between my bluetooth headphones running out of battery and having to own 3 extra dongles, which i often forget, including a splitter so i can charge my iphone whilst listening to music, i quantifiably listen to less music now that apple has done this.
If you have 3 lightning adapters and STILL have problems not having them when you need them; then I suggest the real problem is not with the phone...
So then, based upon your "claim" and the data I posted, that would make the Windows/Android world around 6 billion. Again, tell me why you would focus on a single-digit segment of the market?
So NOW you want to conflate Windows (who pushes DirectX) and ANDROID (which is just a Clusterfuck, to the point where even its Mommy (Google) wants to do a retroactive Abortion on it). By and large, Windows Devs. that are performance-conscious don't use Vulkan; so it really IS only down to Android and Linux (and we all know what kind of miniscule marketshare Linux has...) that are keeping Vulkan alive.
Sorry, not impressed.
Oh, and it is MY "Claim", it is Credit Suisse's. And that is 588 Million unique Apple USERS, spread over MORE THAN A BILLION Apple Devices:
But Metal (not even considering Metal 2) is over twice as efficient as Vulkan; so why would Apple Devs. want to give up all that extra performance, just to use a VASTLY inferior API?
Could have used Vulkan, did not need to create a home rolled API to do the same thing less flexibly, leaving out important features, and not used by anybody outside of Apple.
They COULD have used Vulkan, IF it had Existed; but it wasn't even a Final SPECIFICATION until a year and a half after Metal was first RELEASED. So, actually, they COULDN'T have used Vulkan back when they had that "decision" to make.
And Metal "Not used by anybody outside of Apple" STILL gives you nearly 600 Million unique Users and over 1 BEELION Devices, nearly ALL of them running Metal every single day. That many users and products "make their own weather", sorry.
That's all well and good on iDevices, where having a different graphic API for every platform is, and has always been, the norm. On the desktop, we've long been able to support all major platforms with a single graphics stack; Apple is breaking that for Mac OS, and it is not going to end well for them.
Oh, you mean like Windows has done for DECADES with DirectX?
Lazy Developers, that don't know how to code using a standard Model-View-Controller method, are the ones that will continue to have "porting" problems, you mean...
Anyone who follows that paradigm should have no problem converting some PUD Application like AutoCAD or Inventor to use whatever graphics rendering API a particular platform requires. Afterall, most CAD applications are nothing more than a graphical database editor coupled with a graphical database renderer. At least until you get to high-end matrix math operations like in Finite Element Analysis.
it was the one thing they had going for them from both a high end app and game standpoint. e.g. that they used a well known library. Who's going to put the work into writing to Apple's custom library? Maybe for iPhone games, but it kind of kills the desktop.
Considering the graphics requirements of the average videogame running on an iOS device running Metal, vs the average Desktop CAD Application, I simply don't see why it would be such an onerous task for AutoDesk to provide Metal API support. After all, they already have iOS Applications that presumably use Metal in the App Store...
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands. It's why they don't use gcc anymore. And why they developed their own web browser.
Fuck Metal, anyway. It's like DirectX but nobody worth a damn fucking uses it.
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
Hundreds of millions, actually. Close to 600 million if you combine macOS (which is over 100 million by itself) and iOS, which both use Metal.
Quite frankly, why? You know, I can see it with the makers of hardware that have no history with security or internet connectivity. I don't even wonder anymore why huge security holes gap in internet connected fridges and dishwashers, simply because the makers of such appliances never had to deal with anything like this and are, essentially, at a security level we were 25 years ago.
But SAMSUNG? C'mon, folks, you have the people over in the smartphone branch, is it really that impossible to at least look over the fence to the other departments? I don't even expect different departments of huge corporations to work together anymore, but this is ridiculous.
And embarrassing.
Hmmmm.,
Interesting you never hear of these kinds of things with HomeKit devices...
Remember that I said that the Secure Boot has 3 settings? One of them is "Off". So you can run the Super Happy Joy Ultra Best Linux Distro all you want!
Until critical update 6573563 turns that option off.
HOW long have people been handwringing about that EXACT same thing with GateKeeper?
