7 ms·

is that so much better? I dread every new release of macos because it always breaks some part of my toolchain (either gcc and friends, or valgrind or whatever).

is that so much better? I dread every new release of macos because it always breaks some part of my toolchain (either gcc and friends, or valgrind or whatever). It wasn't so bad when a new os came every few years. now they break stuff every year. six months since I bought a new machine and my gdb still isn't working quite right.

sigjuice 9y ago
Apple is not responsible for every piece of third party software, especially niche tools like gcc, gdb and valgrind. It is up to the maintainers of those tools to keep up with new macOS releases. Beta releases of macOS are made available early to developers for exactly this reason.
- familyit 9y ago
  You work there for sure
  - dang 9y ago
    This crosses into personal attack, which is a bannable offense on HN. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post only civil, substantive comments from now on?
- realusername 9y ago
  gcc isn't exactly a "niche tool".
  - sigjuice 9y ago
    How many people who buy an Apple computer need to install and run a C compiler? EDIT: BTW, it is trivial to install clang without Xcode on a pristine Mac. Just typing cc in Terminal will pop up an installer that will download and install clang (and possibly other tools)
    - realusername 9y ago
      not everything needs to be used by the end-user directly. I bet gcc is used a countless amount of times just to build OSX anyway.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        OS X uses clang.
      - 4ad 9y ago
        Clang is used to build macOS and 99% of macOS/iOS applications, not gcc, and Apple maintains clang for you.
        realusername 9y ago
        Ah my bad, I did not know that.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    It isn't the official compiler on Apple platforms either, that ship has sailed long time ago. Google has also shown the door to it on their OSes. Lovers of BSD licenses will miss FSF software in a couple of years.
    - saurik 9y ago
      The really sad part is that as their freedom decreases they seem to just accept it as a new normal rather than as a cost that they chose to pay, and the people who know or even sometimes just remember things differently end up ignored as if they were ranting about some crazy impossibility.
      - IBM 9y ago
        FOSS religion is only going to fade as we get further from 90s Microsoft.
        gcb0 9y ago
        obvious troll is obvious. specially with that username. lol. thanks for the laugh.
      - saagarjha 9y ago
        Let's take a look at an alternate reality where Clang didn't exist, and GCC was the only compiler worth using–wait, we don't have to do that. Just look at Bash. It's neglected and stuck on 3.2.57 forever because Apple doesn't want to deal with GPLv3. Do you prefer that to the BSD-licensed solution that LLVM is, where it's still open source and actively maintained, rather than left by the wayside because Apple just refused to play nice?
        pjmlp 9y ago
        The part you are overlooking are the contributions that OEMs stop doing, because thanks clang they no longer have to. Not everyone contributes back to LLVM thanks license. Just like the *BSD hardly see the same contribution from all those embedded devices, as Linux enjoys.
- josteink 9y ago
  > It is up to the maintainers of those tools to keep up with new macOS releases. Why should stable tools which has been working for decades constantly have to change their source-code to keep working on Apple's OS, a piece of software whose primary task is running software the user wants to run no less? Apple should make sure the user's software runs on its OS, not the other way around. Stop apologizing for what is essentially the world's wealthiest corporation being lazy and putting the maintenance cost of its own OS on everyone else.
  - chii 9y ago
    When shit breaks in the new version, people should stop upgrading to the latest macos! Apple has found that they don't need to put effort into api backwards compatibility because people are still freaking upgrading. It costs money to ensure backwards compatibility, so not doing it is desirable. The end user has to put pressure on Apple to do is.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      You missed the fact that fixing problems and not stacking technical debt for the sake of "backwards compatibility" is also desirable.
      - josteink 9y ago
        Any particular reason you decided to quote backwards compatibility, as if it's not a real thing?
        coldtea 9y ago
        Quotes are not only used to denote non-real things -- if anything that's a quite recent (couple decades) trend.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        "recent"
- CJefferson 9y ago
  Well, it depends on your point of view. Microsoft, and Linux (just the kernel I'm talking about here), have both decided the point of an OS is to run programs, so with each update they both heroic efforts to not break userspace, often adding code just to make sure old programs that did weird things don't break. Apple have decided to go a different route, and leave a trail of programs just a few years old that are forever unrunnable, as they won't even distribute old copies of their OSes. However, it seems many users are willing to take that choice, as we can see from their success.
  - dng88 9y ago
    Depend upon how old. Not sure as I still can download their OSes in App store. Not that I trust Apple to keep there forever and I download them from time to time. But I think I have all since I can get it from App Store. Good to run them in VM as well these days. Strangely you do not have Sierra or High Sierra there. * And keeping old program running as meant all old bugs and old virus run as well. Not sure I live it. * But as long as you have more than one major OS, it is fine to have different approach. Not that you cannot run Sierra now so your program cannot run. Just a deadline instead of we are still using Win 7 after 6 years. Or Win XP per Wanna Cry.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    > they won't even distribute old copies of their OSes They do, actually; if you bought a copy it should be available in the App Store. They even sell physical installers for old operating systems: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-sno...
    - djrogers 9y ago
      That was the policy for several years, but this year they changed it - the Sierra installer is no longer in the App Store after you upgrade.

