Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Security Upgrades

Apple Drops Snow Leopard Security Updates, Doesn't Tell Anyone 241

Posted by timothy
from the they'll-figure-it-out-soon-enough dept.
Freshly Exhumed writes "As Apple issued an update for Mavericks, Mountain Lion, and Lion yesterday, Snow Leopard users have not seen a security update since September, 2013. This would not be noteworthy if Apple, like a host of other major software vendors, would clearly spell out its OS support policies and warn users of such changes, but they have not. Thus, the approximately 20% of Mac users still running Snow Leopard now find themselves in a very vulnerable state without the latest security updates."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Drops Snow Leopard Security Updates, Doesn't Tell Anyone

Comments Filter:
  • False (Score:4, Informative)

    by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:35AM (#46357581)

    This update had one security fix. The fix for the recent SSL bug. This bug did not affect OSX Snow Leopard or earlier, therefore this update is not needed.

    It's not at all a sign that Apple no longer supports Snow Leopard.

    • by sasparillascott (1267058) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:50AM (#46357847)
      This is not accurate. Only Mavericks (v10.9.x) was vulnerable to the SSL issue - the security updates to Mavericks, Mountain Lion (10.8.x) and Lion (10.7.x) contained a ton of security updates in them - at least a good chunk of which would affect Snow Leopard.

      http://support.apple.com/kb/HT... [apple.com]
      • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @12:49PM (#46358761)

        The last time Apple sold a Mac that couldn't upgrade to 10.7 was back in 2007, when they discontinued their final 32-bit Mac. Apple is not Microsoft, and if you look back at support life cycles, you'll see that they've already provided support for 10.6 longer than they typically do, even releasing security updates for 10.6-compatible software [apple.com] as recently as last month. It also continues to get updates to XProtect, OS X's built-in anti-malware tool.

        If you're still running 10.6 for some reason, your computer is either a low-end one from at least 7 years ago, or you've made an intentional choice to remain on 10.6 for some reason (likely because it was the last release that could run Rosetta, OS X's tool for running PowerPC apps), in which case you knew what you were getting yourself into when you chose not to upgrade.

        • ::raises hand::

          That's me --- I can't move off of Mac OS X 10.6.8 until I find a replacement for Macromedia FreeHand --- I suppose at some point in time I'll just have to resort to running it in a virtual machine (there was a recent post about doing that: http://www.freehandforum.org/f... [freehandforum.org] ), but for now, it's simpler to just stick w/ 10.6.8

        • by jythie (914043)
          I think the issue is not how long they support an OS for, but how public they make their road map. With Microsoft users have a fairy clear and well publicized timeframe of support and lots of warning for when a particular version of Windows will no longer receive updates.
        • by epine (68316) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @04:03PM (#46361423)

          If you're still running 10.6 for some reason, your computer is either a low-end one from at least 7 years ago, or you've made an intentional choice to remain on 10.6 for some reason

          It used to be that low IQ was failing to identify the continuation of some trivial numerical sequence on some trivial test. The new low IQ is use-case blindness, the inability to even hazard a guess at the myriads of reasons other people live differently than you do. The ravening mob of blindness promulgators are ever with us. Pity.

          Here's my story.

          I bought my wife a second generation Core Duo iMacs, which I believe has never been upgraded from the original Leopard. I use this computer so rarely (about ten hours per years) that I can barely keep track of which leopard presently holds court.

          The computer works—until some piece of software offers to "upgrade" itself, then restarts with a whole new user interface (I'm looking at you, iTunes). Then I'm constantly told the computer doesn't work any more, but the real problem is that she hasn't figured out where all the familiar functions were forcibly relocated.

          I'm not willing to sit down at her desk and chase GUI tidbits from point A to point B, so I just told her "don't click upgrade". When something visibly breaks, then I'm willing to sit down and deal with it. Meanwhile I have enough sysadmin on my plate with my own Linux desktop, where I'm heavily invested in ZSH, and my FreeBSD server, where I'm making very heavy use of ZFS. This is where my neural matter wants to go.

