Apple Big Sur OS

[maigo]

I do not understand real use for futzing around with bootable backups.
You can easily restore your MacOS from Internet directly from the Command-R boot menu and then restore everything else from Time Machine and iCloud.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204904

If you are technically capable, and feel like futzing, there is an Apple documented method to create a bootable recovery disk for all MacOS including Big Sur.
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT201372

If you are a professional and cannot tolerate down time, buy a second computer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brusby]

I do not understand real use for futzing around with bootable backups.
You can easily restore your MacOS from Internet directly from the Command-R boot menu and then restore everything else from Time Machine and iCloud.

If you are technically capable, and feel like futzing, there is an Apple documented method to create a bootable recovery disk for all MacOS including Big Sur.

If you are a professional and cannot tolerate down time, buy a second computer.

Its much quicker to boot up from a bootable backup with all software intact than having to reinstall everything. With a bootable backup I can be back up and running within 10 minutes and not miss any substantial work. Reinstalling software can take hours or more.

And it doesn't make sense to me to buy a second computer when a bootable backup works as well if not better and is obviously much less expensive. Plus, a second computer is just more stuff to keep up to date and another quickly depreciating piece of equipment.

 

[Armoured]

Aperture will still work on Catalina and Big Sur after applying the Retroactive patch.

Thanks for the reminder that this is out there. I'm not entirely comfortable relying on a patch to keep access, but it is good to know it's out there. I'd been putting off the decision about what to do and finally bit the bullet and moved over to Lightroom.

I probably will try the patch when I make the move to Catalina, Big Sur, etc. But I need to get a new laptop in the relatively near future and I won't expect this patch to work on the M1 platform.

 

[Livesteamer]

Larry, I Grok your dismay. I know when it comes to computers I am a Stranger in a Strange Land.

My current studies are steam locomotive exhaust nozzle design.

Good Luck, Joe

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Its much quicker to boot up from a bootable backup with all software intact than having to reinstall everything. With a bootable backup I can be back up and running within 10 minutes and not miss any substantial work. Reinstalling software can take hours or more. <snip>.

Yep. It’s the easiest and fastest way to get yourself right back to exactly where you were when the system was working. Because it’s a clone of that system. Godfrey and others have described how to get up and running again without a bootable backup, but it’s not easier or faster.
I can only assume that Apple has good reasons for channeling us in that direction; doing it the way Apple recommends, you have the potential advantage of a clean install. (Even if it involves more “futzing”.)
Easy it may be, once you know that dance, but easier and faster it isn’t.

 

[splitimageview]

Its much quicker to boot up from a bootable backup with all software intact than having to reinstall everything. With a bootable backup I can be back up and running within 10 minutes and not miss any substantial work. Reinstalling software can take hours or more.

Hours and hours and hours...forget the cloud. Local backups rule.

I probably will try the patch when I make the move to Catalina, Big Sur, etc. But I need to get a new laptop in the relatively near future and I won't expect this patch to work on the M1 platform.

It should work on Big Sur due to Rosetta 2, even on an M1.

 

[Godfrey]

... I can only assume that Apple has good reasons for channeling us in that direction; doing it the way Apple recommends, you have the potential advantage of a clean install. ...

The fundamental reason for these things is very simple: security. Security for your private data, security for the integrity of the operating system, preventing hacks, preventing errors inadvertently caused by software developers who don't know all the ins and outs of why things work the way they do, etc.

This kind of security priority has been a primary thrust in all of Apple's operating system development work for a very long time. It has added a huge additional workload to the development process—both internally at Apple and in the third party development audience—but the benefits are directly observable: note how few viruses and system attacks on macOS, iOS, iPadOS, and tvOS succeed compared to competing operating systems and apps in the field. Sure, some do manage to find a way, but it's orders of magnitude fewer than what is seen elsewhere. In a global environment where more and more people use computer systems that touch every part of everyone's life—purchases, finance, identity, access, talking to your friends, your family, etc etc—and more and more people are concerned about their identity being stolen, their data being stolen and used for nefarious purposes... never mind cyber attacks against governments, businesses, etc etc ... this kind of security focus by a system provider is necessary to minimize the threats and provides some peace of mind.

Like most things, the results of this priority are a compromise between "user friendliness" and how much of a PITA it is to deal with problems when they occur. And there are certainly costs, which beg the question: What price for your safety and security is too much?

So far, I haven't found that the costs outstrip the benefits for my needs. I'd much rather not have to constantly layer security patch on top of security patch like I see with other OS environments. The things that I have to do which have become more complex and time consuming are rare and infrequently necessary; the constant patching and maintenance of the security patches on other systems is a large, frequently needed burden to deal with.

G

"No matter where you go, there you are."

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Godfrey,

I am not arguing with you, as I assume you should be correct, but would it be possible for you to explain why repopulating my internal hard drive from a bootable clone of an up to date Apple system that was working perfectly yesterday, and was supposedly secure, is less secure than starting over from scratch? It’s an honest question, not a “gotcha” question.

 

[splitimageview]

Local recovery doesn’t open one to security issues, though.

There are regular security updates (“patches”) for every Apple OS.

