The issue is that after upgrading things that worked from day one suddenly break and you then wait a year for the .5 or .6 update that (hopefully) fixes it. The fact that it's 'free' is of little consequence.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Unveils macOS 'Sierra' With New Continuity Features, Window Tabs, Apple Watch Login, Siri, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The issue is that after upgrading things that worked from day one suddenly break and you then wait a year for the .5 or .6 update that (hopefully) fixes it. The fact that it's 'free' is of little consequence.
That is a good one. I haven't done real benchmarks, but directory sizing in EXT4 seems to be a lot faster. Still, HFS+ seems comparable to EXT4 in terms of features. I've heard ZFS is magical, but that's not even well-adopted on other Unix-based OSs.
I was gonna say, I remember reading last year that FreeBSD was going to have it "first class". Glad it finally happened. But I'm sure most users are still booting off UFS2 (in BSD) or ext4 (in Linux)... myself included for my VM. Gonna try out ZFS next time I reinstall FreeBSD.
BTW, I spent a few hours looking at the source for FreeBSD's UFS2 implementation and the Linux kernel's ext4 implementation, trying to figure out a timing-based attack for unlisted URLs on HTTP servers. UFS2 has a simpler filesystem index... I wonder if that makes it less advanced.
Last edited:
"… For nearly seven years, FreeBSD has included a production quality ZFS implementation, making it one of the key features …"; I assume that adoption will become more widespread after the 2016 release of 11.0 offers UEFI compatibility with ZFS boot environments.
After WWDC ends, Saturday, I'll probably disclose a vulnerability that appears to affect (at least) HFS Plus on five or more versions of Mac OS X. I guess that Sierra will be comparably vulnerable … and given what Apple said about the scope of APFS supporting and replacing HFS Plus functionality it's vaguely possible that the problem will be reproducible with APFS. tl;dr I have encouraged Apple to let me have a CVE ID but that hasn't happened.
After WWDC ends, Saturday, I'll probably disclose a vulnerability that appears to affect (at least) HFS Plus on five or more versions of Mac OS X. I guess that Sierra will be comparably vulnerable … and given what Apple said about the scope of APFS supporting and replacing HFS Plus functionality it's vaguely possible that the problem will be reproducible with APFS. tl;dr I have encouraged Apple to let me have a CVE ID but that hasn't happened.
Last edited:
@rshrugged thanks. On one hand: I'm sensitive to that backlog, and showing fairness towards Apple. On the other hand: the vulnerability has been apparent for years.
More than eighteen months ago I read, in MacRumors Forums, what was almost certainly a report of the same security vulnerability. A :/ face (expressing dissatisfaction or confusion, I guess). Maybe not the only example; other public disclosures may have occurred without the authors realising the consequences of public discussion.
More than eighteen months ago I read, in MacRumors Forums, what was almost certainly a report of the same security vulnerability. A :/ face (expressing dissatisfaction or confusion, I guess). Maybe not the only example; other public disclosures may have occurred without the authors realising the consequences of public discussion.
Apparent when and to whom along with the backlog are potential mitigations for Apple.
This gives me the sense that by extension you recognize the seriousness of an irresponsible disclosure and will presumably act accordingly. Thanks. It's a challenge to improve things without causing harm.
Can you elaborate on that? I'm not questioning your opinion, rather I am intrigued what you think the state of OS X/Mac OS would have been under his watch.