3 ms·
Hard truths about software: they have bugs. There's no such thing as an OS that has zero bugs. All major versions of software become abandoned eventually. Then
by dangus 4y ago
Hard truths about software: they have bugs. There's no such thing as an OS that has zero bugs. All major versions of software become abandoned eventually. Then you either upgrade to a newer version of the software or you live with whatever bugs you have.
> Those residual bugs are often severe: El Capitan continued to cause many Macs to grind to a halt through its entire cycle, the cause not being addressed until Sierra. Sierra in turn was abandoned with a serious bug in its backup scheduling system that caused automatic backups to fail completely after a few days, and that was only fixed in High Sierra. More recently, Monterey initially suffered from three serious memory leaks, of which two were fixed early, but the third has only just been addressed in Ventura.
Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. I had multiple Macs with all these versions of macOS and never noticed any issues like this. My system never "ground to a halt," nor did I have failed backups, nor did I suffer from a "serious memory leak."
> APFS is but one example of a critical sub-system that loses all support once Apple releases a new version of macOS.
Is this an unknown or unexpected phenomenon? Does Microsoft make updates to NTFS on Windows 2000? What's wrong with APFS that needs to be fixed? "Bugs," I guess.
> Many of us had suspected that, during those two security-only maintenance years, older macOS didn’t get all the fixes it could have.
Right, because it's an old version that's out of support. What's the problem?
> It’s safer to delay upgrading
Stop. No. Don't. Stop telling people not to update their systems. This reminds me of everyone who recommended that people disable patches for Windows XP due to the mild inconvenience of the whole thing and then wondered why they got infected with every virus under the sun.
> It’s a similar argument to that concerning vaccination of younger people against Covid or other generally non-fatal conditions. Most people under the age of 70 who are in reasonably good health should be safe from serious or prolonged illness or death.
Oh, the author is anti-vax. Great.
- simondotau 4y ago(Apologies in advance for embracing the off-topic tangent.) What you quoted from the article: "Most people under the age of 70 who are in reasonably good health should be safe" For someone anti-vax, his own choice of words is odd. Most? Reasonably? Should? Is this supposed to be a compelling formulation of their argument? It's astounding to me that anti-vax arguments are so often laced in ambiguity and "principles", i.e. emotions which cosplay as rationality. Whereas a properly rational and evidence-driven argument is just so straightforward. Your chances of avoiding infection are slim and ever-diminishing. The disease has a non-zero risk of complications/hospital resource dependency/death for people of all ages. The vaccines have a statistically significant impact on outcomes and an utterly spectacular safety track record. End of argument.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]