely manner?
So configure your client to update on a schedule you want and be glad when it DOES run that there are fixes to be had - you could be stuck with a buggy OS that never has the fixes released on a regular basis (*cough*Microsoft*cough*)
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I like the fact that Apple is releasing upbeats on a regular basis; it shows they are listening to feedback/ You don't have to update your system when the updates are posted; you can install them at your lesiure, which is cool. Mac OS X is a very a ambitious operating system and frequent tweaks are not unexpected. The original Mac OS was tweaked continiously for 17 years.
If I can get a painless, nearly-transparent bug or security fix the moment it's ready for prime time just by clicking "update", I'm a happy camper. I'm puzzled by this assertion that every two weeks is too much.
An update scheme such as OS X's should meet the following criteria:
I'm using OS X as my primary OS, and so far, Apple has done an absolutely outstanding job with 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Only #3 is week -- the only explanation you see when an update is available is "OS X 10.0.3". You have to install the update then try to divine what's changed. If Apple fixes this problem, they'll have a killer mechanism that Linux distros would do well to study.