          I have a very low tolerance for having something trivial I've mastered at the autonomic level yanked back to the center of my attention. It took me close to a decade to cease seething about the relocation of the CTRL key in favour of a CAPS LOCK key that should have been ALT-NUMLOCK or, even better, CTRL-ALT-INSERT. FFS I can type ~50 wpm in ALL CAPS using the right shift key for six of my fingers, alternating to the right shift key for the other two. But guess what? The CAPS LOCK key is more prominent to my left pinkie than ENTER is to my right pinkie. If we normalize the utility of the ENTER key to 100, the utility of the CAPS LOCK key comes out around -1000.

          The problem with most upgrades is that it's always more of this father-knows-best groupthink bullshit.

          It's a huge project just to figure out what's going to change. The only recourse one has to all these unnecessary relearning cycles is to skip as many releases as humanly possible. I'd be thrilled if XP is the last Microsoft OS I learn how to use in this lifetime. I was an early adopter of Windows 2000 and I stayed there until 2000 went out of support. Later I ended up using XP in a different work environment and I can't name a single thing that improved, except that I had to disable a lot more bling for half a day. Long ago I held out on MSDOS until I could jump straight to Windows NT which I adopted within weeks of the Intel P6 becoming available. That was a real upgrade, one well worth reprogramming a decade of autonomic habits. I never used any of the shitshow 3.1/95/98 for more than the very occasional hour.

          These upgrades change a lot of stuff for extremely dubious benefits. An upgrade is going from UFS to ZFS. That I can buy into. An upgrade is going from System 7 to OS X. On that one I can sell my wife.

          What I really want concerning these fairly useless system frobs is the semantic web: searchable metadata describing every user interface action that formerly existed and whether it still exists in the new version, plus a mapping to a more-or-less equivalent version, if such a thing has even been retained. Oh yes, Apple is good at silent castration. Ideally the OS would track which user interface functions have been regularly used, and list out all the things the upgraded user will be instantly forced to relearn. But no. It's sexy. No assistance offered retraining for sexy. That what sexy means, lo

          • I got about 15 minutes into this project before I discovered that suction cups are involved.

            Just what I need in my service kit: suction cups.

            When I ran into that issue, I just used some packing tape to make handles. Screen came off nicely, and didn't leave any residue either.

    • Re:False (Score:4, Informative)

      by ReeceTarbert (893612) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @12:24PM (#46358383)

      This update had one security fix. The fix for the recent SSL bug. This bug did not affect OSX Snow Leopard or earlier, therefore this update is not needed.

      Right so far...

      It's not at all a sign that Apple no longer supports Snow Leopard.

      But very wrong about this one. This table [apple.com] says that OS X Mavericks is indeed a security update for OS X v10.6.8 and later (18th row in the table). Also, the issue has been discussed before [slashdot.org]

      RT.

  • All right, then (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by jones_supa (887896)
    I won't buy Apple products since February, 2014. Won't tell Apple.
    • by neonKow (1239288) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @12:08PM (#46358131) Journal

      No no. You've got it backwards. The solution is to always buy the latest Apple product and get rid of your old ones.

    • The update to the latest Mac OS X - Mavericks - is *free* as in "free beer".

      Start the "App Store". The Mac OS X Mavericks is often displayed already on the front page. Click on it - and you would see that it is free of charge. Click Upgrade. (Disclaimer: haven't tried myself yet.)

      Now the other question - Apple dropping external media as OS distribution media - is a valid concern. No one knows for how long Apple would host updates for older Mac OS X version, which are needed to update old Mac OS versions

      • Re:All right, then (Score:5, Informative)

        by MachineShedFred (621896) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:57PM (#46359823) Journal

        Good thing that they provide a tool inside the Mavericks installer to create a bootable USB stick, eh?

        sudo /Applications/Install\ OS\ X\ Mavericks.app/Contents/Resources/createinstallmedia --volume /Volumes/USB_stick_to_format --applicationpath /Applications/Install\ OS\ X\ Mavericks.app --nointeraction

        If Terminal.app isn't your thing, there are several no-cost options with a GUI that you can download that invoke that command.

        • Thanks for the tip!

          At the time of Maverick's release that wasn't available.

          • by wilson_c (322811)

            It was. It had been widely used by those of us testing Mavericks deployment options during the beta and was there on day 1 of the release version. Apple isn't going to publicize things like this, given the opportunity for huge error in the hands of people who shouldn't be using sudo to format volumes.