They different is Watergate/Clinton investigations were started due to some pretty clear and damning evidence. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely instigating factor for the Mueller investigations was some political impropriety and fearmongering on the Democrat's part. In terms of real evidence pointing to a massive conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia (on anything), it is objectively almost nothing. It still may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone can deny Democrats have twisted themselves in circles trying to convince the world of some massive conspiracy, a la 9/11 truthers.
And I'm going to seriously consider the opinion of someone who starts a Post with "They different"?
And just remember, after Trump stated Publicly that handing over Ambassador McFaul to Putin's gang of thugs for "Interviewing" was actually "worth Considering", the Senate voted 98-0 last week to block that idea.
Oh, and when Articles of Impeachment against Assistant AG Rob Rosenstein were filed in the House last night, only ELEVEN ***REPUBLICANS*** (out of 236 Representatives total) jumped on the bandwagon. Even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan spoke out Publicly against the measure. Even Trey Gowdy, who is NO supporter of the Mueller Investigation, said of the Rosenstein Impeachment attempt: "Impeach him? For What?"
They would be better off (and make data recovery more likely) if the user provides the T2 with a boot pasphrase. The AES key is the sha2 hash of the passphrase.
That plus a socketed SSD provides the same security but now you can recover from a failed logic board.
...and someone else can trivially pull the drive and work on decryption to their heart's content. They can even copy the encrypted data off the SSD, return it to the computer, and work on decryption after telling the owner that they "Found their computer"...
You are necessarily no worse off with that since you should have a backup encrypted with a key known to you anyway.
Yes you are. Significantly worse. See above.
Even better is a randomly generated working key encrypted with the sha2 hash of a passphrase. Then you can have multiple passphrases that can be individually revoked or changed without re-encrypting the drive.
The only 'advantage' to the way it's being done now is that Apple and the *AA can make sure you can't choose to run your own modified OS that does what you want. The cost is that you may lose your ability to recover your own data.
Remember that I said that the Secure Boot has 3 settings? One of them is "Off". So you can run the Super Happy Joy Ultra Best Linux Distro all you want!
Also, Taligent was/turned into a joint venture together with IBM. That can delay, half-ass and grow-to-unusable-proportions anything.
Ahhh, fond memories of an intensive Taligent programming course at IBM in Austin, where a GUI Hello World program took ~10 min to build on a then pretty-much-state-of-the-art Pentium 100MHz. That course turned out to be a not so good investment for my employer.:)
If it's important enough, board level repair might allow for target disk mode, IF parts and documentation were are available.
I'm not so sure what the use case is for the encryption being locked in the T2 though. If the user doesn't have to enter a password to get it to access the data, it might as well not encrypt. If the user does, why store a key in the T2?
I agree with you on your first scenario.
And I don't know enough (like I pretty much no nothing about) the way Encryption/Decryption works with the T2 chip to know what the user has to do to gain access to the encrypted data, and how that keeps someone with physical access to the computer from just accessing the transparently-decrypted files. It's an interesting point. Perhaps some research... BRB.
Ok. Back.
From my 2 minutes of Research, it looks like the T2 chip protects the savvy/careful Mac user's data if the standard login/screensaver password system is used. It does not protect someone who leaves their desk with their Mac running without invoking their screensaver or sleep. However, storing the key in the T2 chip makes it far less likely to be discovered if the computer is stolen.
So, as far as encryption goes, it seems that the main advantages to a T2-equipped Mac over previous Macs are:
1. Transparent AES-256 Encryption with zero CPU intervention.
2. Effectively Always-On "FileVault".
3. Stolen Mac cannot even have its SSD desoldered and transferred to another Mac and data directly exfiltrated.
4. T2 Chip cannot be desoldered an transferred to another Mac, because, like with iOS's Secure Enclave, the T2 chip and Motherboard are paired at mfg. time.
5. Secure/Trusted Boot (see below)
The T2 chip also provides a verified (but 3-level switchable) "Trusted Boot" procedure (with the Default even requiring an Internet connection), so that nobody can stick the stolen Mac into Target Disk mode and either suck the data off nor modify the OS to break security, and it provides a pretty good solution.
