3 ms·

Yawn. More Apple bashing that is not backed up by any facts. Name me one widely deployed OS that promises its users patches ad-infinitum. Microsoft certainly

Yawn. More Apple bashing that is not backed up by any facts. Name me one widely deployed OS that promises its users patches ad-infinitum. Microsoft certainly doesn't patch all older versions of Windows. Neither do all the widely deployed Linux flavours, they all have clearly defined EOL policies. Nor do the BSDs, e.g. OpenBSD has a "current plus previous" policy. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere in terms of patching historical versions. Promising your users you will patch all historical versions forever is not feasible, because it means you are promising you will patch all dependencies forever, and that will require a lot of massive teams of developers doing nothing all day but patching legacy software.

ccouzens 5y ago
The problem is they don't allow the latest MacOS on not very old hardware. If they allowed the latest OS there would be less call to keep the older versions patched. > Name me one widely deployed OS that promises its users patches ad-infinitum. > Microsoft certainly doesn't patch all older versions of Windows. > Neither do all the widely deployed Linux flavours. But the latest and greatest Windows and Linux releases are installable on older devices. I extended the life of a 2011 iMac which stopped recieving updates from Apple by installing the latest Fedora. Most Linux distributions draw the line at 32 bit hardware. Windows 11 was controversial in that it dropped support for older computers. But this shows what the expectations are.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  > But the latest and greatest Windows and Linux releases are installable on older devices. So is OS X Big Sur[1] and Monterey[2] For the majority of people all they need to do is pull their finger out and upgrade the OS from Catalina to Big Sur or Monterey. [1]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238 [2]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212551
  - ccouzens 5y ago
    Those show about 8 years. My 2011 iMac was dropped by Mojave (7 years). Modern computers should last a lot longer than that, especially if you can pass them on to users with less demanding requirements. And fortunately Macs do last longer than that, but you have to install Linux or Windows to keep them up to date.
- josteink 5y ago
  > But the latest and greatest Windows and Linux releases are installable on older devices. This was certainly true until recently when Microsoft went all Windows 11, which only works on a small, whitelisted subset of X86-compatible CPUs and also mandated TPM 2.0. Now only Linux offers semi-guaranteed support for older hardware.
  - hu3 5y ago
    To note: Windows 10 is still supported and will be up to 2025. And when that date arrives, Microsoft has a history of patching out of support Operating Systems. Mostly because they have large enterprise contracts which last longer than the EOL of their OS. Also Microsoft provides an official guide on how to install Windows 11 on older hardware. My neighbor has Windows 11 on his 10 year old laptop running an i7 2500 and it's butter smooth.
PeterisP 5y ago
This is not about EOL - the article is about Apple not patching security issues in two-year old supported OS versions (Catalina from 2019). Microsoft certainly does patch all two years old versions of windows.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  First, Big Sur was the first macOS to support ARM. Given recent developments at Apple, its no surprise their primary development focus is on OS Releases that have ARM support. Second, as already pointed out by another poster in this thread, Apple provide free upgrades to newer OS versions for supported hardware (and the hardware support goes back a decent number of years[1]). For the vast majority of people on Catalina, all they need to do is to upgrade to Big Sur, it is almost certain they are using compatible hardware[1]. [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    The key point for this IMHO is, as mentioned in the article "But it's also time for better communication on this subject. Apple should spell out its update policies for older versions of macOS, as Microsoft does, rather than relying on its current hand-wavy release timing". If Apple properly supported Catalina, that would be great; if Apple explicitly said that Catalina is out of support / EOL and people need to upgrade to Big Sur, that could be reasonable; but if they keep the two-year-old release in some limbo that's kind of supported but poorly, that's simply poor support. Apple needs to make a clear choice and publish a specific date for each of their releases up until which they commit to backporting security updates, so that people can know what is the expectation for e.g. Catalina, whether it is considered supported or not right now.
    - rudian 5y ago
      I really don’t get this. Apple does provide free updates for all. If you skip major versions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot and blaming Apple for allowing it. Apple is giving you the update: Install it and now it’s up to date. They don’t have to support multiple versions of the same thing indefinitely. The situations (devices) where the update isn’t possible (i.e. they’re outdated too early) can probably be counted on one hand.
k20CuozQmk 5y ago
>Microsoft certainly doesn't patch all older versions of Windows. This is not about EOL OS releases, this is about Catalina (macOS 10.15, released in 2019). Apple advertises Catalina as still supported, last update was 15.15.7 on October 25 of this year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_version_history#Releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_version_history#Releases). >Neither do all the widely deployed Linux flavours, they all have clearly defined EOL policies. The big difference here you forgot to point out is that you can almost always update to the next Debian (or whatever GNU/Linux distribution you use) Stable release with the hardware you ran on the last one. You could also get new hardware from whatever vendor you want to since Debian (and any other GNU/Linux distribution) isn't vendor locked to a company that insists on selling you soldered RAM/SSDs and thermal throttling machines. The Debian team also consistently honors their support cycles, unlike Apple. >Nor do the BSDs, e.g. OpenBSD has a "current plus previous" policy. Same thing as the GNU/Linux situation i mentioned above, the operating system is not vendor locked and you can almost always update to the next release with old (in the case of *BSD maybe even ancient) hardware, this is not true for macOS. >You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere in terms of patching historical versions. Agreed, you have to draw the line somewhere. The issue here is that Apple drew the line and then didn't even bother to honor it.
- jkepler 5y ago
  Exactly on point regarding Debian. I've been running Debian stable since 2012 or 2013, and I've only upgraded my hardwear when a motherboard died or when I wanted a new laptop for reasons other than the OS.