            • Yes. I pressed "Submit" too fast. The feature wasn't available in the first disk-less Mac OS X release, whatever it was (I'm still on 10.6). It was before the Mavericks. (When first Airs - without CD/DVD drives - were released. Friend of mine still has one of those.) Back then, Apple said simply "just go to the shop and they would reinstall the OS for you". What obviously caused uproar. Bit later they started selling the (overpriced) USB sticks with the OS. And now, it appears that users can actually make t

  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:37AM (#46357619) Homepage

    Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

    My 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 supports Lion, and it's one of the oldest Intel Macs. I don't think there's many people "stuck" on Snow Leopard; they should be able to upgrade to Lion and get security updates. Apple has historically only supported the current and previous versions of OS X. Basically, Lion users are getting unexpected support right now, and I think it's because of the large installed base that can't run anything newer than Lion.

    • by linguae (763922) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:47AM (#46357785)
      Lion requires a Core 2 Duo or newer processor. Some of the early Intel Macs from 2006 have 32-bit Core Duo processors (like my MacBook), and I believe there was even a 32-bit Core Solo Mac Mini. These Macs can't run Lion.
      • by Wild_dog! (98536)

        My Dell Mini Hackintosh can't run Lion. Stuck on Snow Leopard, but it is a nice OS to be stuck on.

      • by ZorinLynx (31751)

        Ahh, my mistake then. Still, these are very early machines that were no longer being sold after 2007. I think de-supporting 7 year old machines, especially for good reasons (major architecture changes) isn't something that we need to be so up in arms about. Seven years is an eternity in the tech world.

        Supporting ancient hardware for so long is one of the reasons why Microsoft software tends to be so bloated and unreliable. If your seven year old hardware isn't supported, you can likely find 5 year old hardw

      • Lion can run on 32bit machines. Its Mountain Lion, OSX 10.8, that can't.

      • Yeah, but Apple has supported the hardware they sell with OS versions for a window of 5 years for quite some time now. A 2006 Mac is now 8 years old, and having used one of those MacBookPro1,1 laptops for some time myself, I'm surprised it still runs - the fans in those things had a tendency to gum up after about 6 years, and then the GPU would bake itself.

    • Are not the newer versions of OSX 64-bit only? So if you have a 32-bit processor you're out of luck.
      • Apple hasn't sold a 32-bit Mac since they discontinued the last Core Duo model [everymac.com] back in August 2007. Considering we're now in 2014, I think they're justified in leaving anyone still using a 7 year old Mac Mini behind.

      • The first version of Mac OS that required 64-bit was 10.8. In 10.6, it defaulted to the 32-bit kernel on all Macs except Xserve; in 10.7 it defaulted to 64-bit kernel on any Mac with a 64-bit CPU, but still had a 32-bit kernel for the Core Duo / Core Solo hardware, and MacPro1,1 due to 32-bit EFI.

        Only with 10.8 did they jettison the 32-bit kernel.

    • Any Macs with Core Duo processors (e.g. 2006 era iMacs) can run Snow Leopard but not Lion.
    • There are reasons not to upgrade. Apple has silently removed features from OSX that my business has come to rely on. New equipment, of course, runs Lion or Mavericks - but we keep a few older machines around to do the tasks that Apple doesn't think we need to do anymore (tasks that require us to spend $2500 on software for Lion or Mavericks but could do in Snow Leopard).

      • by tibit (1762298)

        Care to elaborate? (seriously)

        • One piece of older OSX that is no longer in newer versions is an (apparently) often used function of Preview. The ability to add link annotations to PDF documents has been removed. You can still add text and arrows and circles (the things we don't use it for). That particular function is the most often used, but there are others.

          We used it for customer reports generated in other applications. To make it easier on our customers, we would create table of contents and link it in preview before sending it o

          • by kqs (1038910)

            Choice A: Keep around old, poorly- or un-supported versions of the OS for a certain task.
            Choice B: Buy a PDF annotator for a few bucks which runs on the latest OS-X hotness.

            Choice A is a valid business decision, I guess, but not one that I would recommend to anyone.

            • We tried option B, and when the software received an update a few days later, link annotations were no longer available.

              At that point, we went digging in the parts closet for the machines.

              Personally, I think the Apple/Adobe relationship is driving this. Get people hooked on a feature, then yank that feature to force them to purchase an expensive product (Acrobat).

