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.
Mac OS X Security Update 2004-04-05
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For all the people who are suggesting to only bundle the security updates with OS updates, there is nothing stopping you from not installing them. Usually the OS updates include the security updates in them.....so just wait. For the rest of us we'll take the more secure system today.
Now, if only they didn't require a system restart I'd be happier.
Now, if only they didn't require a system restart I'd be happier.
Major Problems with the update...
I've got a 600mghz ibook and after I installed the update and restarted I thought all was ok. Soon after my whole computer completely froze. I mean COMPLETELY- that never ever happened before. So I shut it down and restarted only to find during restart that it would stop and tell me to restart again! Luckily I went through safe mode and since then everything is fine but let me tell you this was the worst I've ever experienced on the Mac and LOL it wasn't anything compared to a normal pc problem
I've got a 600mghz ibook and after I installed the update and restarted I thought all was ok. Soon after my whole computer completely froze. I mean COMPLETELY- that never ever happened before. So I shut it down and restarted only to find during restart that it would stop and tell me to restart again! Luckily I went through safe mode and since then everything is fine but let me tell you this was the worst I've ever experienced on the Mac and LOL it wasn't anything compared to a normal pc problem
goof_ball said:
If you have any idea about OS internals, you would know this is a foolish wish.
/ek
Actually, UNIX (and Linux) servers can get over 400 days uptime while still using the latest versions of stuff. The only thing they need to restart are the updated utilities and anything that uses them. Of course, on a consumer machine, it's just simpler to restart the entire thing.Elektronkind said:
Counterfit said:
Oh I know that.
But with all the effort involved in restarting this and that on a Mac because a shared library changed, you might as well reboot.
And of course, if it were an update to a kernel module, then the reboot is naturally unavoidable (someone actually tried to convince me this wasn't the case recently - the kernel "magically" picked up the changes)
riiiiight. crack monkey.
/ek
Counterfit said:
no, it's not. installer asks for admin password before it even begins to update the system, so it's not hard to execute few sudoed commands and restart the daemons in question. this kind of force-restart however is acceptable when we after all are talking about desktop operating system, but i somehow suspect that osx server updates will also require restarts, and THAT's not acceptable imho.
apple takes too little advantage of the unix foundation. they could make restartless updates easily if they wanted, and they could also improve their apps in many ways. for example - imagine itunes/iphoto/addressbook/ical all having global libraries (in addition to the user's personal libraries) where all users in same computer could keep things that all are using... they could do that. they just don't yet get unix and multi-user coumputers to the fullest. yes, they know what server is, but regular joe doesn't have panther server in the closet. ok, off topic, end of story.
Counterfit said:
Yep. The big thing that System Update will have problems with is figuring out what third-party software might be using the libraries it's updating, what effect leaving that stuff running might have, or what effect trying to automatically restart it might have.
Those who want to take matters into their own hands can always use /usr/sbin/softwareupdate instead of the GUI, examine the receipts, and decide how to proceed.
sethypoo said:Yes!
And they'll have anodized black aluminium (sp?)!!!!!
Nice...
And, it's aluminum.
JFreak said:
Okay, so wat happens when it's Finder that needs a restart? WindowManager? eh? hmm? How about when it's an update to the kernel itself?
Even on $500,000 Sun Solaris servers, reboots are sometimes unavoidable. Sure, you can restart this daemon and that daemon, but if you're updating something like libc.so, libsocket, or the like, you reboot.
tossing around this "it's not acceptable!" BS in the face of logic just screams lack of experience.
/ek
iMeowbot said:
While the comments about the effects of restarting third party apps, etc., may have some merit, the question of which third party apps are using a given set of libraries is easily handled. After all, that's what pre-binding is all about...
Elektronkind said:
So what if it's the Finder? I have a 'Quit' menu item on the Finder, and occasionally use it. You can quit the Finder and keep using the system. Under normal circumstances, it simply restarts immediately.
Elektronkind said:
Again, the process quits and then restarts. Your screen might flash to black, depending on the process being restarted, but then it would come back up.
Elektronkind said:
I don't think that he said that you could always avoid restarts. In fact, updating the kernel was stated as the one time when a system restart was unavoidable. I believe that the argument was that Apple should leverage the Unix underpinnings of OS X to provide us with more restart-less updates...
Elektronkind said:
well, you're right, i wasn't there in the 1960's when first unix code was written. i however have made myself familiar with many different kind of unix systems in the last 15 years i have worked with and administered these beasts. i think i know something.
most apple updates make unnecessary reboots as only the ones that touch kernel are absolutely necessary. i think i pointed out that it is unacceptable to unnecessarily force reboot for apple SERVER systems, so take a break. though every mac osx is a unix and therefore capable of acting as server, not all unix systems actually act as servers. you know, these costly things called hardware, that's what defines if the unix system is a desktop, workstation or server class one.
apple has great potential in the underlying unix system. i only hope they begin to take more aggressively advantage of it. there's more to it than what meets the eye.
Hehe... Macrumors forum-folk, we've all got to be a little less predictable
1) Security Updates Do Not a-Windows Make.
Relaaax -- these updates are pre-emptive. The highly skilled people who work on these underlying systems are actively bug-hunting on behalf of the entire Unix community. Every Unix system that uses these libraries (CUPS, libssl, etc) benefits from their work. Unlike Windows, we're not reliant on one monolithic entity to get around to deciding a bug's worth fixing. The people who find these bugs know their particular field intimately. Each of these updates brings more improved code.
2) OS X is Modular.
These are highly targetted updates. As a Windows network admin, I sometimes get the feeling that MS updates are like a band-aid on a axe wound. With OS X, the structure is sound -- it's served the Unix world in some form or another since the 1960's, and the NEXT world since the 80's.
