3 ms·

I cannot trigger this crash on iOS 10.3.2, despite repeated attempts. I can reliably crash friends' phones by iMessage for all friends on iOS 11. That suggest

I cannot trigger this crash on iOS 10.3.2, despite repeated attempts. I can reliably crash friends' phones by iMessage for all friends on iOS 11. That suggests to me that Apple made changes to CoreText, and did not perform adequate regression testing. All software has bugs. I understand that. But I suspect a large part of power users' and developers' growing frustration with Apple is that they keep introducing severe, kernel-panicking, root-exposing bugs in software that previously did not exhibit the problematic behavior. Honestly, how do you not have a stringent regression testing requirement for changes to the "Core" of the operating system?

arvinsim 9y ago
> Honestly, how do you not have a stringent regression testing requirement for changes to the "Core" of the operating system? By not managing expectations and deadlines properly. Especially if schedules are overriden from a manager who is not aware of the ramifications of changing something in the core.
- zatkin 9y ago
  And this is about to change, according to some recent news: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how-apple-plans-to-root-out-bugs-revamp-iphone-software https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how-apple...
paulriddle 9y ago
Well. Is it really bad to have bugs though? I think it can be good, it's free advertising it gets people's attention for some time. Which is good. Even being hacked is good, you can always turn it into PR. Maybe Apple doesn't need this as much, but 99.9% of other companies do. Perhaps even, security consultancies should provide a new kind of service "fake hacking", which is really a PR campaign. You introduce a bug which is kind of severe but not really detrimental. It's better if it allows to compromise a user. Publish tutorials, videos, tweet about it, create panic, make it cool to abuse the system. Give it a name, create a dedicated web page. And then you squash the bug, you fix it. People will remember that you fix stuff, so your company and product must be good because you care.
- Piskvorrr 9y ago
  Ooh, so that's what Therac did? Or perhaps mangle the drive-by-wire software so that the stopping distance is just 10% longer - a few extra feet never killed anyone, eh? Or something non-life-threatening: silently truncate all passwords to 8 characters, not like anyone would abuse this to compromise the user (and it's the user's problem anyway, not the vendor's). Irony aside: you are, perhaps unintentionally, omitting from your narative all and any damage that would be caused by such a deliberate bug - the vendor is usually the only one who can fix it, but not the only one who can exploit it. Also, what of unpatched devices, and of liability (you are introducing a backdoor, intentionally)? And realistically, your original change might introduce more holes than you bargained for, or the fix might. This is a horrible idea on so many levels, even discounting it's inherent evil.
PopsiclePete 9y ago
>Honestly, how do you not have a stringent regression testing requirement for changes to the "Core" of the operating system? I have never had the fortune of working for a manager who prioritized quality over (sometimes imagined even) random dead-lines. Developers' complaints sound like gibberish to them ("Plus, they always complain, such perfectionists!") and when the shit hits the fan, sometimes years later, well, it might not even be their problem - they've been promoted by then, fucking up another unfortunate team.
- torstenvl 9y ago
  My comment is slightly rhetorical. "Bad management" and/or "misplaced company values" are the answers, and they're exactly my point. Apple has lost touch with the perfectionism that made it so wonderful. I think perhaps Tim Cook doesn't realize that Apple didn't create all this emotional loyalty from artists just by having pretty boxes and wallpaper, but by cultivating a kindred spirit with them. And to do that, you have to actually care about the quality of your work on a fundamental level.

arvinsim 9y ago

> Honestly, how do you not have a stringent regression testing requirement for changes to the "Core" of the operating system? By not managing expectations and deadlines properly. Especially if schedules are overriden from a manager who is not aware of the ramifications of changing something in the core.

zatkin 9y ago
And this is about to change, according to some recent news: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how-apple-plans-to-root-out-bugs-revamp-iphone-software https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how-apple...

paulriddle 9y ago

Well. Is it really bad to have bugs though? I think it can be good, it's free advertising it gets people's attention for some time. Which is good. Even being hacked is good, you can always turn it into PR. Maybe Apple doesn't need this as much, but 99.9% of other companies do. Perhaps even, security consultancies should provide a new kind of service "fake hacking", which is really a PR campaign. You introduce a bug which is kind of severe but not really detrimental. It's better if it allows to compromise a user. Publish tutorials, videos, tweet about it, create panic, make it cool to abuse the system. Give it a name, create a dedicated web page. And then you squash the bug, you fix it. People will remember that you fix stuff, so your company and product must be good because you care.

Piskvorrr 9y ago
Ooh, so that's what Therac did? Or perhaps mangle the drive-by-wire software so that the stopping distance is just 10% longer - a few extra feet never killed anyone, eh? Or something non-life-threatening: silently truncate all passwords to 8 characters, not like anyone would abuse this to compromise the user (and it's the user's problem anyway, not the vendor's). Irony aside: you are, perhaps unintentionally, omitting from your narative all and any damage that would be caused by such a deliberate bug - the vendor is usually the only one who can fix it, but not the only one who can exploit it. Also, what of unpatched devices, and of liability (you are introducing a backdoor, intentionally)? And realistically, your original change might introduce more holes than you bargained for, or the fix might. This is a horrible idea on so many levels, even discounting it's inherent evil.

PopsiclePete 9y ago

>Honestly, how do you not have a stringent regression testing requirement for changes to the "Core" of the operating system? I have never had the fortune of working for a manager who prioritized quality over (sometimes imagined even) random dead-lines. Developers' complaints sound like gibberish to them ("Plus, they always complain, such perfectionists!") and when the shit hits the fan, sometimes years later, well, it might not even be their problem - they've been promoted by then, fucking up another unfortunate team.

torstenvl 9y ago
My comment is slightly rhetorical. "Bad management" and/or "misplaced company values" are the answers, and they're exactly my point. Apple has lost touch with the perfectionism that made it so wonderful. I think perhaps Tim Cook doesn't realize that Apple didn't create all this emotional loyalty from artists just by having pretty boxes and wallpaper, but by cultivating a kindred spirit with them. And to do that, you have to actually care about the quality of your work on a fundamental level.