Mac OS X 10.2.2 Update Available

Fork420 writes "Apple has released the 10.2.2 update. According to Apple: The 10.2.2 Update delivers enhanced functionality and improved reliability for the following applications and technologies: Address Book, iChat, IP Firewall, Mail, Print Center, Rendezvous, Sherlock and Windows file service discovery. The update also includes the updated services previously delivered in Security Update 2002-09-20. For detailed information on this Update, please visit http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n107140 (when this story was posted, this link was not yet working) Enjoy..."

Comments

Re:Journaling File System

[xenocyst]

But, "Provides a foundation for the journalling filesystem (JFS), which may currently be enabled via Disk Utility on Mac OS X Server systems." doesn't exactly seem like support for JFS, more of an experimental thing? It does specfically say "OS X Server", and "foundation" after all. =p

Re:One Problem:

[Cutriss]

you dont have to, NFS works fine with HFS+, but you risk screwing yourself with the file name case insensitivity of the mac. A rare event since most people dont have important files that differ in name only in their case but it's lurking.

It's possible that perhaps the UNIX community needs to move past case-sensitivity in filenames and foldernames. Just because UNIX has been doing it that way for 30 years doesn't mean that it needs to be done that way, and apparently both Windows and MacOS have a hard time cooperating with it.

Example - I'm doing development on a local machine with Visual Studio 6. I try to move my project to a Samba share so that I can work with it in a different lab...but suddenly my project won't build. It turns out that Visual Studio makes assumptions about lowercase letters in the pathing for the various files it creates during compilation. UNIX obviously doesn't abide by this, and so returns "file not found".

Sloppy? You bet. Important? Outside of anal-retentiveness, I can't think of a single reason that you'd *WANT* to be able to support filenames that differ only by case. It's an HCI issue for one thing, and the system incompatibility issues that are now surfacing are making the issue more visible.

I'd welcome some examples of places/functionality where case is of critical importance.

Re:One Problem:

[Twirlip of the Mists]

With the low cost of storage these days, RAID 5 is basically obsolete. Spend the extra few gigabytes, and use RAID 0+1

That's an overstatement. ATA/IDE/whatever storage is pretty cheap, but SCSI and Fibre Channel disks are still pricey. In order to protect a 1 TB filesystem with RAID 0+1, you'd have to have 2 TB worth of (let's say) Fibre Channel drives. That extra terabyte would cost you many thousands of dollars. But to protect the same filesystem with RAID 3 or RAID 5, you only have to have (at least) one spare drive. That's a lot cheaper than the 6 or 8 or 16 or whatever drives you'd have to buy to mirror the whole filesystem.

I'd say that for filesystems in the range of 0-500 GB using inexpensive disks, RAID 3 and RAID 5 are probably unnecessary. But outside that set of conditions, RAID 0+1 just isn't practical.

Re:Cupertino, we have a problem!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

This is such a dead horse. The name of the operating system is "Mac OS X." That's the brand name. The version number is currently 10.2.2. When enough time has passed, the version number will be 11.something. At that time, the full name and version of the OS will be "Mac OS X 11.something."

It's really not that hard to wrap your head around this idea, y'all. It's not necessary to make a lot of noise about it every single time OS X comes up on Slashdot.

Re:That is correct

[bnenning]

That little song and dance about their derivative license? Yeah, leech off free software.

Bull. Apple has released far more of their code than they had to (zero). And it's not all modifications to existing software either, quite a bit was written from scratch.

OSX gives some of what Linux's had all along.

More accurately, OS X gives what Linux has been trying to achieve for years: a desktop OS usable by non-geeks.

I'll say one thing for Apple...

[psyconaut]

...they seem to have some pretty robust update servers.....I also grab every update pretty much immediately and never have trouble getting them.

Funny how Apple can have software update facilities that must be handing out several hundred thousand 25Mbyte updates a day.....and many websites can't even cope with the traffic Slashdot sends their way ;-)

-psy

Re:10.2.2 Changes

[ScottForbes]

• Improves updating of applications installed with Mac OS X, updating them only if they have not been relocated or deleted.

Aaaaaarrrrrggghh! Apple replaces one Wrong Thing with another. Before 10.2.2, Apple's installer would blindly write files into /Applications/Mail.app/contents/resources without first checking to see whether Mail.app was still in the /Applications folder.

Now Apple's installer looks for /Applications/Mail.app, and aborts the install if it isn't there. For the love of Tog, how hard is it to actually find Mail.app, considering that the OS already has this ability built in??

MacOS X can find where Microsoft Excel is hiding on my hard drive every time I double-click on a spreadsheet - how hard can it be to find /Applications/Apple/Mail.app? Why should I be forced to organize my /Applications folder in a particular way (or, more accurately, why should I be prevented from organizing the folder) just to satisfy Apple's brain-dead installer scripts?

Now I have to re-construct the /Applications folder to look exactly the way it did after a clean install, or I can't get application updates. MacOS 9 didn't require this. I could understand Apple's installer getting uppity if I turned /bin or /usr into my personal carnival of idiosyncracies, but I can't understand why Apple's new and improved OS is hard-wired to implode when I move an application from one folder to another.

Re:One Problem:

[vague]

> It's a cultral thing.

Actually, it's not. I talk about the one and only use letters were designed for, to be read and written by humans. This is how they are designed. Fact remains, filenames are metadata designed to be read by humans primarily. The fact that such a system also is useful for the computer and that it's convinient for them to use the same system as humans in many situation doesn't change this. To limit the usefulness of metadata for humans just because the computer also likes to use it is ass backwards. If that's the problem the right thing is instead to invent a parallell system for the computer to use where the problems doesn exist for the computer. I repeat, if filenames were primarily designed for computers to read, they would be file numbers.

That you like to think of words on the computer as different than words anywhere else doesn't change the fact that this is a lousy interface decision for humans, because words are words even in a filename.

> That's like saying domain names are just for humans to use and computers should just use IP addresses.

Exactly.

> This is clearly not true as if a computer needs to change IP and if there was no lookup system via the DNS then none of the other computers would be able to find it and it's resources again.

Problem found, analysis deficient. URLs are designed for one purpose, to make addresses human readable (one can argue whether they succeded or not but...). The fact that it can _also_ fill a function for computers is superflous. Sure it can, but it wasn't designed primarily for this, and every time this secondary use hampers the primary use you're doing things the wrong way.