5 ms·

While it's true that this release doesn't touch your pet issues, I'm left scratching my head as to why you expect that Apple will ever address some of those iss

While it's true that this release doesn't touch your pet issues, I'm left scratching my head as to why you expect that Apple will ever address some of those issues. Containerization is unlikely to ever get a big push from Apple -- whatever half-hearted designs they had on the server space are long-since abandoned, and it's clear they favor far less heavyweight security measures for end-user apps. "Rendering Contexts across process boundaries" doesn't even sound like it has a good use-case for any direction Apple's been working on.

duaneb 11y ago
> "Rendering Contexts across process boundaries" doesn't even sound like it has a good use-case for any direction Apple's been working on. Well web sandboxing for one, and running opengl through your terminal for another. Containerization seems like a no-brainer to me since a) sandboxing naturally follows, b) it's a developer's heaven in terms of deployment, development, and testing, c) mac os x is now the only major OS in existence without any containerization capabilities controlable by anyone but apple. And these aren't just pet issues, no developer I know (except perhaps iOS developers, for obvious reasons) welcome them. Even the non-technical users I know see them as "pretty" PITAes. And it's not that I don't get why they do it, I just wonder about how they view the *nix-ey developers who use the platform. I'm sure there must be plenty at the company itself.
- msbarnett 11y ago
  > Well web sandboxing for one, and running opengl through your terminal for another. Sharing OpenGL contexts is about the opposite of sandboxing. It's unsafe. And you can run OpenGL apps from your terminal just fine? > Containerization seems like a no-brainer to me since a) sandboxing naturally follows, But it's a sandboxing that isn't useful on a Desktop machine. A mail app which sees a completely different container filesystem than my word processor does not improve my life. > b) it's a developer's heaven in terms of deployment, development, and testing Except it's not, because OS X on servers is dead and gone, so what I'd really need is a container that works on my server, aka a Linux server aka I need a VM locally because it's not like OS X is ever going to be LXC compatible. A container I can only use on my dev box isn't worth beans. > c) mac os x is now the only major OS in existence without any containerization capabilities controlable by anyone but apple. I get that Docker has grabbed a lot of hype by reinventing jails to be venture capital compatible, but honestly, for OS X it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

duaneb 11y ago

> "Rendering Contexts across process boundaries" doesn't even sound like it has a good use-case for any direction Apple's been working on. Well web sandboxing for one, and running opengl through your terminal for another. Containerization seems like a no-brainer to me since a) sandboxing naturally follows, b) it's a developer's heaven in terms of deployment, development, and testing, c) mac os x is now the only major OS in existence without any containerization capabilities controlable by anyone but apple. And these aren't just pet issues, no developer I know (except perhaps iOS developers, for obvious reasons) welcome them. Even the non-technical users I know see them as "pretty" PITAes. And it's not that I don't get why they do it, I just wonder about how they view the *nix-ey developers who use the platform. I'm sure there must be plenty at the company itself.

msbarnett 11y ago
> Well web sandboxing for one, and running opengl through your terminal for another. Sharing OpenGL contexts is about the opposite of sandboxing. It's unsafe. And you can run OpenGL apps from your terminal just fine? > Containerization seems like a no-brainer to me since a) sandboxing naturally follows, But it's a sandboxing that isn't useful on a Desktop machine. A mail app which sees a completely different container filesystem than my word processor does not improve my life. > b) it's a developer's heaven in terms of deployment, development, and testing Except it's not, because OS X on servers is dead and gone, so what I'd really need is a container that works on my server, aka a Linux server aka I need a VM locally because it's not like OS X is ever going to be LXC compatible. A container I can only use on my dev box isn't worth beans. > c) mac os x is now the only major OS in existence without any containerization capabilities controlable by anyone but apple. I get that Docker has grabbed a lot of hype by reinventing jails to be venture capital compatible, but honestly, for OS X it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.