6 ms·

This is really weird thing to complain about. When your partner builds her entire dev environment against a very specific version, packages etc. and then you e

by gempir 3y ago

This is really weird thing to complain about. When your partner builds her entire dev environment against a very specific version, packages etc. and then you expect it to just work next macOS Version? If you don't put any effort into using containers, vms or even just basic setup scripts then yeah this will not work out. I've worked with a few physicists and they are scientists first and developers second. Which is okay, but will lead to janky setups that you cannot simply upgrade the OS under. I want actual updates of my OS and don't want to be stuck forever on some specific version of openssh because some Astrophysicist decides to built her dev environment against it. So either build a reproducible dev environment or don't complain that you cannot update without issues.

flir 3y ago
There was a time when every macos upgrade broke VMware, guaranteed. I too am extremely conservative about OS upgrades. Why take the risk when there's almost no benefit? Let the early adopters iron out the bugs for you.
- gempir 3y ago
  VMware is a highly complicated piece of software relying on a lot of internals of how macOS works. I think it's reasonable to expect that it won't "just work" I don't say you have to update, but in time security updates will no longer come for your version of macOS and in addition to that you will won't even get new features, like in the new macOS Version the openssh version is newer and now almost fully supports yubikey ssh keys stuff like that.
  - eptcyka 3y ago
    This is a very weak excuse.
  - flir 3y ago
    Monterey's got Universal Control (the last OS feature I actually wanted) and the last security update was 8 days ago. I imagine this laptop will be retired before it needs an OS upgrade but who knows, maybe I'll hit a piece of software that won't run on Monterey before then. I just checked and everything at least as far back as Yosemite gets three years support. Seems I've got a year before I need to seriously worry about Monterey.
MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]
mrweasel 3y ago
While I can see some minor issues with version upgrades, some software simply have breaking changes, but mostly I'm surprised when people manages to create environments that are really locked to a single OS version. It used to happen on Windows quite a bit, through now fault of Microsoft. People for one reason or another sometimes see to go out of their way to ensure that their software is tied entirely to one specific version of one operating system. We dealt with a customer who could upgrade a server, required to use newer TLS versions, but their custom software was pretty much locked to Windows Server 2008. They couldn't even build the software on something newer. I quite honestly don't know how people keep ending up in that situation. I don't think they do it on purpose, but the way they insist on working just makes things work out that way.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Tools exist to serve its user, and so long as a tool keeps working there's no reason to replace it. In real life this is how tools are. You own a screwdriver and you use it until one day it breaks, and then you go and buy a new screwdriver just like your old one. This is fundamentally different from the nature of computer software, which can completely change in scope and function from one version to another and introduce changes that "break" something for no good reason as far as the user is concerned. Imagine for a moment if you will: You use your screwdriver everyday, but one day the handle suddenly changes to something completely new and the shaft falls out because the handle uses a new way of fastening the shaft. You are told by the manufacturer to come in and have it replaced with the newest model, or if they're not so gracious they tell you to come in and buy the newest model. And for what reason? The screwdriver was working fine until yesterday. You hate this, because as just a simple user there's no good reason the screwdriver suddenly changed itself. Whether you get it replaced or buy a new one, you're wasting time and even money. You then realize, one way or another, you can just tell your screwdriver that it cannot change without your assent. Ever. You want, perhaps need your screwdriver to work everyday, so you tell it to never change. The manufacturer keeps changing their screwdriver, but yours never changes and it keeps working. One day though, the screwdriver finally breaks and you need a new one. So you go and buy a new screwdriver. Except it's completely different. And completely incompatible with the rest of your workshop, and all the tools inside which you likewise told to never change. Why is the computer world so fucking shit?
Reason077 3y ago
> "This is really weird thing to complain about." What made you think the OP's post was a complaint? It seems reasonable to defer upgrades if you know they're going to break things and create a lot of extra admin work when you'd rather just be getting your job done. I feel the same pain myself. Major macOS upgrades typically always break things, either in my dev environment or just by introducing bugs or breaking/removing/changing some random OS feature that I like using. Its usually only Xcode which forces me to upgrade, since at some point in each release cycle Apple starts requiring the latest macOS for the latest Xcode, which in turn is required if you want to target/deploy to the latest iOS. If it wasn't for that I'd prefer to stick to one major version for 2-3 years.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Suzuran 3y ago
  Unacceptable. Deferring updates is always absolutely unacceptable. Security updates must always be given absolute priority over all other concerns. If security isn't breaking your workflow then your security is not extensive enough, and if security isn't your absolute top priority then you are doing security wrong. On the defensive side you are either perfect in your compliance or you are penetrated. This is an invariant. TLDR if security isn't breaking your workflow then your security isn't secure and you are part of the problem. You should be thankful when security stops you from working because that means your security is working.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Reason077 3y ago
    We're talking about major version updates, ie: going from Ventura (13.x) to Sonoma (14.x). Those are the ones that have signficant changes and tend to break things. Apple does release maintenance and security updates for older macOS releases for several years (for example, Monterey 12.7.1 and Ventura 13.6.1 were both released in the past week or so). I always install those right away, as I assume most people do.
impendia 3y ago
I am an academic mathematician, and I've noticed a huge culture difference between academia (at least in mathematics) and software development. In the software world, it seems to be universally accepted that everything will change, all of the time, and one needs to keep up. If your dependencies break, it's your responsibility to update those too. Hence software "maintenance", which requires a lot of effort. In my world, maintenance is not a concern. If I write a paper, then once it's done it's done. Academic papers, too, have dependencies: "By Theorem 3.4 of Jones and Smith [14], we can conclude that every quasiregular foozle is blahblah, and therefore..." You don't have to worry that Jones and Smith are going to rewrite their paper, change their definition of "quasiregular", or renumber everything. Different cultures. Personally, I prefer my own.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  I am a programmer with 22 years of practice and I stand with you. The churn gets very tiring at one point and you begin to suspect that the people who impose it on you actually have no clue what they're doing and are taking the easy way out because they want to clock out for the week. Which I do understand but pretending that it's for the good of everyone is obviously bogus. IMO all you scientist folks should work closely with a few programmers and sysadmins and have them author you tools to bring up and down various environments. It's easy and it's much more churn-proof than what we currently do. I am still in the process of authoring a script to bring up my dev environment everywhere I go, I need to iron out a few kinks in the initial bootstrap (as in, OS and Linux-distro specific ways to install several critically important tools before installing everything else) and I'll just provision a few laptops at home and a VM in the cloud and be done with it. It's annoying but ultimately a worth investment. Look into it and ask your dev friends.
- tpmoney 3y ago
  I think this is somewhat unfair. Software doesn’t “require” maintenance anymore than anything else does. If you’re happy with the state of the world as it exists at the moment in time you create the software, it will continue to run that way for as long as you have working hardware to run it on. A compiled application on a computer with a frozen set of software is just as permanent as any academic paper. The problem is most people aren’t happy with stuff being the same way forever. They want new things and new updates, and that requires changes which in turn creates maintenance. Software maintenance is less comparable to a single academic paper than it is to the entire field of academia. Sure Freud's papers are all exactly as they were when he published, but if you want to be in the field of psychology you’re going to have a bad time if that’s the most recent version of your academic “software stack”
kaycey2022 3y ago
This is OK for OS stuff but what do you do when xcode upgrade breaks how your apps are linked. This is what happened this time with erlang which uses wx for some of the apps. Now the poor erlang team has to backport fixes for all old versions as well.
wiseowise 3y ago
> and then you expect it to just work next macOS Version? Yes I do. I couldn’t give a s how much security stuff or how many developer issues update solves, backwards compatibility is king. The older I get, the more I am about this. I have million things to take in my life, I’ve paid 3k for this thing and you expect me to sysadmin it on top?

by gempir 3y ago

flir 3y ago

There was a time when every macos upgrade broke VMware, guaranteed. I too am extremely conservative about OS upgrades. Why take the risk when there's almost no benefit? Let the early adopters iron out the bugs for you.

gempir 3y ago
VMware is a highly complicated piece of software relying on a lot of internals of how macOS works. I think it's reasonable to expect that it won't "just work" I don't say you have to update, but in time security updates will no longer come for your version of macOS and in addition to that you will won't even get new features, like in the new macOS Version the openssh version is newer and now almost fully supports yubikey ssh keys stuff like that.
- eptcyka 3y ago
  This is a very weak excuse.
- flir 3y ago
  Monterey's got Universal Control (the last OS feature I actually wanted) and the last security update was 8 days ago. I imagine this laptop will be retired before it needs an OS upgrade but who knows, maybe I'll hit a piece of software that won't run on Monterey before then. I just checked and everything at least as far back as Yosemite gets three years support. Seems I've got a year before I need to seriously worry about Monterey.

MrRolleyes 3y ago

[dead]

mrweasel 3y ago

While I can see some minor issues with version upgrades, some software simply have breaking changes, but mostly I'm surprised when people manages to create environments that are really locked to a single OS version. It used to happen on Windows quite a bit, through now fault of Microsoft. People for one reason or another sometimes see to go out of their way to ensure that their software is tied entirely to one specific version of one operating system. We dealt with a customer who could upgrade a server, required to use newer TLS versions, but their custom software was pretty much locked to Windows Server 2008. They couldn't even build the software on something newer. I quite honestly don't know how people keep ending up in that situation. I don't think they do it on purpose, but the way they insist on working just makes things work out that way.

Dalewyn 3y ago
Tools exist to serve its user, and so long as a tool keeps working there's no reason to replace it. In real life this is how tools are. You own a screwdriver and you use it until one day it breaks, and then you go and buy a new screwdriver just like your old one. This is fundamentally different from the nature of computer software, which can completely change in scope and function from one version to another and introduce changes that "break" something for no good reason as far as the user is concerned. Imagine for a moment if you will: You use your screwdriver everyday, but one day the handle suddenly changes to something completely new and the shaft falls out because the handle uses a new way of fastening the shaft. You are told by the manufacturer to come in and have it replaced with the newest model, or if they're not so gracious they tell you to come in and buy the newest model. And for what reason? The screwdriver was working fine until yesterday. You hate this, because as just a simple user there's no good reason the screwdriver suddenly changed itself. Whether you get it replaced or buy a new one, you're wasting time and even money. You then realize, one way or another, you can just tell your screwdriver that it cannot change without your assent. Ever. You want, perhaps need your screwdriver to work everyday, so you tell it to never change. The manufacturer keeps changing their screwdriver, but yours never changes and it keeps working. One day though, the screwdriver finally breaks and you need a new one. So you go and buy a new screwdriver. Except it's completely different. And completely incompatible with the rest of your workshop, and all the tools inside which you likewise told to never change. Why is the computer world so fucking shit?

Reason077 3y ago

> "This is really weird thing to complain about." What made you think the OP's post was a complaint? It seems reasonable to defer upgrades if you know they're going to break things and create a lot of extra admin work when you'd rather just be getting your job done. I feel the same pain myself. Major macOS upgrades typically always break things, either in my dev environment or just by introducing bugs or breaking/removing/changing some random OS feature that I like using. Its usually only Xcode which forces me to upgrade, since at some point in each release cycle Apple starts requiring the latest macOS for the latest Xcode, which in turn is required if you want to target/deploy to the latest iOS. If it wasn't for that I'd prefer to stick to one major version for 2-3 years.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Suzuran 3y ago
Unacceptable. Deferring updates is always absolutely unacceptable. Security updates must always be given absolute priority over all other concerns. If security isn't breaking your workflow then your security is not extensive enough, and if security isn't your absolute top priority then you are doing security wrong. On the defensive side you are either perfect in your compliance or you are penetrated. This is an invariant. TLDR if security isn't breaking your workflow then your security isn't secure and you are part of the problem. You should be thankful when security stops you from working because that means your security is working.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Reason077 3y ago
  We're talking about major version updates, ie: going from Ventura (13.x) to Sonoma (14.x). Those are the ones that have signficant changes and tend to break things. Apple does release maintenance and security updates for older macOS releases for several years (for example, Monterey 12.7.1 and Ventura 13.6.1 were both released in the past week or so). I always install those right away, as I assume most people do.

impendia 3y ago

I am an academic mathematician, and I've noticed a huge culture difference between academia (at least in mathematics) and software development. In the software world, it seems to be universally accepted that everything will change, all of the time, and one needs to keep up. If your dependencies break, it's your responsibility to update those too. Hence software "maintenance", which requires a lot of effort. In my world, maintenance is not a concern. If I write a paper, then once it's done it's done. Academic papers, too, have dependencies: "By Theorem 3.4 of Jones and Smith [14], we can conclude that every quasiregular foozle is blahblah, and therefore..." You don't have to worry that Jones and Smith are going to rewrite their paper, change their definition of "quasiregular", or renumber everything. Different cultures. Personally, I prefer my own.

pdimitar 3y ago
I am a programmer with 22 years of practice and I stand with you. The churn gets very tiring at one point and you begin to suspect that the people who impose it on you actually have no clue what they're doing and are taking the easy way out because they want to clock out for the week. Which I do understand but pretending that it's for the good of everyone is obviously bogus. IMO all you scientist folks should work closely with a few programmers and sysadmins and have them author you tools to bring up and down various environments. It's easy and it's much more churn-proof than what we currently do. I am still in the process of authoring a script to bring up my dev environment everywhere I go, I need to iron out a few kinks in the initial bootstrap (as in, OS and Linux-distro specific ways to install several critically important tools before installing everything else) and I'll just provision a few laptops at home and a VM in the cloud and be done with it. It's annoying but ultimately a worth investment. Look into it and ask your dev friends.
tpmoney 3y ago
I think this is somewhat unfair. Software doesn’t “require” maintenance anymore than anything else does. If you’re happy with the state of the world as it exists at the moment in time you create the software, it will continue to run that way for as long as you have working hardware to run it on. A compiled application on a computer with a frozen set of software is just as permanent as any academic paper. The problem is most people aren’t happy with stuff being the same way forever. They want new things and new updates, and that requires changes which in turn creates maintenance. Software maintenance is less comparable to a single academic paper than it is to the entire field of academia. Sure Freud's papers are all exactly as they were when he published, but if you want to be in the field of psychology you’re going to have a bad time if that’s the most recent version of your academic “software stack”

kaycey2022 3y ago

This is OK for OS stuff but what do you do when xcode upgrade breaks how your apps are linked. This is what happened this time with erlang which uses wx for some of the apps. Now the poor erlang team has to backport fixes for all old versions as well.

wiseowise 3y ago

> and then you expect it to just work next macOS Version? Yes I do. I couldn’t give a s how much security stuff or how many developer issues update solves, backwards compatibility is king. The older I get, the more I am about this. I have million things to take in my life, I’ve paid 3k for this thing and you expect me to sysadmin it on top?