    • I think the supported models list is the same for those two. The one real nuisance (dealing with it now, thankfully not as the owner of the affected iMacs myself, or I'd be annoyed) is that Apple's 'eh, it really isn't worth the trouble of bugging people who already bought macs over license keys' policy does not extend to systems that cannot upgrade to Mavericks. Period. Systems that do support that update all fall under the 'sure, here, take it; but we'll bug you about your Apple ID all the time!' support
    • by DdJ (10790) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:56AM (#46357941) Homepage Journal

      Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

      Yes, and my house has two of them. Snow Leopard was the last version of the OS that supported 32-bit processors.

      We've got a MacBook Pro and Mac Mini in our house with 32-bit processors. They're still perfectly adequate machines for light usage, in terms of performance, but they won't run any MacOS newer than Snow Leopard at all.

      (What's hilarious to me is, they can run Windows 8.1. I'll probably end up putting either Windows or Ubuntu on them before too much longer.)

      Snow Leopard is also the last version of the OS to support executing PowerPC binaries under the Rosetta engine, and some people keep it around for that reason. (Example: it's the last version of MacOS that will still play the MacOS version of Diablo 2, which, while complied for OS X, was never compiled for Intel processors.)

      • by rsborg (111459)

        Snow Leopard is also the last version of the OS to support executing PowerPC binaries under the Rosetta engine, and some people keep it around for that reason. (Example: it's the last version of MacOS that will still play the MacOS version of Diablo 2, which, while complied for OS X, was never compiled for Intel processors.)

        If someone is still using Snow Leopard for software purposes, it's probably best done in a VM now. Lots of new features and performance in Lion and later assuming you have at least a 5 year old machine or later.

        • by DdJ (10790)

          If someone is still using Snow Leopard for software purposes, it's probably best done in a VM now. Lots of new features and performance in Lion and later assuming you have at least a 5 year old machine or later.

          I agree, but the normal release of Snow Leopard is not licensed for running in a VM. If you run it in a VM, you're violating your license. (This is the reason I own a copy of Snow Leopard Server -- that is licensed for running in a VM.)

          Further: not all apps that run under Snow Leopard will run in o

      • Those Minis with 32-bit CPUs you can pop open and install an ordinary 64-bit Core 2 Duo from a "PC" into the Mini. The only thing is that the OS X installer for newer versions of OS X will read the model number of your mainboard and tell you they you're obsolete (regardless of the CPU installed) and that you'll need to purchase a new Mac but that can be fixed by unpackaging the installer, removing the check from the install scripts and repackaging it all back together.

        My "obsolete" circa 2006 Mac Mini I bou

    • by Cmdr-Absurd (780125) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:57AM (#46357953)
      Folks stick to SL for basically 3 reasons:
      1. They prefer the SL interface to the more recent offerings.
      2. They want/need to run 3rd party software that fails to run under later versions (PPC apps in particular -- Rosetta was dropped in LIon)
      3. Apple apps that were dropped -- such as Podcast Producer in the server version.
    • by Tapewolf (1639955)

      I'm not sure you can actually get Lion anymore. I waited too long on Snow Leopard, and once Mountain Lion came out, that was the only upgrade offered, despite the fact it wouldn't run on the 2007 hardware. I bit the bullet and upgraded the hardware. I also considered ditching it at that point, but there are still a couple of pieces of software I need OSX for with no Linux equivalent and the win32 port doesn't run in WINE.

    • by LordNimon (85072)

      I still run Snow Leopard, because I still have a few PowerPC applications that I don't want to update.

    • by danlip (737336)

      I have an old Intel MacBookPro that won't run Lion (it's 32 bits, Lion requires 64).

    • Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

      My 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 supports Lion, and it's one of the oldest Intel Macs. I don't think there's many people "stuck" on Snow Leopard;

      My MacMini will not run any version of OS-X later than Snow Leopard.

      I do not plan to upgrade to a newer Mac, I plan to investigate other, non-Apple, options.

    • by sribe (304414)

      Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

      Yes. Not many, but there are some.

      And there are some that can run Lion but not Mountain Lion.