But yeah, if you leave your T2-equipped MacBook Pro in "Automatic Login" mode, then someone who steals your laptop somewhat has the keys to the kingdom, so to speak...
Now, something like AmigaOS, ReactOS or BeOS, now THOSE are decidedly NOT "Major" OSes.
And Mobile OSes don't count, sorry. That's more akin to Embedded Firmware than a proper OS, even if it plays one on TV, and has pieces-parts of a real OS included.
There are really only 2 major OSes: Windows and Android. Both have more than 80% market share. All other OSes are, in fact, bit/minor players.
And what does that have to do with my statement?
We all know that Windows could use a ground-up rewrite. And even Google thinks Android should be abandoned at the earliest opportunity in favor of Fuschia, or whatever it's called...
It's almost like Apple never has made good products and never will.
No way, man. The Macintosh IIci was a triumph of engineering. That was one of the best machines ever made, IMO. Granted, it was overpriced AF — paying five grand for a 68030@25 was some Sun Microsystems level shit. But still, it was a fantastic, durable machine that was trivial to work on. You could swap the power supply without any tools, for example.
Since then, though, it's all been downhill, starting with the Macintosh IIfx with its nonstandard SCSI termination...
Let it go, will ya?you just use the Black terminator and all is golden.
Apple has never been capable of a clean rewrite. The culture there isn't capable of 'inventing' something that big, and NIH is the holy gospel. They tried to write a new preemptive multitasking OS to replace the hoary old pascal-based MacOS when MacOS 9 was growing long in the tooth. Pink/Taligent was a disaster. They failed so badly that Jobs had to come back and take over with the Unix derived workalike from NeXT, which notably was developed OUTSIDE the Apple fogzone.
It's really a pity they didn't go with BeOS instead. That was some fresh new design, again from people who had escaped the Apple fogzone.
Pink/Taligent, like Copeland, was a cluster because it was trying to half-ass the rewrite.
MacOS really needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. At this point it is a Frankenstein pastiche of this and that culled from here and there. It's architecture has long been eclipsed, a cousin to GNU Hurd, and just as ancient. Apple engineers have kept things afloat with some pretty good hacks. But they are hacks nonetheless.
MacOS is long in the tooth, and chock full of ugliness. It is time to start over with a clean new 21st century design.
Name a major OS for which those same words cannot be said.
next mac pro needs to have storage that is not locked to the MB or locked into apples choices. Forced raid 0 is an no go even more so 2 pci-e cards stuck behide an X4 pci-e link.
No one using a Mac Pro or an iMac Pro is going to be storing data files on the internal storage; the files they typically work on are entirely too huge. Those users typically use SANs or big external RAIDs.
So an internal RAID is a pretty silly thing on Pro machines.
Slashdot Mirror
its a fucking pain in the ass.
between my bluetooth headphones running out of battery and having to own 3 extra dongles, which i often forget, including a splitter so i can charge my iphone whilst listening to music, i quantifiably listen to less music now that apple has done this.
If you have 3 lightning adapters and STILL have problems not having them when you need them; then I suggest the real problem is not with the phone...
So then, based upon your "claim" and the data I posted, that would make the Windows/Android world around 6 billion. Again, tell me why you would focus on a single-digit segment of the market?
So NOW you want to conflate Windows (who pushes DirectX) and ANDROID (which is just a Clusterfuck, to the point where even its Mommy (Google) wants to do a retroactive Abortion on it). By and large, Windows Devs. that are performance-conscious don't use Vulkan; so it really IS only down to Android and Linux (and we all know what kind of miniscule marketshare Linux has...) that are keeping Vulkan alive.
Sorry, not impressed.
Oh, and it is MY "Claim", it is Credit Suisse's. And that is 588 Million unique Apple USERS, spread over MORE THAN A BILLION Apple Devices:
https://www.businessinsider.co...
Besides, it seems like MoltenVK is a pretty viable alternative to having to (re)code against multiple graphics APIs:
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
But Metal (not even considering Metal 2) is over twice as efficient as Vulkan; so why would Apple Devs. want to give up all that extra performance, just to use a VASTLY inferior API?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Andro...