sigjuice 9y ago

Apple is not responsible for every piece of third party software, especially niche tools like gcc, gdb and valgrind. It is up to the maintainers of those tools to keep up with new macOS releases. Beta releases of macOS are made available early to developers for exactly this reason.

familyit 9y ago
You work there for sure
- dang 9y ago
  This crosses into personal attack, which is a bannable offense on HN. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post only civil, substantive comments from now on?
realusername 9y ago
gcc isn't exactly a "niche tool".
- sigjuice 9y ago
  How many people who buy an Apple computer need to install and run a C compiler? EDIT: BTW, it is trivial to install clang without Xcode on a pristine Mac. Just typing cc in Terminal will pop up an installer that will download and install clang (and possibly other tools)
  - realusername 9y ago
    not everything needs to be used by the end-user directly. I bet gcc is used a countless amount of times just to build OSX anyway.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      OS X uses clang.
    - 4ad 9y ago
      Clang is used to build macOS and 99% of macOS/iOS applications, not gcc, and Apple maintains clang for you.
      - realusername 9y ago
        Ah my bad, I did not know that.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  It isn't the official compiler on Apple platforms either, that ship has sailed long time ago. Google has also shown the door to it on their OSes. Lovers of BSD licenses will miss FSF software in a couple of years.
  - saurik 9y ago
    The really sad part is that as their freedom decreases they seem to just accept it as a new normal rather than as a cost that they chose to pay, and the people who know or even sometimes just remember things differently end up ignored as if they were ranting about some crazy impossibility.
    - IBM 9y ago
      FOSS religion is only going to fade as we get further from 90s Microsoft.
      - gcb0 9y ago
        obvious troll is obvious. specially with that username. lol. thanks for the laugh.
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      Let's take a look at an alternate reality where Clang didn't exist, and GCC was the only compiler worth using–wait, we don't have to do that. Just look at Bash. It's neglected and stuck on 3.2.57 forever because Apple doesn't want to deal with GPLv3. Do you prefer that to the BSD-licensed solution that LLVM is, where it's still open source and actively maintained, rather than left by the wayside because Apple just refused to play nice?
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        The part you are overlooking are the contributions that OEMs stop doing, because thanks clang they no longer have to. Not everyone contributes back to LLVM thanks license. Just like the *BSD hardly see the same contribution from all those embedded devices, as Linux enjoys.
josteink 9y ago
> It is up to the maintainers of those tools to keep up with new macOS releases. Why should stable tools which has been working for decades constantly have to change their source-code to keep working on Apple's OS, a piece of software whose primary task is running software the user wants to run no less? Apple should make sure the user's software runs on its OS, not the other way around. Stop apologizing for what is essentially the world's wealthiest corporation being lazy and putting the maintenance cost of its own OS on everyone else.
- chii 9y ago
  When shit breaks in the new version, people should stop upgrading to the latest macos! Apple has found that they don't need to put effort into api backwards compatibility because people are still freaking upgrading. It costs money to ensure backwards compatibility, so not doing it is desirable. The end user has to put pressure on Apple to do is.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    You missed the fact that fixing problems and not stacking technical debt for the sake of "backwards compatibility" is also desirable.
    - josteink 9y ago
      Any particular reason you decided to quote backwards compatibility, as if it's not a real thing?
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Quotes are not only used to denote non-real things -- if anything that's a quite recent (couple decades) trend.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        "recent"
CJefferson 9y ago
Well, it depends on your point of view. Microsoft, and Linux (just the kernel I'm talking about here), have both decided the point of an OS is to run programs, so with each update they both heroic efforts to not break userspace, often adding code just to make sure old programs that did weird things don't break. Apple have decided to go a different route, and leave a trail of programs just a few years old that are forever unrunnable, as they won't even distribute old copies of their OSes. However, it seems many users are willing to take that choice, as we can see from their success.
- dng88 9y ago
  Depend upon how old. Not sure as I still can download their OSes in App store. Not that I trust Apple to keep there forever and I download them from time to time. But I think I have all since I can get it from App Store. Good to run them in VM as well these days. Strangely you do not have Sierra or High Sierra there. * And keeping old program running as meant all old bugs and old virus run as well. Not sure I live it. * But as long as you have more than one major OS, it is fine to have different approach. Not that you cannot run Sierra now so your program cannot run. Just a deadline instead of we are still using Win 7 after 6 years. Or Win XP per Wanna Cry.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  > they won't even distribute old copies of their OSes They do, actually; if you bought a copy it should be available in the App Store. They even sell physical installers for old operating systems: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-sno...
  - djrogers 9y ago
    That was the policy for several years, but this year they changed it - the Sierra installer is no longer in the App Store after you upgrade.