      There are none that can run Mountain Lion but cannot run Mavericks.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Apple are still selling older versions of MacOS too. Although Mavericks is free not all machines can run it well or at all. You can buy Lion fairly cheaply (http://store.apple.com/uk/product/D6106ZM/A/os-x-lion) but I find it odd that they don't just make it free now. In any case having to pay for security fixes is clearly wrong.

    • by oogoliegoogolie (635356) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @05:04PM (#46362027)

      Snow Leopard is the last great version of OSX so I'm not surprised people still choose to use it. It looked nice-everything wasn't low contrast dark grey-on-light grey, performance was snappy, sure seemed more stable than Mavericks, and didn't suffer from Apple's failed 'let's fill OSX with useless IOS features that have no place on the desktop' experiment.
      OSX has steadily gotten worse since SL in design, usability, and reliability, and I still have two older machines that run it.

  • OSS to the rescue! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EzInKy (115248) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:39AM (#46357629)

    Surely someone has written open source equivelents to Snow Leopard's software by now. Even if no one did, there is no logical reason for software to become EOL'd. You either fix problems for the life of the hardware, or you provide the information for your customers to fix those problems themselves. That should be law, btw.

    • by wilson_c (322811)

      How long is "the life of the hardware"? I'm sure there's a functional TRS-80 somewhere. Should that still be actively supported?

      Every computer that is limited to Snow Leopard is at least 7 years old. Businesses usually fully depreciate computer equipment over 3 years, with actually utilization being only slightly longer.

      There is no absolutely no precedent for forcing businesses to support a product beyond what is required by contracts they may have entered into with their clients. There is no reason to

  • by crow (16139) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:39AM (#46357641) Homepage Journal

    Snow Leopard is particularly important for many users because it was the last release to support Rosetta. Anyone who still needs PowerPC apps can't upgrade.

    My wife still uses Apple Works, so upgrading won't work for her.

    Also, Apple has been known to push upgrades that break things without warning, so upgrading is often a last resort. For example, we were running 10.5, and iTunes asked if we wanted to update our iPad to the lastest release. After doing so, it said we had to upgrade iTunes. But we couldn't upgrade iTunes because that required 10.6. There went our ability to sync the iPad.

  • by wiredog (43288) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:39AM (#46357643) Journal

    IIRC, the bug was introduced (fairly) recently. iOS 5 doesn't have it, either.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by carlhaagen (1021273)
      Correct, it's "only" in OS X 10.9 and the latest iOS - OS X 10.8.5 and earlier are unaffected.
  • Mavericks is a free update from SL. My mac came with Leopard originally, and runs Mavericks fine.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xombo (628858)

      Mavericks is the worst version of Mac OS since 9.1.

      • Mavericks is the worst version of Mac OS since 9.1.

        You not liking an OS is not really a compelling argument for a company to keep supporting older versions ad infinitum. A lot of people hate Windows 8... but Microsoft is still justified in terminating support for XP in a couple months.

    • by Wild_dog! (98536)

      You have to have a Mac that will run Mavericks.
      That doesn't include a couple of Machines I have. One, a ppc will only go to leopard. The other a atom based hackintosh is 32-bit and will only install snow leopard.

  • There are some older Intel based Macs that will not run anything later than Snow Leopard. Also, Snow Leopard will NOT run on PowerPC based Macs. The latest OS that will run is Leopard.
    • Well, I guess you have to buy a new computer then! *Ka-ching* While your previous one still works perfectly and has plenty of processing power...
  • It's only Apple. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MaWeiTao (908546) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:50AM (#46357841)

    Who's the other major software vendor? Microsoft? They spell out their support policies quite clearly. Everyone knew well in advance when Microsoft was ending support for XP, an OS that's been supported far, far longer than anything from Apple. My Intel iMac at home is stuck at OSX 10.6.8. It was built several months too soon and lacked some random bit of hardware related to the BIOS which disqualified it from being a proper 64-bit machine. By the time Apple announced it was dropping support for that version I hadn't seen updates in about a year anyway.

    Instead of just criticizing Apple for what they do wrong, there seems to be this compulsion to make everything relative so that Apple doesn't look so bad. I'd argue that in this particular case Microsoft is a lot better than Apple. Apple seems content to sweep things under the rug as long as they can get away with it.