Could have used Vulkan, did not need to create a home rolled API to do the same thing less flexibly, leaving out important features, and not used by anybody outside of Apple.
They COULD have used Vulkan, IF it had Existed; but it wasn't even a Final SPECIFICATION until a year and a half after Metal was first RELEASED. So, actually, they COULDN'T have used Vulkan back when they had that "decision" to make.
And Metal "Not used by anybody outside of Apple" STILL gives you nearly 600 Million unique Users and over 1 BEELION Devices, nearly ALL of them running Metal every single day. That many users and products "make their own weather", sorry.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
So Now what?
That's all well and good on iDevices, where having a different graphic API for every platform is, and has always been, the norm. On the desktop, we've long been able to support all major platforms with a single graphics stack; Apple is breaking that for Mac OS, and it is not going to end well for them.
Oh, you mean like Windows has done for DECADES with DirectX?
Lazy Developers, that don't know how to code using a standard Model-View-Controller method, are the ones that will continue to have "porting" problems, you mean...
Anyone who follows that paradigm should have no problem converting some PUD Application like AutoCAD or Inventor to use whatever graphics rendering API a particular platform requires. Afterall, most CAD applications are nothing more than a graphical database editor coupled with a graphical database renderer. At least until you get to high-end matrix math operations like in Finite Element Analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Let's see what Siemens PLM does with its NX CAD suite for Mac...
it was the one thing they had going for them from both a high end app and game standpoint. e.g. that they used a well known library. Who's going to put the work into writing to Apple's custom library? Maybe for iPhone games, but it kind of kills the desktop.
Considering the graphics requirements of the average videogame running on an iOS device running Metal, vs the average Desktop CAD Application, I simply don't see why it would be such an onerous task for AutoDesk to provide Metal API support. After all, they already have iOS Applications that presumably use Metal in the App Store...
nice mobile API you back ported to the desktop there
Precisely. If it won't work natively on mobile it doesn't belong in MacOS as the two won't remain separate for long.
People have been predicting this since OS X 10.7 (Lion).
Hasn't happened. Never will.
You mean beside Metal? Autodesk doesn't want to code in Metal, that's their choice, but it's factually untrue that Apple has no 3D library.
That's not what he said. Read it again moving your lips this time of necessary. There was no business case for Apple to get into the 3D API business.
Yet they did, and now they expect everyone else to jump through the resulting flaming hoop of dogshit.
Hmmm. Seems to be no problem for legions of iOS Devs.
Perhaps you are just too tired or stupid to learn a new API that generates the displays for Application software with hundreds of millions of users.
Unlike HTML and Compiler tech, Apple has no credible business case for a bespoke 3D library.
*Cough* ARKit *Cough* ...to name one that immediately comes to mind...
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
It's just single-digit market share, so might as well just ignore them for now...
It's nearly 600 Million users across macOS and iOS.
Sorry, that's enough.
Can't they just use Vulkan?
The most logical reason is that Apple doesn't want to put the development of a crucial part of their OS in someone else's hands. It's why they don't use gcc anymore. And why they developed their own web browser.
Fuck Metal, anyway. It's like DirectX but nobody worth a damn fucking uses it.
Nobody but the millions of Mac and iOS users.
Hundreds of millions, actually. Close to 600 million if you combine macOS (which is over 100 million by itself) and iOS, which both use Metal.
(from the hacker's prayer)
Quite frankly, why? You know, I can see it with the makers of hardware that have no history with security or internet connectivity. I don't even wonder anymore why huge security holes gap in internet connected fridges and dishwashers, simply because the makers of such appliances never had to deal with anything like this and are, essentially, at a security level we were 25 years ago.
But SAMSUNG? C'mon, folks, you have the people over in the smartphone branch, is it really that impossible to at least look over the fence to the other departments? I don't even expect different departments of huge corporations to work together anymore, but this is ridiculous.
And embarrassing.
Hmmmm.,
Interesting you never hear of these kinds of things with HomeKit devices...