ccouzens 5y ago

The problem is they don't allow the latest MacOS on not very old hardware. If they allowed the latest OS there would be less call to keep the older versions patched. > Name me one widely deployed OS that promises its users patches ad-infinitum. > Microsoft certainly doesn't patch all older versions of Windows. > Neither do all the widely deployed Linux flavours. But the latest and greatest Windows and Linux releases are installable on older devices. I extended the life of a 2011 iMac which stopped recieving updates from Apple by installing the latest Fedora. Most Linux distributions draw the line at 32 bit hardware. Windows 11 was controversial in that it dropped support for older computers. But this shows what the expectations are.

traceroute66 5y ago
> But the latest and greatest Windows and Linux releases are installable on older devices. So is OS X Big Sur[1] and Monterey[2] For the majority of people all they need to do is pull their finger out and upgrade the OS from Catalina to Big Sur or Monterey. [1]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238 [2]https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212551
- ccouzens 5y ago
  Those show about 8 years. My 2011 iMac was dropped by Mojave (7 years). Modern computers should last a lot longer than that, especially if you can pass them on to users with less demanding requirements. And fortunately Macs do last longer than that, but you have to install Linux or Windows to keep them up to date.
josteink 5y ago
> But the latest and greatest Windows and Linux releases are installable on older devices. This was certainly true until recently when Microsoft went all Windows 11, which only works on a small, whitelisted subset of X86-compatible CPUs and also mandated TPM 2.0. Now only Linux offers semi-guaranteed support for older hardware.
- hu3 5y ago
  To note: Windows 10 is still supported and will be up to 2025. And when that date arrives, Microsoft has a history of patching out of support Operating Systems. Mostly because they have large enterprise contracts which last longer than the EOL of their OS. Also Microsoft provides an official guide on how to install Windows 11 on older hardware. My neighbor has Windows 11 on his 10 year old laptop running an i7 2500 and it's butter smooth.

PeterisP 5y ago

This is not about EOL - the article is about Apple not patching security issues in two-year old supported OS versions (Catalina from 2019). Microsoft certainly does patch all two years old versions of windows.

traceroute66 5y ago
First, Big Sur was the first macOS to support ARM. Given recent developments at Apple, its no surprise their primary development focus is on OS Releases that have ARM support. Second, as already pointed out by another poster in this thread, Apple provide free upgrades to newer OS versions for supported hardware (and the hardware support goes back a decent number of years[1]). For the vast majority of people on Catalina, all they need to do is to upgrade to Big Sur, it is almost certain they are using compatible hardware[1]. [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211238
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The key point for this IMHO is, as mentioned in the article "But it's also time for better communication on this subject. Apple should spell out its update policies for older versions of macOS, as Microsoft does, rather than relying on its current hand-wavy release timing". If Apple properly supported Catalina, that would be great; if Apple explicitly said that Catalina is out of support / EOL and people need to upgrade to Big Sur, that could be reasonable; but if they keep the two-year-old release in some limbo that's kind of supported but poorly, that's simply poor support. Apple needs to make a clear choice and publish a specific date for each of their releases up until which they commit to backporting security updates, so that people can know what is the expectation for e.g. Catalina, whether it is considered supported or not right now.
  - rudian 5y ago
    I really don’t get this. Apple does provide free updates for all. If you skip major versions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot and blaming Apple for allowing it. Apple is giving you the update: Install it and now it’s up to date. They don’t have to support multiple versions of the same thing indefinitely. The situations (devices) where the update isn’t possible (i.e. they’re outdated too early) can probably be counted on one hand.

k20CuozQmk 5y ago

>Microsoft certainly doesn't patch all older versions of Windows. This is not about EOL OS releases, this is about Catalina (macOS 10.15, released in 2019). Apple advertises Catalina as still supported, last update was 15.15.7 on October 25 of this year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_version_history#Releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_version_history#Releases). >Neither do all the widely deployed Linux flavours, they all have clearly defined EOL policies. The big difference here you forgot to point out is that you can almost always update to the next Debian (or whatever GNU/Linux distribution you use) Stable release with the hardware you ran on the last one. You could also get new hardware from whatever vendor you want to since Debian (and any other GNU/Linux distribution) isn't vendor locked to a company that insists on selling you soldered RAM/SSDs and thermal throttling machines. The Debian team also consistently honors their support cycles, unlike Apple. >Nor do the BSDs, e.g. OpenBSD has a "current plus previous" policy. Same thing as the GNU/Linux situation i mentioned above, the operating system is not vendor locked and you can almost always update to the next release with old (in the case of *BSD maybe even ancient) hardware, this is not true for macOS. >You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere in terms of patching historical versions. Agreed, you have to draw the line somewhere. The issue here is that Apple drew the line and then didn't even bother to honor it.

jkepler 5y ago
Exactly on point regarding Debian. I've been running Debian stable since 2012 or 2013, and I've only upgraded my hardwear when a motherboard died or when I wanted a new laptop for reasons other than the OS.