    • For me, the criticism of MS for XP wasn't so much that they were ending support but that Vista was not a suitable replacement. I consider Windows 7 as the real replacement to XP; however, MS for all their wisdom has tried to push Win 8 which I consider unsuitable to many desktop users.

      Instead of just criticizing Apple for what they do wrong, there seems to be this compulsion to make everything relative so that Apple doesn't look so bad. I'd argue that in this particular case Microsoft is a lot better than Apple. Apple seems content to sweep things under the rug as long as they can get away with it.

      Mavericks is 3 versions newer than Snow Leopard. 3: Snow Leopard --> Lion --> Mountain Lion --> Mavericks. Apple's policy for the most part has been to support the current version and one previous version unless

    • I think the summary was actually saying that Apple did NOT clearly spell out its support schedules like many other software companies DO. Rough quote - "this would not be noteworthy if Apple, like other software vendors, DID...."

      So it's saying other software vendors DO do that, but Apple does not. Which is what you're saying. Can't we all just get along... ;)

      For all of Microsoft's failures, bad business practices (particularly in the past), etc., they seem to be doing some things right these days. I'm not

  • I've been trying to upgrade to Mavericks for eons now. Nothing short of a full rebuild of snow leopard will solve my issue apparently. I've tried everything but the App Store always hangs. Why can't I just download it and install it?

    F***Apple.

    • by unimacs (597299)
      You can download Mavericks and do a "clean install" by following the instructions here: http://mashable.com/2013/10/23... [mashable.com]

      Use "SuperDuper" or Time Machine to do a complete backup first then after installing Mavericks use Migration Assistant to get your apps, files, and settings restored.
      • by unimacs (597299)
        Thought I should mention that I've followed this procedure on two different Macs with good results. My first attempt was a straight upgrade from the App store which "worked" but my Mac Mini ran incredibly slowly afterwards. There were a number of people who had similar issues and the recommendation was to do a clean install. It solved the problem.
    • Two suggestions: run the 10.6.8 combo update (that should overwrite the existing App Store installation), or do a clean install on an external hard drive, download the Mavericks installer from the App Store while booted from that, then copy the “Install OS X Mavericks” application from the Applications folder to your internal hard drive before it installs (I did this with a supported Mac to grab the installer to hack onto an unsupported MacPro 1,1). Of course, the latter option takes as long as

  • by azav (469988) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:28PM (#46359395) Homepage Journal

    Snow Leopard is the last usable version of the Mac OS.

    In the latest, you have what once was a snappy UI marred by excessive animations that you simply can't turn off if you want the faster UI.

    From Safari's "flying cockroach" download icon, to the damn forced animated roll out and roll up of all disclosure triangles, Apple's addition of animations to EVERYTHING and without "a please don't animate this, I liked it when I clicked on something and the results were instant" switch, the Mac UI has gotten more and more annoying and distracting to use.

    Bouncing Safari screens? Windows that pop open in your face? Email that flies off the screen? Who needs them? Not me.

    Previously, you could hold control command D over text in Safari, in Mail and in TextEdit and the results would display as fast as they could in a dictionary window.

    Now, the word highlights, pops open, then shrinks back, the dictionary pops open, then cascades the results down as it draws the window.

    All this distracting animation, when all the user wanted was to see the definition of the word as fast as they could see it. That's why they pressed the command keys in the first place.

    Apple's UI designers have lost their focus and are no longer creating user interfaces that help users without getting in their way. All too often, the interface appears to exist simply to be as busy and as distracting as it can be.

    This is why I still use Snow Leopard as my primary operating system on my 5 Macs at home.

  • by jones_supa (887896) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:50PM (#46359711)

    Can the open source community create a super long term support Linux distro? Most of the components of a Linux desktop have been just fine for a long time. I would be still comfortable with a KDE3 or GNOME2 desktop, for example. So stick with something that works, and concentrate on support and quality assurance for 10 years. Seeing all the bugs and unnecessary reinventing of things is very tiring and I would jump into that kind of distro in an eyeblink.

    Many people wanted still to stay abroad even with crusty Windows XP (no desktop compositor, terrible security) despite the extended support ending, so there is clearly an interest for this kind of long-term conservative OS.

    • Red Hat Enterprise Linux if you want to pay, CentOS if you don't. Versions 5 and later (6 is current and 7 is in beta) are supported with updates and fixes for 10 years.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...