As I said, even if that never happens, you're still better off with the schema I laid out and there is no down side.
Really?
I effectively listed 5 downsides (as the 5 upsides of using the T2 chip) in my earlier Post. You just chose to dismiss them.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Remember that I said that the Secure Boot has 3 settings? One of them is "Off". So you can run the Super Happy Joy Ultra Best Linux Distro all you want!
Until critical update 6573563 turns that option off.
HOW long have people been handwringing about that EXACT same thing with GateKeeper?
Apple doesn't work that way.
They different is Watergate/Clinton investigations were started due to some pretty clear and damning evidence. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely instigating factor for the Mueller investigations was some political impropriety and fearmongering on the Democrat's part. In terms of real evidence pointing to a massive conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia (on anything), it is objectively almost nothing. It still may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone can deny Democrats have twisted themselves in circles trying to convince the world of some massive conspiracy, a la 9/11 truthers.
And I'm going to seriously consider the opinion of someone who starts a Post with "They different"?
And just remember, after Trump stated Publicly that handing over Ambassador McFaul to Putin's gang of thugs for "Interviewing" was actually "worth Considering", the Senate voted 98-0 last week to block that idea.
http://time.com/5343322/michae...
Oh, and when Articles of Impeachment against Assistant AG Rob Rosenstein were filed in the House last night, only ELEVEN ***REPUBLICANS*** (out of 236 Representatives total) jumped on the bandwagon. Even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan spoke out Publicly against the measure. Even Trey Gowdy, who is NO supporter of the Mueller Investigation, said of the Rosenstein Impeachment attempt: "Impeach him? For What?"
https://www.newsweek.com/rod-r...
And in fact, those Eleven Traitorous Republicans have already turned tail and run home:
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/26/...
Yep. Sounds like the Democrats are the only ones that are beginning to think "something's up"...
Gimme a break, willya?
MAGAP
(Make America Get Another President (tm))
They would be better off (and make data recovery more likely) if the user provides the T2 with a boot pasphrase. The AES key is the sha2 hash of the passphrase.
That plus a socketed SSD provides the same security but now you can recover from a failed logic board.
...and someone else can trivially pull the drive and work on decryption to their heart's content. They can even copy the encrypted data off the SSD, return it to the computer, and work on decryption after telling the owner that they "Found their computer"...
You are necessarily no worse off with that since you should have a backup encrypted with a key known to you anyway.
Yes you are. Significantly worse. See above.
Even better is a randomly generated working key encrypted with the sha2 hash of a passphrase. Then you can have multiple passphrases that can be individually revoked or changed without re-encrypting the drive.
The only 'advantage' to the way it's being done now is that Apple and the *AA can make sure you can't choose to run your own modified OS that does what you want. The cost is that you may lose your ability to recover your own data.
Remember that I said that the Secure Boot has 3 settings? One of them is "Off". So you can run the Super Happy Joy Ultra Best Linux Distro all you want!
Try again.
.
Also, Taligent was/turned into a joint venture together with IBM. That can delay, half-ass and grow-to-unusable-proportions anything.
Ahhh, fond memories of an intensive Taligent programming course at IBM in Austin, where a GUI Hello World program took ~10 min to build on a then pretty-much-state-of-the-art Pentium 100MHz. That course turned out to be a not so good investment for my employer. :)
Interesting anecdote!
If it's important enough, board level repair might allow for target disk mode, IF parts and documentation were are available.
I'm not so sure what the use case is for the encryption being locked in the T2 though. If the user doesn't have to enter a password to get it to access the data, it might as well not encrypt. If the user does, why store a key in the T2?
I agree with you on your first scenario.
And I don't know enough (like I pretty much no nothing about) the way Encryption/Decryption works with the T2 chip to know what the user has to do to gain access to the encrypted data, and how that keeps someone with physical access to the computer from just accessing the transparently-decrypted files. It's an interesting point. Perhaps some research... BRB.
Ok. Back.
From my 2 minutes of Research, it looks like the T2 chip protects the savvy/careful Mac user's data if the standard login/screensaver password system is used. It does not protect someone who leaves their desk with their Mac running without invoking their screensaver or sleep. However, storing the key in the T2 chip makes it far less likely to be discovered if the computer is stolen.
