4 ms·

And I'm sure they've had privilege escalation vulns before and a workflow already in place for catching a lot of them. I mean, it's not like Apple's totally asl

And I'm sure they've had privilege escalation vulns before and a workflow already in place for catching a lot of them. I mean, it's not like Apple's totally asleep at the wheel here. OSX may not be a front-burner project anymore, but they're still supporting it better than Microsoft manages to support Windows. But that's the nasty thing about InfoSec. It's a never-ending process. There's always realms you haven't considered yet. I'd bet that they had a process in place that they thought could catch these, but it managed to fail somehow. You're always in a hindsight-is-20-20 situation.

blinkingled 9y ago
> but they're still supporting it better than Microsoft manages to support Windows. I don't know what metric if any you're using to make that statement but any person working Enterprise/Corporate IT will tell you what MS manages to pull year over year with Windows, Office and bunch of other stuff is fairly monumental given the demands of their operating space. Only way Apple can survive there with their current Engineering setup/culture is if they only did simple stuff and told the customers no interop and you only get to do what we think is best for you!
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  I bet Microsoft really does do a great job supporting corporate users. Apple does a miles-better job supporting consumers.
qubex 9y ago
(I am not a developer, nor a sysadmin, but a casual programmer and intensive power user, and I get the instant bleah factor when I come across consumers or enterprises using it.) I’m a longtime NeXT-then-MacOSX user with an experience in commercial UNICES ante-2000 and a predilection for Linux and DragonFlyBSD for my server needs. That said, I am gaining a begrudging respect for Microsoft. They make you pay for your nose, and their stuff looks and feels clunky, but the solidity and backwards-compatibility is utterly amazing.
Spooky23 9y ago
No way. Microsoft has teams of people who own features. Their errors tend to be regressions related to some other workaround they need to support. Apple leaves stuff to rot, then marketing cooks up some new requirement and a few programmers rush to build it. Disk utility is the canonical and obvious example of this. There are many others.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  > Apple leaves stuff to rot, then marketing cooks up some new requirement and a few programmers rush to build it. Is this actually true? I have a hard time believing that. Are Apple developers really jumping around product to product? I'd be very interested to get some insight into their internal processes.

blinkingled 9y ago

> but they're still supporting it better than Microsoft manages to support Windows. I don't know what metric if any you're using to make that statement but any person working Enterprise/Corporate IT will tell you what MS manages to pull year over year with Windows, Office and bunch of other stuff is fairly monumental given the demands of their operating space. Only way Apple can survive there with their current Engineering setup/culture is if they only did simple stuff and told the customers no interop and you only get to do what we think is best for you!

vinceguidry 9y ago
I bet Microsoft really does do a great job supporting corporate users. Apple does a miles-better job supporting consumers.

qubex 9y ago

(I am not a developer, nor a sysadmin, but a casual programmer and intensive power user, and I get the instant bleah factor when I come across consumers or enterprises using it.) I’m a longtime NeXT-then-MacOSX user with an experience in commercial UNICES ante-2000 and a predilection for Linux and DragonFlyBSD for my server needs. That said, I am gaining a begrudging respect for Microsoft. They make you pay for your nose, and their stuff looks and feels clunky, but the solidity and backwards-compatibility is utterly amazing.

Spooky23 9y ago

No way. Microsoft has teams of people who own features. Their errors tend to be regressions related to some other workaround they need to support. Apple leaves stuff to rot, then marketing cooks up some new requirement and a few programmers rush to build it. Disk utility is the canonical and obvious example of this. There are many others.

vinceguidry 9y ago
> Apple leaves stuff to rot, then marketing cooks up some new requirement and a few programmers rush to build it. Is this actually true? I have a hard time believing that. Are Apple developers really jumping around product to product? I'd be very interested to get some insight into their internal processes.