3) Restarts
It'd be great if these updates didn't require a reboot. We're not there yet, but Apple have in the past confirmed that this is something they're working towards. For my consumer system, I'm quite happy to reboot for updates -- heck, it's about the only time I do reboot. And at least we know rebootless-updates are possible, even if we've not got them now. Windows Update Services have just about managed to be able to install multiple updates without rebooting between each of them.
... and just to reiterate -- these updates do not reflect any underlying weakness in OS X. These aren't released as a mad scramble to correct some brain-damaged design decisions. They're aimed at fixing the inevitable potential or actual bugs that exists in almost every piece of code in the known world.
I still think Apple need to tidy up some rough edges. Sometimes (although this hasn't happened to me for quite a while now) an update has clobbered a customised configuration and replaced it with the default. Not sure if that's still an issue, but it's something I'm conscious of.
My Mac's been updated all the way from 10.0.3 to 10.3.3, with every update in between, without any serious bustage. It's not been reformatted once in 2 1/2 years. It's still a clean system, without cruft or flakiness.
1) Security Updates Do Not a-Windows Make.
Relaaax -- these updates are pre-emptive. The highly skilled people who work on these underlying systems are actively bug-hunting on behalf of the entire Unix community. Every Unix system that uses these libraries (CUPS, libssl, etc) benefits from their work. Unlike Windows, we're not reliant on one monolithic entity to get around to deciding a bug's worth fixing. The people who find these bugs know their particular field intimately. Each of these updates brings more improved code.
2) OS X is Modular.
These are highly targetted updates. As a Windows network admin, I sometimes get the feeling that MS updates are like a band-aid on a axe wound. With OS X, the structure is sound -- it's served the Unix world in some form or another since the 1960's, and the NEXT world since the 80's.
3) Restarts
It'd be great if these updates didn't require a reboot. We're not there yet, but Apple have in the past confirmed that this is something they're working towards. For my consumer system, I'm quite happy to reboot for updates -- heck, it's about the only time I do reboot. And at least we know rebootless-updates are possible, even if we've not got them now. Windows Update Services have just about managed to be able to install multiple updates without rebooting between each of them.
... and just to reiterate -- these updates do not reflect any underlying weakness in OS X. These aren't released as a mad scramble to correct some brain-damaged design decisions. They're aimed at fixing the inevitable potential or actual bugs that exists in almost every piece of code in the known world.
I still think Apple need to tidy up some rough edges. Sometimes (although this hasn't happened to me for quite a while now) an update has clobbered a customised configuration and replaced it with the default. Not sure if that's still an issue, but it's something I'm conscious of.
My Mac's been updated all the way from 10.0.3 to 10.3.3, with every update in between, without any serious bustage. It's not been reformatted once in 2 1/2 years. It's still a clean system, without cruft or flakiness.
crees! said:
I'd like to see them try and connect to my Personal LaserWriter...
no seriously, I want them to, maybe then they can tell me how they did it.
I love these new colored emoticons!!<Listening to Star Wars Cantina Band>
fussball said:
Well I've never had a boot issue..well except for once and I did a hardboot to fix that. I found out later it was because I had a ton of bad permissions...so you may want to check those. I usually run it once a month to just be on the safe side or after a maj update.
Updating was hassle-free as always.
I hope the updates or fixes in Mail will finally end the multiple crashes I've experienced.
Is this something common? Mail crashing? I usually use it and it works fine, but when I try to quit, the beach ball appears and I can't force quit from the dock, I have to go to the apple menu and then force quit. It doesn't always happen, but maybe 1 in 2 or 1 in 3...
Have any of you experienced this?
I hope the updates or fixes in Mail will finally end the multiple crashes I've experienced.
Is this something common? Mail crashing? I usually use it and it works fine, but when I try to quit, the beach ball appears and I can't force quit from the dock, I have to go to the apple menu and then force quit. It doesn't always happen, but maybe 1 in 2 or 1 in 3...
Have any of you experienced this?
Safari
I noticed a change in Safari:
There is a title on the Menu Bar called 'Debug'. It is either new or I just never noticed it before. I think it is new because it is after the Help title and normally everything is before. Reply & tell me if I'm right.
I noticed a change in Safari:
There is a title on the Menu Bar called 'Debug'. It is either new or I just never noticed it before. I think it is new because it is after the Help title and normally everything is before. Reply & tell me if I'm right.
jimsowden said:
I always love how painfully obvious it is when someone types up a quick, 3-word post which contributes nothing to the discussion, just in a pathetic attempt to get the first post.
Now, as for the subject on hand, I really like it when Apple releases these updates, however for their next security update I would like to see them bump up the Apple community's sense of security knowing that they have the fastest desktops in the world - in other words, a 2.4 GHz G5 PowerMac security update to make Mac users feel more secure in their supremacy.
goof_ball said:
I'm not bothered about the number of updates, I'm not saying I enjoy them but it's always nice to see SoftwareUpdate list something that's been improved
(Especially as with 99% of Apple updates, things are improved). I was just saying (I don't know about the others) the "regular" security updates are fuel for people like our favorite Paul Thurrott, who will magically convince 50% of his readers that these obviously show Apple can't code and Mac OS X is obviously less secure than Windows. On the other hand, I can see it as an excellent advantage when Apple release the updates the second they're ready, and that the flaws are as yet unexploited.And I agree, the vast majority of OS X updates don't need a restart. I wonder why this hasn't been fully implemented yet, but the post by displaced is true (do you or anyone else have a source for this, I'd be interested in reading it), perhaps it will be a selling point for 10.4.
Elektronkind said:
Notice he said "imho", or, in his humble opinion as a 15yrs+ UNIX administrator.
AppleMatt