3 ms·

On the other hand, you’re implying that they should maintain patches for every single version of iOS released? Because every minor includes new features. That’s

by Operyl 9y ago

On the other hand, you’re implying that they should maintain patches for every single version of iOS released? Because every minor includes new features. That’s asinine.

pritambaral 9y ago
Ubuntu, a free, open source OS, maintains and backports security patches for n-2, n-1, and n LTS releases. LineageOS, a free, volunteer-run open source mobile OS, maintains and backports security patches for n-2, n-1, and n Android versions for phones. Red Hat, the maker of RHEL, a paid, open-source OS — and its free, open-source duplicate CentOS — maintains and backports security patches for 10 years. Microsoft Windows 10, a paid, closed-source OS pushed aggressively by Microsoft to the point of being sued, bundles feature and security updates on users like every real-world installation is for beta-testing. The LTSB branch is not available/accessible to individual users, and it looks like that will also start bundling feature updates with security updates. Apple's iOS, a paid, closed-source, locked-to-hardware OS that supports devices sold in the past three years bundles feature and security updates and aggressively pushes updates on people's devices. There is no LTS branch of iOS.
- Operyl 9y ago
  I'd argue that these operating systems are much, much simpler than the entire stack that is iOS and its built in applications and services.
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    I strongly disagree — not that that would be sufficient excuse. It's not like the kernel and drivers are spread across disparate layers of the iOS stack. It's not like iOS doesn't have libraries and system services and thus has to duplicate code across disparate layers of the iOS stack. It's not like Apple can't or doesn't have special code accessible only to Apple's apps and iOS internals. As of right now, there are only a handful of hardware configurations iOS has to support, and a single software configuration. Compared to the tens of different hardware and software configurations LineageOS has to support, or the hundreds of different hardware and software configurations Ubuntu and Red Hat have to support, or the thousands of different configurations Microsoft has to support, Apple's job here is a lot easier.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Given that mac oses have only to support their hardware and that they limit what the user can do, not, not at all. The gnu/linux stack is richer and more complex.
- gehsty 9y ago
  I think this is a case of Apple applying the logic that 95% (more likely 99.99%) of users are better off not having to make the decision of what version of their os they should they install. Compared to other companies Apple does an amazing job of supporting older hardware. I feel like it’s a double edged sword, if Apple devices didn’t get updates people would complain, Apple updates older devices and people complain. I think the route they have chosen is the best for most normal none techie consumers.
figgis 9y ago
No he's saying separating security patches from feature patches would be beneficial.
- Operyl 9y ago
  They’d need multiple builds of the same software. That’s not sustainable when they can just tell everyone to upgrade to the latest build. Less required QA, less wasted engineering time.
  - tomc1985 9y ago
    Why are you so obsessed with foisting costs onto the user? QA is important, engineering time is important, so put in the effort to make a good product. This pattern of updates would not be nearly so necessary if SWE's (and their managers) weren't so fucking afraid of a little elbow grease
  - figgis 9y ago
    You don't need to change the GUI features to patch the kernel and related programs unless those patches are actually related. It's not magic.
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    > That’s not sustainable when they can just tell everyone to upgrade to the latest build. That is totally sustainable. It's effortful — and they can get away without doing it — "when they can just tell everyone to upgrade to the latest build". Just because they can do something doesn't mean its alternative is not "sustainable". > Less required QA, less wasted engineering time. For the vendor yes. More headaches for the user when features they liked are removed or features they didn't like or want are pushed on them. But that was already accepted as inevitable when buying into the Apple ecosystem, which brings me back to my original point: non-user-hostile software.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    .. but this breaks or downgrades some devices. It might be less cost for them but it's more cost for us.
tomc1985 9y ago
No, he is probably not implying that. We do not want our devices losing features or getting slower unnecessarily. It is arrogant of a company to assert that kind of control over users' devices. It is disrespectful to the customer and their wishes.

by Operyl 9y ago

On the other hand, you’re implying that they should maintain patches for every single version of iOS released? Because every minor includes new features. That’s asinine.

pritambaral 9y ago

Ubuntu, a free, open source OS, maintains and backports security patches for n-2, n-1, and n LTS releases. LineageOS, a free, volunteer-run open source mobile OS, maintains and backports security patches for n-2, n-1, and n Android versions for phones. Red Hat, the maker of RHEL, a paid, open-source OS — and its free, open-source duplicate CentOS — maintains and backports security patches for 10 years. Microsoft Windows 10, a paid, closed-source OS pushed aggressively by Microsoft to the point of being sued, bundles feature and security updates on users like every real-world installation is for beta-testing. The LTSB branch is not available/accessible to individual users, and it looks like that will also start bundling feature updates with security updates. Apple's iOS, a paid, closed-source, locked-to-hardware OS that supports devices sold in the past three years bundles feature and security updates and aggressively pushes updates on people's devices. There is no LTS branch of iOS.

Operyl 9y ago
I'd argue that these operating systems are much, much simpler than the entire stack that is iOS and its built in applications and services.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  I strongly disagree — not that that would be sufficient excuse. It's not like the kernel and drivers are spread across disparate layers of the iOS stack. It's not like iOS doesn't have libraries and system services and thus has to duplicate code across disparate layers of the iOS stack. It's not like Apple can't or doesn't have special code accessible only to Apple's apps and iOS internals. As of right now, there are only a handful of hardware configurations iOS has to support, and a single software configuration. Compared to the tens of different hardware and software configurations LineageOS has to support, or the hundreds of different hardware and software configurations Ubuntu and Red Hat have to support, or the thousands of different configurations Microsoft has to support, Apple's job here is a lot easier.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Given that mac oses have only to support their hardware and that they limit what the user can do, not, not at all. The gnu/linux stack is richer and more complex.
gehsty 9y ago
I think this is a case of Apple applying the logic that 95% (more likely 99.99%) of users are better off not having to make the decision of what version of their os they should they install. Compared to other companies Apple does an amazing job of supporting older hardware. I feel like it’s a double edged sword, if Apple devices didn’t get updates people would complain, Apple updates older devices and people complain. I think the route they have chosen is the best for most normal none techie consumers.

figgis 9y ago

No he's saying separating security patches from feature patches would be beneficial.

Operyl 9y ago
They’d need multiple builds of the same software. That’s not sustainable when they can just tell everyone to upgrade to the latest build. Less required QA, less wasted engineering time.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  Why are you so obsessed with foisting costs onto the user? QA is important, engineering time is important, so put in the effort to make a good product. This pattern of updates would not be nearly so necessary if SWE's (and their managers) weren't so fucking afraid of a little elbow grease
- figgis 9y ago
  You don't need to change the GUI features to patch the kernel and related programs unless those patches are actually related. It's not magic.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  > That’s not sustainable when they can just tell everyone to upgrade to the latest build. That is totally sustainable. It's effortful — and they can get away without doing it — "when they can just tell everyone to upgrade to the latest build". Just because they can do something doesn't mean its alternative is not "sustainable". > Less required QA, less wasted engineering time. For the vendor yes. More headaches for the user when features they liked are removed or features they didn't like or want are pushed on them. But that was already accepted as inevitable when buying into the Apple ecosystem, which brings me back to my original point: non-user-hostile software.
- pjc50 9y ago
  .. but this breaks or downgrades some devices. It might be less cost for them but it's more cost for us.

tomc1985 9y ago

No, he is probably not implying that. We do not want our devices losing features or getting slower unnecessarily. It is arrogant of a company to assert that kind of control over users' devices. It is disrespectful to the customer and their wishes.