Apple Auto-Disables Old Flash Players In Mac OS X 10.7.4

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Auto-Disables Old Flash Players In Mac OS X 10.7.4

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 10, 2012 @04:57AM from the for-your-own-good dept.

wiredmikey writes "Just released, and coming in at 370 MB in size, the Mac OS X 10.7.4 update includes general OS fixes, and addresses more than 30 security vulnerabilities. But aside from typical security fixes, Apple has made an interesting move in an effort to protect users. Through this latest software update, Safari 5.1.7 will now automatically disable older — and typically more vulnerable — versions of the Adobe Flash player. While many software vendors would prefer OS makers to keep their hands off their software, the move appears to be welcomed by Adobe, which has constantly battled vulnerabilities in its widely installed Flash Player."

155 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

370 MB? by aaron44126 · 2012-05-10 05:01 · Score: 1

More like 730 MB.
1. Re:370 MB? by halfEvilTech · 2012-05-10 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  it comes in at 370 MB for my Mac Pro
2. Re:370 MB? by aaron44126 · 2012-05-10 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  Apple Software Update reports 729.6 MB for me (MacBook Pro). (Not combo update, either — updating from 10.7.3.)
3. Re:370 MB? by tonywong · 2012-05-10 05:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Delta updates are sent via Apple Software Update which, in theory, is customized to patch a specific system model (Mac Pro or iMac or MacBook Air etc.). This means they can vary in size.
  
  However, I've found that delta updates can be more problematic and not patch everything that needs to be updated, which can lead to odd crashes and other funky behaviour.
  
  In my experience, I skip the software updates for delta releases and download the combo updater which has the kitchen sink mentality of updating.
  
  Link here (1.4GB) for standard install 10.7.4:
  http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1524
  
  1.5GB for Mac OS X Server 10.7.4:
  http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1529
4. Re:370 MB? by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 05:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A mere 20 hours over dialup. :-o
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
5. Re:370 MB? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Get what you pay for.
6. Re:370 MB? by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah..... remember when OS updates over your dialup line only took a few minutes? And fifteen and ten years ago the average webpage was a mere 40KB and 90KB respectively. But now it's balloned to 800KB.
  I upgraded to DSL for that reason. Of course a 370MB update still requires almost an hour and a half. Couldn't they at least *try* to keep software small? I like Microsoft's new philosophy of keeping Windows8 equal to Windows7 in size (only 1/2GB RAM needed).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
7. Re:370 MB? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  So you should have it tomorrow? Seems reasonable.
8. Re:370 MB? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  I like Microsoft's new philosophy of keeping Windows8 equal to Windows7 in size (only 1/2GB RAM needed).
  I'm not claiming other companies didn't do it before Apple, but there were serious performance pushes (size & speed) between a few major updates to keep the specs the same (even on equivalent hardware). I don't remember if it was Leopard -> SnowLeopard or what..
  So, if that's true of Windows 8, it's surely not new, except POSSIBLY to Windows.
Imagine by recoiledsnake · 2012-05-10 05:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

Imagine if MS had done this, the bitching here would be enormous. Just like how Palladium was decried by everyone when it was proposed by MS to secure PCs, but when Apple did it with iOS with extreme lockdown DRM, it was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.

--
This space for rent.
1. Re:Imagine by TheDarkener · 2012-05-10 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
2. Re:Imagine by Renderer+of+Evil · 2012-05-10 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine you taking your meds this morning.
3. Re:Imagine by RMingin · 2012-05-10 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  New user, first comment, excessively praising one tech company.
  Jesus H Christ, do I have to come downstairs and TEACH you guys how to do your jobs properly???
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
4. Re:Imagine by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-05-10 05:07 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Maybe finish reading the whole summary where even Adobe welcomes this? Oh and you've made sure to bitch about Mozilla doing the same thing to older versions of the Java plugin, right?
5. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.
  Wait, are you talking about the same Slashdot as I've been reading? Because for the past half-decade I've heard nothing but whining here about iOS's app lockdown.
6. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't even know that Apple did this. Though it somehow doesn't surprise me. Also, I'm guessing all the people bitching about MS using Palladium actually use Windows, and not Apple (I'm refraining from obscenities right here). All those complaints you didn't here are because Apple-users tend to be happy with the iKoolaid.
7. Re:Imagine by spire3661 · 2012-05-10 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.
  
  --
  Good-bye
8. Re:Imagine by spire3661 · 2012-05-10 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Or they realize they can run Linux and windows in VMs in OSX or they can install it on the mac bare metal.
  
  --
  Good-bye
9. Re:Imagine by XiaoMing · 2012-05-10 05:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.
  Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
  And yet you still shovel on the praise and manage to spin it in your own mind, that rather than it being the heavy-handed tactics of a company that has no idea how to play well with others, they are simply taking a brave stand against flash!
  Man, Kudos to Apple, and kudos to yourself for being so brave too!
  The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
10. Re:Imagine by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-05-10 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  He has no valid point. This something that Adobe wanted them to do to help fight Flash player exploits. And you can always reenable your vulnerable Flash player if you want.
11. Re:Imagine by tonywong · 2012-05-10 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I like how you say that Macs can't do 'real work,' like the work you're doing is somehow better than someone who has picked up a Mac.
  
  The task(s) should always define the tool needed. If it's a Mac that's needed to run the software to do the task so be it.
12. Re:Imagine by DigiShaman · 2012-05-10 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...
  A: This version of flash will be uninstalled because yadda yadda yadda.
  and
  B: Accept or Decline, BTW here's a link to obtain the latest version after this Apple update has been completed.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
13. Re:Imagine by Tumbleweed · 2012-05-10 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine if MS had done this, the bitching here would be enormous.
  I don't think that's true. Mainly because I think you're vastly underestimating the blood-soaked hatred most people here have for the Flash player.
  I also think most people here are probably fine with the masses getting their shit updated automatically, as long as those of us who develop for and/or have to support old versions have the option of keeping older versions around when necessary.
14. Re:Imagine by ifrag · 2012-05-10 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  A perfect candidate for Microsoft's "malicious software removal tool" program.
  It is disappointing that none of the updates to this tool have even tried to stop such a widespread infection. If anything, the enormous flash install base demonstrates that Microsoft's tool is completely ineffective against serious a malware infection.
  
