6 ms·
If you haven't read the article: it is not a complaint. It's a relatively detailed explanation including a number of reasons why rollbacks are not supported. It
by fn-mote 3y ago
If you haven't read the article: it is not a complaint. It's a relatively detailed explanation including a number of reasons why rollbacks are not supported. It also gives a method to do your own rollback! (I am not knowledgeable enough to verify the practicality of this method.)
In short, the author's argument is:
- no method to roll back firmware updates
- the sealed system volume is huge and rollback capability would require keeping the whole old ~10GB around, which is a lot of wasted space
- wkat4242 3y agoApple could use differential snapshots though. They wouldn't have to store an entire copy of that 10GB.
- tomxor 3y agoThey used to do something to this effect with older MacOS X updates by only transferring a bundle of the files, but at some point they just sliced the OS into giant partitions and started sending the full file system image over the wire regardless of the actual changes. This wouldn't be such a wasteful idea had they used file system snapshot differential block transfer a la ZFS send. All I can guess is that they either think their customers are so rich they must all live in places with gigabit internet available, or they just don't care and everyone suffers. Either way it's a massive waste of time, resources and energy, just not theirs.
- codetrotter 3y ago> This wouldn't be such a wasteful idea had they used file system snapshot differential block transfer a la ZFS send. That would have been so epic. They should do that in FreeBSD. Take the macOS idea of having a separate protected partition for the base system, and combine that with the support for ZFS in FreeBSD to use ZFS snapshots to update the FreeBSD base OS, instead of having to run freebsd-update which applies a bunch of patches
- wkat4242 3y agoI don't really like that, because it would make it impossible to modify stuff that I want to modify. I moved to FreeBSD precisely because I wanted more control than Apple would give me (which is ever less of course). And freebsd-update works well, it can even validate files so you can see which have been manually changed. This is perfect for me, it's not a hard lock to what the provider decides but more of a suggestion.
- jshier 3y agoAPFS can do snapshot transfers, that's how Time Machine works for APFS volumes. It may just not meet their goals for signed system volumes.
- FireBeyond 3y ago> All I can guess is that they either think their customers are so rich they must all live in places with gigabit internet available They resisted any kind of low data mode for a long time because their “vision” was unlimited, unmetered everything. Which is a nice vision. But not the reality for now.
- blackoil 3y agoor a hidden 20GB recovery partition. Even top of line SSD are dirt cheap.
- notnullorvoid 3y agoNot so for Apple SSDs, upgrading from a 256GB to 2TB SSD is an extra $720 (US), when in reality top of the line 2TB nvme SSDs cost about $150. It's insane to me that people accept Apple's massive markup.
- hulitu 3y agoAre they the same ? (firmware)
- robotnikman 3y ago>- the sealed system volume is huge and rollback capability would require keeping the whole old ~10GB around, which is a lot of wasted space IIRC that's how Windows handles update rollbacks, by doing this. Though disk space tends to be much cheaper on Windows devices, on Apple devices you pay a premium for extra internal storage.
- onlypositive 3y agoGet a better filesystem?
- hulitu 3y agoIt seems the Time Machine was not designed for root filesystems.
- thebruce87m 3y ago> on Apple devices you pay a premium for extra internal storage I know what you mean by this, but isn’t this the case everywhere? Or at least on comparable systems, e.g. tablets?
- notnullorvoid 3y agoYou pay a premium pretty much everywhere else too, it's just much less of a premium than Apple in most cases.
- DarthNebo 3y agoYou can always pull from the recovery/cloud of Apple. It's just an excuse to push you to newer hardware
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago"Wait, is that a lot?" - Windows
- willcipriano 3y agoThe storage isn't soldered to the motherboard on a PC typically so you pay commodity prices for storage instead of Apples markup, making this less of a problem.
- photonerd 3y ago> The storage isn't soldered to the motherboard on a PC On a PC laptop it often is. Even on many all in ones now. Compare like for like for goodness sake
- mcpackieh 3y ago> On a PC laptop it often is. Even on many all in ones now. s/even/especially/ This used to be unheard of on PC laptops. Soldered storage in PC laptops is a recent development (past 10 years or so)
- photonerd 3y agoI dunno if I’d call a decade “recent” when it’s like… 1/3 of the lifetime of the form factor! But, yes. It’s a form factor thing really, as people want smaller, thinner, lighter, laptops. Memory (and battery) removability gets sacrificed as those aren’t a priority for most customers
- sudosysgen 3y agoHuh? Which PC laptops have soldered storage? Soldered RAM, yes, but soldered SSDs?
- photonerd 3y agoMost high end ones that have a slim form factor. Don’t know if you’ve looked at that segment but, maybe it’s not what you loop for, but it started not long after Apple did (HP & Dell’s MacBook Pro design-ripoff series especially) Also many lower end laptops have done it for a looooong time.
- fatfingerd 3y agoI don't really see an explanation for the complexity though, this is usually itself very interesting. After the live CD years it became much easier to abandon the headaches and work with large signed images, but most OS vendors have had at least one pressure to continue with the hellscape of patch permutations and one way configuration adaptions.
- tinus_hn 3y agoThey only need to store the changed part, and the firmware thing was always a thing, also back when it was possible to roll back updates. This reads like Microsoft’s ‘the old new thing’ where they make up excuses for choices made by Microsoft and here for Apple. I presume the real reason is that Apple would say instead of preparing for the update to fail, it’s better to make sure it doesn’t fail in the first place.
- lisper 3y ago10GB is nothing nowadays. That much storage costs less than $1. That is a ridiculously small price to pay to be able to roll back from a buggy upgrade.
- wkat4242 3y agoIt is cheap but at the premium Apple charges for their storage it's a lot :)
- sieabahlpark 3y ago[dead]
- tap-snap-or-nap 3y agoIf an item is not bought from Apple then Apple treats it like a leper.
- hulitu 3y agoYou can never be sure with all those supply chain attacks those days. /s
- bartvk 3y agoApps still sold 120 GB MacBook Air back then. Edit: sorry, you specified “nowadays”
- goosedragons 3y agoThey still sell 256GB models and have the audacity to ask $200 for another 256GB.
- fbdab103 3y agoI thought you were joking, but just confirmed: a 13" Macbook Air M1 defaults to 256GB SSD, with a $200 upgrade cost to get to 512GB, +$400 if you want to hit 1TB.
- eviks 3y agoYou can remove a couple of gig of wallpapers and default apps to resolve it, and anyway, you dont need to waste space forever, just until it's clear the system is stable and the space need is critical, so that's not a good reason
- hypercube33 3y agoWindows 10/11 keeps 20GB of rollback data on the drive for 30 or something days after an in place upgrade. This works fine on machines even with only 128GB disks