Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases Security Update 2004-01-26
ollie_ob writes "Apple's released an important security update for Mac OS X today. The update includes changes to the following important apps and services: Apache 1.3, Classic, Mail, Safari, Windows File Sharing. In addition, it includes the 2003-12-19 Security Update. It's available via Software Update." It's also available for Server.
Anyone know if/when Apple will incorporate Apache 2.0? Or if there would be any use to doing so?
The last security update was December 19th.
As for a monthly update... thanks, but I want new features (and especially security updates) as they become available.
Ever since the 10.3.2 update crashed my laptop I wait a day or two to see how things are going. That was the only crash I've ever had in Mac OS X though, and I had reloaded and (automatically) had all my settings back to the way they were before the crash, and had the system all patched up, even with the patch that crashed the system, within 35 minutes. This was amazing to me, considering all the hundreds of times I've spent reloading my own or other people's windows boxen and the frustration of importing all the previous settings (and never quite getting them ALL back). I'm not going to say OS X is the OS that does it all, but I will say that after using MS OSes since DOS 3.2 my new desktop OS of choice is OS X for reasons like that... Even so, I still do wait a day or so to patch because clearly things can, and do, go wrong some times.
I don't know weather to write this as troll, astroturfing or just ignorance. I rather update my box more frequently, if it fixes the bugs and security problems. My Fedora boxes run "yum update-check" nightly, my RedHat boxes run up2date nightly, my OS X boxes check software update daily, and I have no complaints when they find an update. I like having notices sent to my mail box, so I can check them all in one place. (you can do this with scripting the OS X command line softwareupdate).
I wish I could automate the checking for updates form Microsoft. Launching a web page and clicking through daily is no way to check for updates (and MS's security announcements are typically not sent when the updates are made available, but can be a day or two later).
MS's "monthly" policy scares me. There is more to an OS than uptime. I'd rather know my boxes are secure than know that it's been a while since I rebooted them (and I run a number Linux, OS X and Windows boxes).
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
OS X in this regard is no better than Windows. It's an opaque operating system and dispite the list of changes that Apple provides, there's no real way to know if the patch is going to kill your system. For example, my local Apple rep warned me not to install the "12-19" security patch, as it will hose my AFP shares. Since this patch includes the 12-19 security patch, I doubt I'd install it without complete assurance from my apple rep. Furthermore, and update to the 10.3.2 service pack really borked my OpenDirectory (and from various web forums I learned that it's borked a lot of people's OpenDirectory). I am working with Apple to resolve this. However, I'm now as nervous as a Windows Sysadmin about installing this patch. Somehow I never felt this way, even with binary updates from RedHat. Linux is just so much more transparent and that makes me feel better than I do with these proprietary operating systems.
Do any of these fixes affect 10.2.8 or only for 10.3?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Your "Apple Rep"? Who exactly is this "Apple Rep," a VAR? ...some guy with and Apple polo shirt?
lol - I was only joking in my parent post but I just installed it on my Powerbook and it crashed during reboot! I was like "OH CRAP!"
:)
Fortunately a three fingered salute fixed it.
Don't think I'm going to risk it on the server remotely tonight however
The kernel is the least of it all. The kernel is fairly transparent to a developer who knows darwin inside and out. When it comes to the kernel, linux for me is more transparent simply because I understand it better. I'm sure I will understand darwin better over time. But that's not what I was talking about.
The Opaqueness is in how everything is put together. Sure you can study darwin to figure it out. But the fact is that it's unix, but it's not unix. It's not system V, it has a hybrid init mechanism. Apple has also brought together many open source components, which is good, but it has done them in such a way that I can't just take the virgin code from, say, Samba, and compile. I can, however, get the code from apple. But now instead of being able to go to all the internet resources for help with a Samba 3.0 problem, I have to go to apple instead, since they have customized these components very heavily and the Samba developers can't make any real statement on a problem because fo that. It's just frustrating when there are problems. That's all. As with all proprietary operating systems, you really do tie yourself down to one vender. It's a calculated risk, one I'm not yet comfortable with (coming from an exclusive linux server setup) yet. Apple's tech support is very good, though. And the problems I've experienced will be resolved.