  --
  Fear is the mind killer.
15. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.
  Bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of past actions.
16. Re:Imagine by Pope · 2012-05-10 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because phones and computers are two different things?
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
17. Re:Imagine by PRMan · 2012-05-10 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Everything, and I mean everything, just works so easily and quickly.
  Everything except Flash websites, apparently...
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
18. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.
  Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
  And yet you still shovel on the praise and manage to spin it in your own mind, that rather than it being the heavy-handed tactics of a company that has no idea how to play well with others, they are simply taking a brave stand against flash!
  Man, Kudos to Apple, and kudos to yourself for being so brave too!
  The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
  Idiot
19. Re:Imagine by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-05-10 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
  They disabled Flash in Safari only. If they take drastic actions they are vilified, but if they don't do anything they are vilified as well. The new Flash updater on Windows will perform automatic & silent updates. They don't offer this as an option for OS X.
20. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded.
  "Yes, we know Steve was going around vandalizing shops in the downtown area last night, but, you know, Billy WAS convicted of murder a thousand miles away at one point, so we'll obviously let Steve off, give him back the rocks he was throwing, publicly apologize for it, and point out the shops he missed along with which of them don't have security cameras that can monitor the street. I'm sure you'll agree it's the only logical thing to do."
21. Re:Imagine by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-05-10 05:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...
  A: This version of flash will be uninstalled because yadda yadda yadda.
  and
  B: Accept or Decline, BTW here's a link to obtain the latest version after this Apple update has been completed.
  It disables Flash. It doesn't uninstall or delete it.
22. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  From a small business standpoint Mac is simply not an option in many cases. Most medical transcription software, dental software, Sage/ Planning/construction software requires Windows and often times a back-end Windows server machine. On top of that things like Google Apps sync is only for the PC, not mac, preventing Mac users from using the paid Google Apps services. If you just fart around and browse the web and send emails the built in Mac software works fine, but for those that run businesses it's a different story and you find yourself running a Windows virtual machine ALL of the time, why not just buy a Windows machine at that point.
  There are patches for VMware to allow OSX in Windows so I run OSX and Linux in Vmware on my Windows 7 machine. Although running a virtual machine has some drawbacks, such as performance issues especially with html5/flash video playback.
23. Re:Imagine by recoiledsnake · 2012-05-10 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.
  DOJ oversight ended recently http://www.neowin.net/news/doj-oversight-of-microsoft-ends
  The iPad holds about 60 to 90% of the installed base of tablets and it doesn't bans Netscape(Firefox) from even running, forget about getting trouble for just bundling Safari by default like MS did.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
24. Re:Imagine by recoiledsnake · 2012-05-10 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  What about tablets? We hear so much about a post-PC word and lots of common folks replacing desktops, laptops and netbooks with the iPad.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
25. Re:Imagine by XiaoMing · 2012-05-10 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.
  You're right, they're only a tiny helpless corporation with more spare cash (not even something intangible like nonliquid assetsmoney, but real money) than any other company in existence right now. Stop picking on them! they obviously don't have the capability to do anything beyond what they currently are able to manage, poor guys :C
26. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  According to the Patent Office of the good ol' United States of America, they sure are!
27. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I've had a Macbook Pro for almost two years now, and I've yet to run into a problem with lacking software variety or developer-friendliness. Most Windows software has either a straight Mac port or comparable Mac software. And under the bells and whistles and shiny paint, OS X is a Unix-based OS just like Linux is. Dig down deep enough, and you'll find that their innards are remarkably similar.
  And the only big difference involving software variety is the fact that there's a whole lot less shovelware for OS X than there is for Linux or Windows.
  I even do coding on my Mac, which is the one thing that is always brought up when bashing Macs.
28. Re:Imagine by fermion · 2012-05-10 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just to add a data point, I and many other bitched widely when Apple updates would automatically reinstall and activate Flash. There was no way to get away from flash. Apple depending on it for it's advertising, so that was all there was to it. Of course such comments are moderated down as such comments are meaningful, as opposed to comments that just randomly complain how unfair the world is.
  Now Apple, and the rest of the world, is not so dependent so much on Flash, due partly to the iPad, so they can disable it. Flash is mostly for p0rn and ads, so people who want will reenable it, people who don't can enjoy a less brutal online experience. I think it is a wonderful turnaround. It might make Safari useful again
  As far as this being an Apple thing, I think not. Microsoft tried to compete with Flash, but Silverlight is really a one trick pony. Flash is useful in so many other ways, but the way it is normally used is as an evil trojan pony. So I see even MS moving to more open standards based internet experience as seen in MS IE9. Flash is seen as security risk. Flash is seen as a impediment to productivity. Flash is seen as inefficient. The result is the presence in the marketplace is going to be reduced.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
29. Re:Imagine by XiaoMing · 2012-05-10 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.
  Wait, are you talking about the same Slashdot as I've been reading? Because for the past half-decade I've heard nothing but whining here about iOS's app lockdown.
  From developers. The were off in a sepia colored la-la land referred to as Instagram.
30. Re:Imagine by amicusNYCL · 2012-05-10 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I would have exactly zero problems with Microsoft doing something like this (their biggest problem: getting people to actually install the update).
  When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user. They visit a website that uses Flash, they see a message that Flash is not enabled or installed with a link to install it, they go through the process, et voila, you've gotten your users to update to the latest Flash player.
  I have zero issues with an OS update automatically disabling old vulnerable software versions (especially Java and Acrobat reader), provided there is a way for the user to re-enable them if there's some reason that they require a specific old version.
  I also generally hate every stance that Apple takes regarding control over their products, but this decision does make sense if they're trying to protect their users who wouldn't otherwise protect themselves. Microsoft should do the same.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
31. Re:Imagine by Yaztromo · 2012-05-10 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know.
  On both of the systems I applied it to yesterday, it popped up a dialog warning me that it was going to disable the out-of-date flash player, and inviting me to visit Adobe's website to download the latest copy. The two buttons on the dialog were along the lines of one to go to the download page, and one to simply continue disabling the out-of-date plug-in.
  And now you know.
  Yaz
32. Re:Imagine by Tastecicles · 2012-05-10 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I sort of want a Galaxy Note. It's the happy middle ground between a tablet and a phone, but oddly I don't really see myself holding something with 5.3" screen up to my ear...
  "I CAN'T TALK, I'M AT THE THEATRE! NO, IT'S RUBBISH!"
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
33. Re:Imagine by DdJ · 2012-05-10 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user.
  Right. Disabling Flash entirely is what Microsoft is doing, in the "Metro" flavor of "Windows 8" (where no browser plugins work at all).
  (Though if you flip back into "Desktop" mode, you can still get them. The "Desktop" flavor of the web browser is dumbed down over current IE, but not nearly as much as the "Metro" flavor is.)
34. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you're not going to be convicted monopolist if you're not there. That doesn't mean you get to use similar practices to get there, or does it?
35. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  If they're using dominant position in mobile OS market (which they don't have) to pry into browser market (that's what MS was accused of, s/mobile/desktop OS/), they're doing rather shitty job of it. iOS Safari is tied with Opera and Android Browser, and desktop Safari share is in single digits. They won't make a dent into browser stats as all mobile browsing combined is still somewhere around 5%.
  If you'd try to build a case around accessories and AppStore practices, you might have had something there. With this you're just a bitter MS apologist.
36. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Nice try at equating this to forced immunization. Too bad the analogy fails, since no one is saying that people should be vaccinated without their knowledge. "Forced" to if they want to interact with society at large maybe, but that is still with their knowledge.
37. Re:Imagine by Nerdfest · 2012-05-10 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  If you're more worried about how it looks than how it fits your requirements, you may want to stick to iDevices, although I think they're either going to bump up the size of their phone or come out with a smaller tablet as well.
38. Re:Imagine by jones_supa · 2012-05-10 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...
  Agreed. Nothing is more annoying than a piece of software turned off because "we know better". Follows what sort of dialog I would myself craft.. ;)
  "MacOS has detected an old version of Adobe Flash running on your computer. To help protect your security, this software has been temporarily disabled. You can choose to continue running current version (not recommended) or update Flash."
  [Update] [Continue using current] [Leave current disabled]
39. Re:Imagine by CastrTroy · 2012-05-10 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  These people who replaced desktop/laptops/netbooks with the iPad never really wanted a PC in the first place. The only reason they had one originally was because it was pretty much the only way to go on the internet. Most people don't want a general-purpose computer as it is just too complex to understand. They have no desire to program it, futz with the settings, or even change hardware components. I'm convinced that Apple doesn't include an SD card in their iPads because A, the slot looks ugly, and B, having removable media is too complicated for a sizable portion of the target demographic. If you think I'm joking, consider this, my mother was confused when she couldn't load the pictures from her camera to her computer, not understanding that once you take the SD card out, the pictures are no longer in the camera. By getting rid of the mouse, and keyboard, and going touch input, they get rid of a couple of loose cables that could also cause problems. The iPad is exactly what the general population needs. General purpose computers are way too much for them to handle.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
40. Re:Imagine by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-10 06:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Apple releases an update that disables outdated and vulnerable third party software...
  FTFY.
  
  The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
  Yep, you're standing on the wrong side of it.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
41. Re:Imagine by Dog-Cow · 2012-05-10 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly when did Apple ever install and activate Flash automatically?
42. Re:Imagine by NoSleepDemon · 2012-05-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  You and the other mods who voted this up didn't stop to think that Cheeseburger's disguise was made intentionally weak?
43. Re:Imagine by Cinder6 · 2012-05-10 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  I go through a reasonable amount of effort to ensure my software was up to date. I've gotten so used to Flash updating automatically on Windows that it didn't even occur to me it wasn't doing that on my Mac. After I updated to 10.7.4, it told me Flash was out of date. So I'm going to have to say this is a good move. I'd imagine most Mac users have outdated Flash versions.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
44. Re:Imagine by blind+biker · 2012-05-10 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I must admit that I thought the Apple fanboys were just being fanboys, but after I got Macbook Air to use I must say I'm very impressed with everything Apple does. Everything, and I mean everything, just works so easily and quickly. Not only that, but there is actually also UNIX system underneath OS X. I've had nothing but good impressions about App Store and iTunes and the whole OS. This decision lines well with that thinking. Now I actually think that people accusing Apple of inflated prices just think in terms of hardware, which I guess is typical to geeks and Win/Linux users. Apple products are much more than that.
  I threw up a bit. Is this supposed to be "subtle marketing" or "subliminal messaging"?
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
45. Re:Imagine by kiwimate · 2012-05-10 06:53 · Score: 1
  So this is your argument.
  Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, because they bundled their web browser with their operating system. Therefore, if they distribute a patch or an upgrade which as part of its functionality disables a product which:
  
  is from a third party vendor; and
  is out dated and superceded; and
  is known to be particularly vulnerable
  and the third party vendor expresses their support for that action;
  then they are scum and you disapprove. But only because they were convicted of bundling IE with Windows 13 years ago to the detriment of third party vendors.
  If they hadn't been convicted in 1999 of monopoly leverage of their own products, then you'd applaud them taking this action, of which the third party vendor approves, to enhance security.
46. Re:Imagine by BlackSnake112 · 2012-05-10 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
  They disabled Flash in Safari only. If they take drastic actions they are vilified, but if they don't do anything they are vilified as well. The new Flash updater on Windows will perform automatic & silent updates. They don't offer this as an option for OS X.
  You are going to trust that the adobe updater will only update from adobe and the updater itself not be compromised at some point? If you do you trust adobe more then me. I set it to bug me when there is an update. Then I go to adobe directly and get it. More of a pain, but safer.
47. Re:Imagine by BlackSnake112 · 2012-05-10 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  And to the average computer user disabling it or it being removed is the same thing. Their flash doesn't work. They only care about it working.
48. Re:Imagine by RMingin · 2012-05-10 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Do you often hear a noise you can't place, sounds like "woooosh"?
  I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was downstairs giving Cheese and the other new hire shills the monologue from Glengarry Glenross. I'm sure the quality of their 'posts' will rise soon.
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
49. Re:Imagine by jo_ham · 2012-05-10 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's pretty much exactly what it says. ;)
50. Re:Imagine by jo_ham · 2012-05-10 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's clearly trolling. I imagine it's the same guy who has made an anti-Google one that started showing up yesterday. My thought is it's either someone just trolling for fun or someone creating obviously shill-like accounts to bolster their pet theory that every second person on /. is a shill paid to astroturf. Probably best to just ignore it.
51. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Netscape(Firefox)
  Excuse me, in what year do you think we are?
52. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if you have a serial killer (Billy) and a vandal (Steve) and a bunch of idiots are running around screaming that Steve is just as bad as Billy and must be stopped now before he kills even more people then it would actually be relevant and correct to point out that Steve's crimes aren't nearly as severe as Billy's.
53. Re:Imagine by Tastecicles · 2012-05-10 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  requirements are key, I couldn't care less about how it looks. Right now I'm using a ZTE F930 tethered to my laptop for interweb access, my carry-around is a Motorola V3. Basic model, no memory card slot, vga camera but it's rugged and works everywhere. The smartphone might be pretty but that's precisely why I don't carry it - who's gonna want to steal an eight year old EDGE/GPRS handset??
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
54. Re:Imagine by spire3661 · 2012-05-10 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  My argument is we treat Microsoft history with a different lens because of the egregious nature of being a convicted monopolist AND the nature of their overt acts. They tried to own all of computing and people fucking forget that. Your attempt to reduce the the verdict and punishment to browsers is cute. They convicted MS just like Al Capone, they got them for what they could get them for, even though there was a ton of other behavior that in a sane world would be punished too. Microsoft needs to continue to reap the punishment from their egregious acts, for they have stolen marketshare and presence. Thankfully they are mostly incompetent with Ballmer and watching them flail about as their competitors eat their lunch is amusing.
  
  --
  Good-bye
55. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  One story, both were crimes.
  One story, only one was a crime.
  See if you can tell the difference.
56. Re:Imagine by spire3661 · 2012-05-10 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Talk about unsupported...
  
  No one is going to deploy a virtual hackintosh in a production environment. Unless the bare metal is a mac, you are in violation of the mac EULA. See Psystar v. Apple.
  
  Why are you watching video in a virtual environment? Also, VMs are more then jsut another 'machine'. Its a machine with some very unique and useful properties above and beyond what a bare metal machine is. Running one ALL the time is not the same thing as running a bare metal machine. You can replace a Windows machine with a Mac, but the reverse cannot be said(legally).
  
  --
  Good-bye
57. Re:Imagine by Vokkyt · 2012-05-10 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you give them a means to install it. As would appear to be the case based on the number of malware infections that people have willingly installed as well as all the crapware that gets put on machines, put a button that says "download" or "install" in front of them and they will do it. Which is exactly what Apple did.
58. Re:Imagine by kiwimate · 2012-05-10 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  we treat Microsoft history with a different lens
  They were judged to have done a bad thing, they were convicted, and they paid the price. Agreed, not a stellar part of Microsoft's corporate history. Okay. Why does that mean that if they did the same thing today as Apple is doing, with the purpose of enhancing security, and with the full approval of the involved third party, you should have a different response based on whether it's Apple or Microsoft?
  
  Your attempt to reduce the the verdict and punishment to browsers is cute.
  "Cute"? Anyway...
  I recognize things are almost always more complex than they appear on the surface. But fundamentally, that's what it was. Your next comments are just getting emotional, and I don't think they're helpful or, frankly, relevant.
  Can we stick to the point? If Microsoft were to do the exact same thing as Apple are doing in this case, would you approve or complain?
  
  Thankfully they are mostly incompetent with Ballmer and watching them flail about as their competitors eat their lunch is amusing.
  Well, maybe we won't be able to stick to the point, unless you grow up a bit.
59. Re:Imagine by spire3661 · 2012-05-10 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Can we stick to the point? If Microsoft were to do the exact same thing as Apple are doing in this case, would you approve or complain?"
  
  I reject the question outright. They are not the same and shall not be judged the same. Just because you feel like they have paid their penance doesnt mean that we dont STILL feel the effects of those crimes today. What they got was a slap on the wrist because at the end of the day Windows 'worked' for everyone and the DOJ was afraid of killing the golden goose. We judge them differently TODAY because of their quite egregious past that we have to live with in the PRESENT.
  
  --
  Good-bye
60. Re:Imagine by Em+Adespoton · 2012-05-10 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you own a commercial Adobe product, it comes with an update manager that can auto-update Flash. I don't know why they didn't provide this for their stand-alone free product.... ...but every time the automatic update software kicks in, I end up double checking to verify that it's the REAL automatic update software, as this is an obvious thing for a drive-by download to spoof.
61. Re:Imagine by allo · 2012-05-10 08:46 · Score: 2
  
  and when you go to adobe's site, you're sure it really is the site of adobe? Maybe some malware changed your dns ... make sure to use https for downloads!
62. Re:Imagine by Em+Adespoton · 2012-05-10 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Strange that you should run OSX and Linux on Windows 7...
  I'd suggest doing it the other way around, making your base system Linux or OS X, and then running a lightweight VM for your medical transcription software/dental software/etc. -- a trimmed XP in a VM should do the job nicely -- assuming that you can't just use something like WINESkin to run the software directly inside OS X.
  The only place I've ever had problems running Win32 software natively under OS X or Linux on an Intel processor has been when there's a hardware dongle or other hardware reliance that doesn't virtualize well -- but these days most dongles are emulated anyway.
  That said, there's really not a dearth of software for OS X -- especially not in the medical imaging field. The only issue is that there are a few product families around that have been used in the medical/dental/etc. field for the last 20 years, and everyone ALREADY has them installed on Windows. This software often requires some sort of DOS init sequence, and doesn't run properly under Windows 7, not just OS X. Some of this stuff even requires you have a parallel port and a COM port installed. Switching platforms doesn't really make much sense in these cases.
  As a counterexample, AutoCAD has been Windows-only for years... but is now not only available on OS X, but even to a limited extent on iOS (AutoDesk's iOS apps aren't full AutoCAD, but they have custom ones for different markets, such as construction/engineering/hardware design). I think you'll find that there's no dearth of software for OS X, it's just not usually the stuff that's already entrenched in businesses that have been around since the birth of Windows.
63. Re:Imagine by p0p0 · 2012-05-10 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't, it just shows that they don't target private software, for better or for worse. All they're doing is simply leaving it up to the user to update their software.
  They don't need to do it, and they chose not too.
  
  They won't target the software, but they will target the malware targeting that software. Apple is just taking a more active stance on it, and they need to if they want to keep their "no viruses/malware" slogan going strong.
64. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  New user, first comment, excessively praising one tech company.
  Jesus H Christ, do I have to come downstairs and TEACH you guys how to do your jobs properly???
  As has been discussed in multiple threads over the last few weeks, it is becoming rather obvious that these over-the-top shill (first)posts that pushes peoples buttons are trolls aiming for exactly that.
65. Re:Imagine by cpu6502 · 2012-05-10 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it is the same. Saying people cannot "interact with society at large" unless they are vaccinated is equivalent to forcing all computers to have the latest Updates and a virus prevention, else they won't be allowed on the internet.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
66. Re:Imagine by smash · 2012-05-10 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  Are you SURE that certificate presented by Adobe is legit, and their CA hasn't been hacked? Be sure to write your security updates yourself.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
67. Re:Imagine by smash · 2012-05-10 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Further to this, since I've owned my mac, i've been able to get real work done without having to purchase very many applications at all. Pixelmator, TextWrangler and with iLife and Xcode, i can create/edit multimedia content write native applications, do web development, network admnistration (ssh, and friends are included), etc.
  What is this mystical work you can't do on a mac?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
68. Re:Imagine by smash · 2012-05-10 13:46 · Score: 2
  
  If you frequent macrumors or other mac sites, you will realise that mac owners are some of the most bitchy/picky people on the planet. Apple does NOT get a free pass with their users. Their gear generally works better BECAUSE of this intolerance of existing apple users, not the other way around. Just google some of the complaints about Lion.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
69. Re:Imagine by hairyfeet · 2012-05-10 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Do they ASK the user before they do it? If yes then I'm all for it and if not then the guy that got labeled a troll got a bum rap. Remember folks that BOTH Apple and MSFT are pushing for an app store model that will give them unprecedented control, so if one doesn't draw lines in the sand now frankly you may not get a chance to later.
  Ultimately it should be the USER that gets to decide what stays and goes and lets be honest, we are talking about a single pop up with an explanation and a yes/no box, really not that hard to code folks.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
70. Re:Imagine by Joce640k · 2012-05-10 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  I've gotten so used to Flash updating automatically on Windows....
  "Automatically"?
  If your definition of "automatic" is several dozen popups and mouse clicks, reading and accepting a new license agreement, etc. every single damn time you switch on a PC then, yes, I guess it's automatic.
  
  --
  No sig today...
71. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  I own the computer and I should decide what is "outdated" not the OS manufacturer. The OSs job is to simply run the programs that I tell it to.
72. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  Translation: Its all my opinion. Don't ask me to explain it otherwise people will realizee that my positions are generally illogical and what a complete buffoon I am.
73. Re:Imagine by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-10 20:46 · Score: 0
  
  Until you get infected, then suddenly they should have done something about it.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
74. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Except you weren't saying "forced" you were saying "without their knowledge". I was simply acknowledging that an argument could be made for "forced".
  But hey, nice attempt at backtracking.
75. Re:Imagine by cpu6502 · 2012-05-11 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  >>>I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system.
  You have no more right to be notified when Old Flash is being purged from your computer then to not be vaccinated from disease. This is a proactive measure from the state (or the megacorp acting for the state) to protect the internet from bad programs. We can't allow your diseased computer (or body) to be spreading these bots/viruses to other people.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
76. Re:Imagine by spire3661 · 2012-05-11 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Says the AC.......
  
  --
  Good-bye
77. Re:Imagine by blind+biker · 2012-05-11 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  So, a false flag operation, you say?
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Flash installer deletes itself, too by kriston · 2012-05-10 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Adobe Flash installer deletes itself, too, after installation. They really don't want the old, buggy stuff laying around.

--
Kriston
1. Re:Flash installer deletes itself, too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If they really didn't want buggy stuff laying around, the Adobe Flash installer would delete itself before installation. ;-)
What about Acrobat? by i+kan+reed · 2012-05-10 05:03 · Score: 1

Last time I had an issue with a virus intrusion attempt, t was acrobat, not flash, that was the vector.
1. Re:What about Acrobat? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  I never install the Acrobat Reader on OS X, because the Preview application bundled with the OS does everything I need with PDFs.
  Sure, there are some who will need esoteric features of the full Reader client but it cuts out the vector for a huge majority of users.
2. Re:What about Acrobat? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Acrobat is useless. Everything it does can be done with free software.
3. Re:What about Acrobat? by Ash-Fox · 2012-05-10 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  If that's the truth, why won't the free software play the videos that are embedded in PDFs?
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
4. Re:What about Acrobat? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone embedding a video in PDF is completely clueless and so their video won't be worth the time it takes to watch.
5. Re:What about Acrobat? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  If that's the truth, why won't the free software play the videos that are embedded in PDFs?
  Because that's not a feature, that's just ridiculous.
6. Re:What about Acrobat? by Reapman · 2012-05-10 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  You can put Videos inside a PDF document now?!?! Please tell me your kidding.
  That's like when I get those annoying "joke" emails that are in Powerpoint with loud music and walls of text. Or an Inventory system that uses a workbook in Excel.
  If I was the Hulk, this is the kind of stuff that would turn me green.
7. Re:What about Acrobat? by hobarrera · 2012-05-10 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why did you even install it in the first place?
  Flash is required for youtube and other sites.
  Whyever would you need Acrobat?
8. Re:What about Acrobat? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't play those videos because no one has ever seen one of those PDFs. It's not that I disbelieve you that PDFs can do that; I'm not calling you a liar. It's just that it's so obscure and rare, that even if you did have a PDF with a video in it, and even if you knew you did, you wouldn't bother to go to the trouble of installing Acrobat to play it. You would just say, "Oh well, I just saved several minutes not watching a video that some moron put inside of a PDF, and that fact that it was done by a moron tells me how stupid the video probably would have been." Even then you could be wrong (maybe it's a good video) but the point is that you'll never know so you still won't miss that Acrobat capability. Ergo, Acrobat never gets installed.
9. Re:What about Acrobat? by Ash-Fox · 2012-05-10 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, I like the fact that you can get a full report in a single file, which shows the full evidence of circumstances being reported by having some of the linked citations as embedded videos etc. So, I have to disagree with you.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:08 · Score: 0

Leave MY computer alone Apple!
1. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-05-10 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can reenable it...
2. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by ilsaloving · 2012-05-10 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why *should* they leave your computer alone? If you are either too stupid or unwilling to take proper care of it, and the repercussions of that fact affect everyone around you, then don't start complaining when others take the job out of your hands.
  There are all sorts of regulations regarding cars. You need licenses, tests to prove you can drive safely, legally mandated regular checkups, etc. If you don't follow through, then the gov't will decide you can't drive it anymore.
  It's inevitable that the same will happen to computers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.
  TL;DR version: If you want people to treat you like an adult, then ACT like one.
3. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Guy+Harris · 2012-05-10 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Leave MY computer alone Apple!
  Is Apple preventing you from running, say, Firefox on your Mac? Firefox, as far as I know, isn't doing the Flash player check that Safari is doing.
4. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see them in the Mac App store - give it a year and you'll only be able to run what Steve Jobs 'brain in a jar' says.
5. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Tastecicles · 2012-05-10 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  I've always viewed Apple hardware as the toaster oven of computers. In that, I don't *care* what's going on under the hood, I just want the bloody thing to work - which it does, barring spouses leaving it switched on and resting on a feather pillow (ouch time!). When I want something to tinker with, I crank up my Linux box and if I really have a few hours to kill, on goes the Wintendo.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
6. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Guy+Harris · 2012-05-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see them in the Mac App store - give it a year and you'll only be able to run what Steve Jobs 'brain in a jar' says.
  And my prediction is "give it a year and you'll still be able to run stuff not from the App Store". We'll see who's right in a year.
7. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  You need licenses, tests to prove you can drive safely, legally mandated regular checkups, etc.
  Not everywhere you don't. The one time I renewed my license in Indiana, where I'm from, all I had was an eye test at the counter at the DMV. I moved to Arizona before my next renewal and didn't have to do an eye exam to get my Arizona license, just paid and got my picture taken. When I moved I renewed it online and got it in the mail 3 days later. It also doesn't expire until 2044.
8. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Em+Adespoton · 2012-05-10 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Consider this almost a year... people were saying this when the App Store came out, and it's not true yet....
  A more realistic timeline would be ten years, at which point you'll likely need to register with Apple and sign the developer's keychain to install software on whatever the OS X replacement is. Before a step like this happens (with a new OS), I don't see running arbitrary code going anywhere.
9. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 20:48 · Score: 0
  
  Rubbish. *I* want to run software on *MY* Computer that *I* decide on. An OS is supposed to shut up and run whatever software I tell it to. They should not be meddling with the software that I chose to install on my own free will.
  "Oops.. this competitor was releasing 'outdated' and 'vulnerable' software so we just disabled it.... Stop using them! Just Use Apple Approved Software!"
  Since Pwn2Own shows *EVERY SINGLE YEAR* how Safari itself is filled with security holes why don't they disable Safari itself? That would solve a ton of problems.
10. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 20:59 · Score: 0
  
  If the principle here is disable vulnerable software, is Apple going to disable Safari or their other software till its known bugs are fixed?
11. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by ilsaloving · 2012-05-11 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because if you are stupid enough to run ancient versions of plugins like adobe flash and not bothered to update, then your ability to manage your computer is so poor that you don't deserve the privilege making that choice.
  Software will always have bugs, and until there is a seismic shift in attitude over how software is designed, security vulnerabilities will always exist. The question becomes a) how do the vendors respond, and b) how do the users respond. Vendors should be putting out updates to patch the flawed software.
  This is being done, for the most part (Except maybe Adobe).
  Users are supposed to be responsible for making sure those updates are applied. This is chronically NOT happening. I have met users who were even proudly defiant, refusing to run updates and bizarrely equating it with "sticking it to the man". These are the people that make the internet a cesspool of viruses, spam and botnets and phishing attacks. If you count yourself among these kinds of people, I'm amazed you even managed to figure out how to post a comment on slashdot.
12. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Then leave YOUR computer off OUR internet!
13. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  then your ability to manage your computer is so poor that you don't deserve the privilege making that choice.
  I got the "privilege" of doing what I want when I bought the damn thing. Maybe idiots like you want to lose ownership rights, but I don't want to get started on a slippery path where everything is "licenced" and you don't actually own anything.
  
  Software will always have bugs, and until there is a seismic shift in attitude over how software is designed, security vulnerabilities will always exist
  So then they will disable Safari, iTunes, iPhoto when they have bugs right? right? lol...
  You apple cheerleaders are insane. Certified lunatics, every last one of you.
14. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by ilsaloving · 2012-05-11 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you really don't get it, do you?
  Since you appear to be fond of the hyperbolic, lets try this: You buy a gun. Are you allowed to buy a guy? Yes. Are you allowed to wave it around in the privacy of your own home? Yes. Are you allowed to wave it at someone else? No, unless you have a license.
  Now take that same gun, put it on a pedestal in front of you, and stand back as hundreds of thousands of people walk past it, some of them looking at it, some of them poking at it... and a couple attach a doohickey that causes the gun to come to life and start firing at the crowd. All this while you're still standing beside it with a shit-eating grin on your face and you proudly going, "This is my gun and you can't tell me what to do!"
  And you have the audacity to be offended when someone steps up and takes the gun away from you?
  And this is what you're doing when you put a poorly maintained computer on the internet. ANY computer, doesn't matter if it's Windows, Apple, Linux, or your old Commodore 64. This has nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with cleaning up the sorry cesspool the internet has become. Apple isn't even the first company to do it... They're just the most visible. Mozilla is already disabling old Java plugins, for example.
  Okay, I'm done feeding the troll. I'm gonna go back to reading http://xkcd.com/386/ now.
15. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations.. you are a winner! And by winner, I mean you are a typical Apple cheerleader douchebag.
  
  And you have the audacity to be offended when someone steps up and takes the gun away from you?
  Fuck you. Waving a gun in public and firing it would be *illegal* in most cases. So stop your retarded rationales that no-one sane would even buy.
  Also if apple was so interested in "cleaning" the internet they would automatically update flash, rather than disable it. This is a douche move designed to hurt their competitor. Its in line with their previous anti-competitive move to ban flash on iOS because it allows developers to avoid the 30% apple tax for simply letting a user to download an executable file from a server.
  I guess somehow downloading a file is supposed to be special because its Apple and they call it the "App Store". I never knew running an FTP server was so expensive. I've been administering a high traffic download server for a pittance in actual operational costs.
16. Re:Big Apple like Big Government! by ilsaloving · 2012-05-13 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations.. you are a winner! And by winner, I mean you are a typical Apple cheerleader douchebag.
  Fuck you.
  
  Wow, you really showed me there. You were clearly the leader of your high school debating team. Thank you for proving this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
  Now I see why you're posting as a coward. I admit I was curious to see how this would play out, but now that I know I can just save myself the time and effort of responding to anonymous cowards in the future.
This proves, by BanHammor · 2012-05-10 05:09 · Score: 2

That Adobe makes such software that it welcomes other people disabling it.
A correction... by courcoul · 2012-05-10 05:22 · Score: 1

Safari 5.1.7 is installed AFTER upgrading the OS to 10.7.4. The ~400MB delta or ~1.3GB combo updates applied thru Software Update (700MB delta / 1.55GB combo if downloaded as standalone updaters) bring Safari to 5.1.6 and patch a slew of other pending issues. Then you can run Software Update again and install the ~35MB Safari 5.1.7 update.
As for the disabling of vulnerable versions of third-party software, worth noting that a couple of weeks back during the FlashBack Trojan affaire, after installing the security updates that brought the problem to a halt, the Java browser plugin was disabled by default, the user would need to manually enable it when needed, and it would auto-disable itself again after a few days of inactivity.
Yay, security by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:23 · Score: 0

Glad to see that Apple is taking all the necessary steps to maintain "no viruses on Apple".
1. Re:Yay, security by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-05-10 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  Glad to see that Apple is taking all the necessary steps to return to "no viruses on Apple".
  FTFY
it's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:24 · Score: 0

good practice to force people to fucking update! i'm done with helping people with trojan pc's.
1. Re:it's by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2012-05-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I wish you didn't post as AC so you could receive a well deserved mod bump.
  
  --
  "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Adobe Update Schedule by rullywowr · 2012-05-10 05:35 · Score: 2

This is probably good as Adobe seems to "patch" or provide "updates" to their product every 2hours or so.
Updates delivery issue by Corson · 2012-05-10 05:45 · Score: 2

This is an issue that all non-OS applications have: how to get and install updates in a timely manner? Firefox checks for updates upon launch; drawback: annoyance for user as this results in an apparent slow launch. Google installs an update service; drawback: many users will disable this service due to the perception that it could slow down the entire system. Adobe Flash Player is a "system plugin" with its own update tool that runs at boot time; drawback: it requires user interaction, thus it is annoying. RealPlayer creates update tasks in the TaskManager; drawback: some users will disable them as they could increase boot/login time and/or are perceived as intrusive/spyware. The only acceptable solution is a system-wide update system, the way it works on Linux but without any user interaction; or updates delivered for all installed applications via Windows Update on Windows (which Microsoft is unlikely to accept).
1. Re:Updates delivery issue by Githaron · 2012-05-10 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  The only acceptable solution is a system-wide update system, the way it works on Linux but without any user interaction; or updates delivered for all installed applications via Windows Update on Windows (which Microsoft is unlikely to accept).
  As long as it is optional. I see no reason to force user to upgrade anything on their system. Also, the OS could simply have a tool that programs can register with at install. That one tool would then regularly check for all registered programs. It doesn't have to be a single repository of software just a single communication standard.
2. Re:Updates delivery issue by Corson · 2012-05-10 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Now this is a great idea!
3. Re:Updates delivery issue by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-05-10 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is an issue that all non-OS applications have: how to get and install updates in a timely manner? Firefox checks for updates upon launch; drawback: annoyance for user as this results in an apparent slow launch. Google installs an update service; drawback: many users will disable this service due to the perception that it could slow down the entire system. Adobe Flash Player is a "system plugin" with its own update tool that runs at boot time; drawback: it requires user interaction, thus it is annoying. RealPlayer creates update tasks in the TaskManager; drawback: some users will disable them as they could increase boot/login time and/or are perceived as intrusive/spyware. The only acceptable solution is a system-wide update system, the way it works on Linux but without any user interaction; or updates delivered for all installed applications via Windows Update on Windows (which Microsoft is unlikely to accept).
  The difficulty with some of these (granted, never had this issue with flash) is legacy support. Some businesses run specialized software that is occasionally broken by software updates. My personal experience with this has been JRE updates that break an app, until a couple release down the line fixes the issue, but others have seen this with Firefox as well. When this happens, users begin to equate "updates" with "broken apps" and then puts them off, it not avoiding them forever. While this isn't an excuse, it does expose some of the causes of outdated software...
4. Re:Updates delivery issue by hobarrera · 2012-05-10 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Most GNU/Linux and BSD derivates do this.
  MS doesn't because they don't want people to use IE, WMP, MS Office, etc. As long as they dont' provide the means for third parties to install/update software, they can control what average joe installs/runs. And it contributes to keep third party software out-of-date, which makes the software look bad as well, hence, point for MS (from the average user's PoV).
Optional by Githaron · 2012-05-10 06:00 · Score: 1

I understand not offering support or having a important sounding warning but why make it mandatory? I tend to keep my software updated but what if I didn't want to update my software? Why should Apple or any company be able to come in and make changes to my system without me first either giving them permission or setting the computer/software to auto-update?
1. Re:Optional by jo_ham · 2012-05-10 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's not mandatory. It disables it but you can reenable it if you really want.
Adobe products -- unsecure by design by neo-mkrey · 2012-05-10 06:04 · Score: 1

Seriously, the gaping security holes in their products make me think they have to be consciously designing them that way.
1. Re:Adobe products -- unsecure by design by wiegeabo · 2012-05-10 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Flash has become a bloated, security hole riddled piece of software. And over all these years, Adobe seems to be so concerned with handling backwards compatibility by just tacking on more features to an old product.
  What Adobe needs to do is completely overhaul Flash. And by overhaul, I mean throw it away and create a brand new Flash player from scratch that fulfills the specifications. And if the specifications lead to security holes, then change the specifications. But Adobe is either unable to do this, or too scared to do it.
  If a more secure Flash player requires sacrificing backward compatibility, causing programmers to update their work. then so be it. Because, at this rate, Flash will be dead soon, and they'll have to recode for its replacement anyway. And if they don't want to update their work, then their work isn't important enough to worry about anyway.
  At this point, Adobe either needs to hire an entirely new project team, or open source Flash in someway and let the FOSS community make the improvements.
2. Re:Adobe products -- unsecure by design by Jeremi · 2012-05-10 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  What Adobe needs to do is completely overhaul Flash. And by overhaul, I mean throw it away and create a brand new Flash player from scratch that fulfills the specifications. And if the specifications lead to security holes, then change the specifications. But Adobe is either unable to do this, or too scared to do it.
  Isn't this more or less what Apple is attempting to do, except they call the overhauled version "HTML 5"?
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
3. Re:Adobe products -- unsecure by design by wiegeabo · 2012-05-10 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this more or less what Apple is attempting to do, except they call the overhauled version "HTML 5"?
  Sort of.
  Apple is having to try and shift the industry away from Flash, which dominates, to a new standard. But HTML 5 wasn't, and still isn't, quite ready for prime time. And people are always going to resist moving to a new standard if the old one works 'good enough'.
  But if Adobe changes Flash, then the industry standard has no choice but to change with it. And if Adobe could ever figure out how to make a decent Flash product that was still fairly backwards compatible, it could be a significant blow against Apple and HTML 5. If nothing else, it would give everyone using Flash a better internet experience.
Why imagine, they've already done it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:13 · Score: 0

They added their plugin to Firefox without asking in a Windows update. Of course that had nothing to do with security, just profit.
Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:25 · Score: 0

The Poster stated that if he needs Windows or Linux then he can fire them up using VMWare.
So what is so fundamentally wrong with that?
Use the best tool for the job regardless of platform.
I use Windows & Linux in my day job. At home, I use OSX. IT certainly does not get in the way all the time like Windows and is far better at WiFi than Linux.
I also prefer using MS Office on OSX than that stupid ribbon on Windows. I've really tried with OpenOffice but have had great problems with numbered lists inside tables.
I also write short stories and have not found anything to touch Scrivenor for that.
why can't the updates be smaller like the MS by Joe_Dragon · 2012-05-10 07:33 · Score: 1

why can't the updates be smaller like the MS ones?
1. Re:why can't the updates be smaller like the MS by mr100percent · 2012-05-10 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Mac OS X point upgrades are like Windows Service Packs.
2. Re:why can't the updates be smaller like the MS by mr100percent · 2012-05-10 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  When I meant point upgrades, I meant small point, like 10.7.3 to 10.7.4. The major point upgrades are a giant leap in new features.
3. Re:why can't the updates be smaller like the MS by cpu6502 · 2012-05-11 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the jump from 10.6 to 10.7? Yes that is equivalent to a Windows jump from XP-SP2 to XP-SP3. The differences are major..... oftentimes you'll be required to have the latest 10.7 or SP3 for certain programs to be installed.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
4. Re:why can't the updates be smaller like the MS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  I like how you ignored mr100percent's polite correction to your first post and just reposted the same text (with slight tweaks to get around /.'s "you've already posted this exact message" filter). Really helps solidify the whole "acting like a 2 year old" thing you've got going on.
  I know, I know. "But that other post of mine was marked troll!". Well just FYI, you could have avoided looking like a two year old if you'd instead replied to mr100percent's post with something like "well I disagree, I think 10.6 to 10.7 is like xp sp2 to xp sp3."
It just works! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:08 · Score: 0

It just works!
why does TFA say MacOS X by allo · 2012-05-10 08:44 · Score: 1

when it means Safari?
OS X by butilikethecookie · 2012-05-10 09:30 · Score: 0

My updates were around 750MB. I have a 2006 Macbook. I use Google Chrome so Safari is no issue to me.
in other news: adobe security updates are payware by Gunstick · 2012-05-10 21:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, go for it.
paying for security patches is the way to go.

--
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.