So, as far as encryption goes, it seems that the main advantages to a T2-equipped Mac over previous Macs are:
1. Transparent AES-256 Encryption with zero CPU intervention.
2. Effectively Always-On "FileVault".
3. Stolen Mac cannot even have its SSD desoldered and transferred to another Mac and data directly exfiltrated.
4. T2 Chip cannot be desoldered an transferred to another Mac, because, like with iOS's Secure Enclave, the T2 chip and Motherboard are paired at mfg. time.
5. Secure/Trusted Boot (see below)
The T2 chip also provides a verified (but 3-level switchable) "Trusted Boot" procedure (with the Default even requiring an Internet connection), so that nobody can stick the stolen Mac into Target Disk mode and either suck the data off nor modify the OS to break security, and it provides a pretty good solution.
But yeah, if you leave your T2-equipped MacBook Pro in "Automatic Login" mode, then someone who steals your laptop somewhat has the keys to the kingdom, so to speak...
You asked about major OSes, and implied that MacOS was a major OS. It is not.
It is to over ONE HUNDRED MILLION Active Mac owners worldwide:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Now, something like AmigaOS, ReactOS or BeOS, now THOSE are decidedly NOT "Major" OSes.
And Mobile OSes don't count, sorry. That's more akin to Embedded Firmware than a proper OS, even if it plays one on TV, and has pieces-parts of a real OS included.
There are really only 2 major OSes: Windows and Android. Both have more than 80% market share. All other OSes are, in fact, bit/minor players.
And what does that have to do with my statement?
We all know that Windows could use a ground-up rewrite. And even Google thinks Android should be abandoned at the earliest opportunity in favor of Fuschia, or whatever it's called...
Let it go, will ya?you just use the Black terminator and all is golden.
Golden? I thought you said it was black.
Ha ha. That's very logical.
I have a Max IIci in my collection. It's also chock full of National Instruments data acq. cards and the original version of LabView.
Back when LabView was Mac only. Back when it was good.
It's almost like Apple never has made good products and never will.
No way, man. The Macintosh IIci was a triumph of engineering. That was one of the best machines ever made, IMO. Granted, it was overpriced AF — paying five grand for a 68030@25 was some Sun Microsystems level shit. But still, it was a fantastic, durable machine that was trivial to work on. You could swap the power supply without any tools, for example.
Since then, though, it's all been downhill, starting with the Macintosh IIfx with its nonstandard SCSI termination...
Let it go, will ya?you just use the Black terminator and all is golden.
Apple has never been capable of a clean rewrite. The culture there isn't capable of 'inventing' something that big, and NIH is the holy gospel. They tried to write a new preemptive multitasking OS to replace the hoary old pascal-based MacOS when MacOS 9 was growing long in the tooth. Pink/Taligent was a disaster. They failed so badly that Jobs had to come back and take over with the Unix derived workalike from NeXT, which notably was developed OUTSIDE the Apple fogzone.
It's really a pity they didn't go with BeOS instead. That was some fresh new design, again from people who had escaped the Apple fogzone.
Pink/Taligent, like Copeland, was a cluster because it was trying to half-ass the rewrite.
And BeOS had its problems, too.
MacOS really needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. At this point it is a Frankenstein pastiche of this and that culled from here and there. It's architecture has long been eclipsed, a cousin to GNU Hurd, and just as ancient. Apple engineers have kept things afloat with some pretty good hacks. But they are hacks nonetheless.
MacOS is long in the tooth, and chock full of ugliness. It is time to start over with a clean new 21st century design.
Name a major OS for which those same words cannot be said.
I'll wait.
next mac pro needs to have storage that is not locked to the MB or locked into apples choices.
Forced raid 0 is an no go even more so 2 pci-e cards stuck behide an X4 pci-e link.
No one using a Mac Pro or an iMac Pro is going to be storing data files on the internal storage; the files they typically work on are entirely too huge. Those users typically use SANs or big external RAIDs.
So an internal RAID is a pretty silly thing on Pro machines.