Slashdot Mirror
Apple Forcing Panther Upgrade for Security Patch
The Raindog writes "I noticed over at Tech Report that Apple is apparently only offering its latest round of OS X security fixes to Panther users, leaving older versions of OS X out in the cold. " Update: 10/31 by J : But see
the next day's story.
.... I had enough money to be a MAC user.. I mean $2k+ for the Computer then $129 for security updates ...I mean upgrades every what ??? 6mos..
I only wish I had this kinda cash laying about =)
oh yeah in other news m$ announces SP2 for windowsXP is cancelled and windows XP.1 will cost $129 =)
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
You'd have to ask Apple users why they let Apple treat them that way. Apple is well known for sticking it to its users, but even so they remain as loyal as ever. They obviously feel that the Apple experience is worth it to them no matter what. They are also used to being told how things are going to be and relish having one company making all their decisions for them. Hence why so many Apple users have a strong desire to use nothing but Apple software and Hardware. In return they have to take the good with the bad. The bad in this case being if they want to continue enjoying the "Apple experience" they need to pay up.
So personally do I think its unfair to force people to upgrade just because Apple is too greedy to backport to an almost new OS? Yes. Does my opinion matter to Apple users? Nope.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I just got through a rough BSOD incident with NT 4.0 - Although I wouldn't call the assistence I got from Microsoft "helpful", it did technically qualify as "support".
But Apple's really going to have to get their sh1t together on this - or they'll never be taken seriously in the Enterprise.
Now that I think about it - I don't think Apple's ever really put any thought at all to that anyway. The XServe's basically a prosumer device to appeal to the geeks who've always wanted a rack system in their home. You won't really ever see one in a real data center.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... a patch to 10.2 called 10.3.
So it's a $129, it's a little buggy- but it comes with a colorful manual, in a sleek black box.
Microsoft forces you to update your computer through Windows Update---they don't give you a manual, and they don't put it in a box...
No wonder they can't get anyone to use Windows Update-- If they would only box their updates and charge 129$ for them this whole trojan/virus issue would be over.
Apple apologist are hard at work in this very thread. I have eight examples here for you, what more do you want? There isn't anything apple could do (anti-trust would prevent MS sellout) to it's users that they wouldn't defend religously. The merits are never relevant with the Mac Zealout, only the worship. I'm reminded of a battered wife who will never leave her husband despite getting beaten again and again.
e nth
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Sev
Eighth
So I see Bill Gates has secretly purchased Apple Corp.
I under stand the server enviroment, but he said "At home, I have both an iMac and a beige G3. My beige G3 is not supported under 10.3" I doubt he is using his beige G3 as a Mission Critical server at home. Go back and reread my post and the parent, my post had nothing to do with servers.
...as it usually takes 6-8 months for macsales to drop the price to this point.
And for those who don't think that a beige g3 could be classed as a server... well, mine has a 350mhz g4 upgrade, and it's faster than my HP K380s (6-way 240mhz).
You're absolutely right.
This is pretty abysmal in the tech world and should give a lot of users pause. Microsoft promises they will continue to support and release security patches for an OS for 5 years after it is no longer sold on the shelves. That means that customers running Windows NT have been able to get security patches up until this year (2003, I think they are finally EOLing NT 4.0). 5 years is pretty short. Sun releases Solaris security patches for 10 years after an OS is no longer sold.
A lot of IT managers will refuse to buy a product that has a forced upgrade cycle of anything less than 5 years. The reason for this is that there is much more cost involved in upgrading your OS than just the $129 per user. You also have to re-test all of your applications and make sure they are still compatible. You might have to re-write several applications and these are costs that cannot be absorbed on an annual basis, or whenever Steve Jobs feels like he needs to milk the Mac faithful for more money. If you want to see an example of this, just look at how many EDU organizations are still running OS 9.
If Apple doesn't change this policy quickly they will ensure that Macs stay in the homes where they already are and never penetrate very deep into the corporate world.
Of course Macs are much more secure by default than Windows. I'm not arguing that, but recently there have been several security holes in basic functionality like SSH that allow people to gain root access. Without security patches many vulnerable people could be infected by a Worm similar to anything that MS users get on a regular basis.
Of course, the crux of the matter is this: Steve Jobs wants all users to be on a 1 year upgrade cycle so that Apple makes more money, rather than releasing incremental updates like Service Packs that add functionality. If you're releasing an OS every year you can't afford to back-port all of your security patches to the previous 5 years worth of OS, there's just too much testing time involved.
Bottom line: Apple's greedy and it's costing them a lot of potential corporate customers.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon