If you ran the test exploits before installing the update, then the applications that they run are already "trusted" in the sense that they were already on your computer as registered handlers for those URI types, so the dialog does not appear (if the dialog appeared for every preexisting application on your computer, then its meaning would be diluted to the point of uselessness). Since these proof-of -concept applications are harmless, there's nothing to worry about. Any new applications run by a URI will make the dialog appear as it should.
if a live CD came out that made installing linux as easy as installing MacOS X then it would draw some negative attention from Apple I think.
That would be old, pre-Jobs Apple thinking, which did give them a tendency to arbitrarily clamp down on people modifying their (then) relatively closed platform, even when said clamp-down interfered with the company's interests. I don't really see that happening now. An easy, CD-bootable Linux distro would be another reason for people in a specific market to buy an iBook--in other words, it would be good for Apple. Even if they were concerned about the installed base of the Mac OS on Macintosh computers, I'd say that they have very little to worry about at the moment.
Uhh...that doesn't stop the installer from running apachectl graceful, or what have you. Besides, restarting Apache means opening Sharing preferences, clicking "Stop" and then clicking "Start" under Web Sharing...not especially obscure.
Well, regardless, the reboot is probably just a paranoid gesture...since there's no way of knowing for sure what other running daemons rely on the updated binaries. A reboot removes doubt, and apparently they don't like doubt. At least it doesn't quit all of your apps during the install....
Novice users are likely to drag the new IE software somewhere on their machine but then click on the Dock icon to launch IE. Unfortunately, this will launch the old version. Users need to either install it over the old version or they have to update their Dock. We're still trying to figure out the best solution that's easy for novice users and not incredibly annoying for experienced users.
Nonsense. With even barely adequate instructions (most drag and drop installs have instructions in the freakin' window background image), novice users are likely to drag the new version into/Applications, replacing the old one, and automatically updating the dock icon. Novice != stupid. Microsoft seems to think otherwise.
This sounds EXACTLY like a beta test, except they're charging money for it AGAIN
Users who bought the beta are getting full refunds in their OS X pre-orders (i.e. they cost $30 less). With an educational discount, beta testers can get the final for $40.
will most likely charge for the OS X 1.0 to 1.1 upgrade.
And you've based this assumption on what exactly? Apple has never charged for minor OS updates, even when they provide some major boosts in functionality (7.5.3 and 7.5.5--Vastly better virtual memory; 8.1--HFS+ filesystem support; 8.6--new nanokernel, 16-bit speech recognition support; 9.0.4--Classic compatibility in the OS X public beta; 9.1--new nanokernel, interface overhaul in Finder and numerous control panels, OS X final compatibility). If Apple changes their current pattern of free updates I will be very surprised.
As has been said before, MOSR's claims about Apple's "legal action" are completely made up. Check out http://homepage.mac.com/ryanliar/RyanIsALiar.html If you're familiar with the policies of mac.com pages, Apple actually owns the content of this article--has it been oppressively removed by Apple legal? Nope.
Slashdot Mirror
this exploit is not fixed.
Yes it is.
If you ran the test exploits before installing the update, then the applications that they run are already "trusted" in the sense that they were already on your computer as registered handlers for those URI types, so the dialog does not appear (if the dialog appeared for every preexisting application on your computer, then its meaning would be diluted to the point of uselessness). Since these proof-of -concept applications are harmless, there's nothing to worry about. Any new applications run by a URI will make the dialog appear as it should.
I agree. I think that using the word "fast" in the name of any computer technology is an inevitable fallacy, as it will eventually cease to be true.
if a live CD came out that made installing linux as easy as installing MacOS X then it would draw some negative attention from Apple I think.
That would be old, pre-Jobs Apple thinking, which did give them a tendency to arbitrarily clamp down on people modifying their (then) relatively closed platform, even when said clamp-down interfered with the company's interests. I don't really see that happening now. An easy, CD-bootable Linux distro would be another reason for people in a specific market to buy an iBook--in other words, it would be good for Apple. Even if they were concerned about the installed base of the Mac OS on Macintosh computers, I'd say that they have very little to worry about at the moment.
Why is installing software on more than one computers a bad thing?
It's not, unless you fail to compensate the large group of people who spent exorbitant amounts of time and money developing said software.
Uhh...that doesn't stop the installer from running apachectl graceful, or what have you. Besides, restarting Apache means opening Sharing preferences, clicking "Stop" and then clicking "Start" under Web Sharing...not especially obscure.
Well, regardless, the reboot is probably just a paranoid gesture...since there's no way of knowing for sure what other running daemons rely on the updated binaries. A reboot removes doubt, and apparently they don't like doubt. At least it doesn't quit all of your apps during the install....
Nonsense. With even barely adequate instructions (most drag and drop installs have instructions in the freakin' window background image), novice users are likely to drag the new version into /Applications, replacing the old one, and automatically updating the dock icon. Novice != stupid. Microsoft seems to think otherwise.
This sounds EXACTLY like a beta test, except they're charging money for it AGAIN
Users who bought the beta are getting full refunds in their OS X pre-orders (i.e. they cost $30 less). With an educational discount, beta testers can get the final for $40.
will most likely charge for the OS X 1.0 to 1.1 upgrade.
And you've based this assumption on what exactly? Apple has never charged for minor OS updates, even when they provide some major boosts in functionality (7.5.3 and 7.5.5--Vastly better virtual memory; 8.1--HFS+ filesystem support; 8.6--new nanokernel, 16-bit speech recognition support; 9.0.4--Classic compatibility in the OS X public beta; 9.1--new nanokernel, interface overhaul in Finder and numerous control panels, OS X final compatibility). If Apple changes their current pattern of free updates I will be very surprised.
Here's why the vents on the top are most likely total unadulterated BS:
-The cubes are supposed to stack one on top of the other right? (The AppleInsider article itself says so).
Gee, it sure would be fun to block the only air vents on the machine--especially with a big hollow plastic base. Burnt translucent goo anyone?
As has been said before, MOSR's claims about Apple's "legal action" are completely made up. Check out http://homepage.mac.com/ryanliar/RyanIsALiar.html If you're familiar with the policies of mac.com pages, Apple actually owns the content of this article--has it been oppressively removed by Apple legal? Nope.