I’ve used Apple my entire career and was a long-time hardware and software developer. IMHO Apple has backslid in a significant way when it comes to everything that used to define Apple. User interfaces have become confusing, UI design guidelines that were religiously followed are now completely ignored, and so on. I still will stick with Apple as I can’t imagine moving to the alternative but it’s been a frustrating experience. For every stupendous accomplishment like Rosetta or Rosetta 2 there are bonehead design decisions that are serious head-scratchers; “what are they thinking?”🙁

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey,

I am not arguing with you, as I assume you should be correct, but would it be possible for you to explain why repopulating my internal hard drive from a bootable clone of an up to date Apple system that was working perfectly yesterday, and was supposedly secure, is less secure than starting over from scratch? It’s an honest question, not a “gotcha” question.

There's no way to know for sure when you make the clone that something in the cloning software didn't create a problem, one way or another. And while most of these potential problems are legitimately just errors in the software or errors incurred during the data transfer process, there is the possibility of the clone incorporating insidious intentional malicious (or just plain broken) things as well. Doing a fresh install from scratch means using an authenticated install image from Apple, with verified encryption keys and such, and using the Migration Assistant to move the data to it after the system is in place is also done in the same context of verified keys and encryption from an authenticated source.

In a sense, a good bit of the underlying question that all the security implementations are dealing with comes down to "who and what to trust". I tend to trust Apple more than most other software providers, possibly due to my years of working inside the company.

In a world without these issues of trust, and assuming that the technical details of the cloning and re-cloning back are done without error, there should be no difference in the results. But for most users, who are naïve about underlying operating system and hardware stuff, there are fairly big trust issues in today's world.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Local recovery doesn’t open one to security issues, though.

There are regular security updates (“patches”) for every Apple OS.

I’ve used Apple my entire career and was a long-time hardware and software developer. IMHO Apple has backslid in a significant way when it comes to everything that used to define Apple. User interfaces have become confusing, UI design guidelines that were religiously followed are now completely ignored, and so on. I still will stick with Apple as I can’t imagine moving to the alternative but it’s been a frustrating experience. For every stupendous accomplishment like Rosetta or Rosetta 2 there are bonehead design decisions that are serious head-scratchers; “what are they thinking?”🙁

Yes, there are regular security updates for Apple operating systems. And they usually come out BEFORE any large attack has succeeded, because Apple is quite vigilant about testing and hitting anything that gets into the system quickly and efficiently. The updates are few and far between compared to what I see on other platforms, and not one that I've installed has caused any problems.

Regards backsliding and other stuff ... eh? I worked at and with Apple very intimately for a quarter of a century, and have filed thousands of bugs, complaints, and feature requests. I've fought for (what I consider to be) improvements in virtually every piece of the software and OS over time. I even fixed a couple of things myself, when I had the skills and the access to do that sort of thing, and gave it back to illustrate what I felt was better. Some of the things I felt were improvements have succeeded, others have not. It's a big company now, and there are many hands/minds at work ... I don't presume to be a wizard who has the vision of the best compromises.

By and large, what I find is that as things change, I'm more likely to be annoyed simply because the tools/workflow become different and I was used to how things used to be. Once I let that go and adopt the new way of working, it all seems to work fine. **shrug!** Sometimes the new ways work better, most of the time they're just different, and once in a while they just don't work as well. I no longer judge: I just learn and use to the best of my ability to get what I want done. And continue to file bugs and feature requests... of course. 🙂

G

 

[Emile de Leon]

I just returned a brand new Macbook Air fully loaded.
My 1st Mac..
It worked fine the 1st day..
Then a few days later..wouldnt take the password..
Applecare wiped the system 4x's and reinstalled Mac OS 4x's..then finally admitted defeat..
..no one over there knew what was going on with the new M1 chip..they admitted that..they couldnt even reset the password. One guy said the update fk-ed it up..another guy said the security protocols were too tough to navigate..

And in the end..they recommended dumping it asap...and buying a Windows computer instead..that surprised me..coming from Apple...lol..

Shame...as it was a cute lil laptop.
It goes back today..

 

[Larry Cloetta]

There's no way to know for sure when you make the clone that something in the cloning software didn't create a problem, one way or another. And while most of these potential problems are legitimately just errors in the software or errors incurred during the data transfer process, there is the possibility of the clone incorporating insidious intentional malicious (or just plain broken) things as well. Doing a fresh install from scratch means using an authenticated install image from Apple, with verified encryption keys and such, and using the Migration Assistant to move the data to it after the system is in place is also done in the same context of verified keys and encryption from an authenticated source.

In a sense, a good bit of the underlying question that all the security implementations are dealing with comes down to "who and what to trust". I tend to trust Apple more than most other software providers, possibly due to my years of working inside the company.

In a world without these issues of trust, and assuming that the technical details of the cloning and re-cloning back are done without error, there should be no difference in the results. But for most users, who are naïve about underlying operating system and hardware stuff, there are fairly big trust issues in today's world.

G

Thanks, that helps me understand the "ifs" involved; I had not been sure if I was missing something or not. I will take that and go forward with what seems the best methodology for my overall situation.
Thanks, again.

 

[Armoured]

It should work on Big Sur due to Rosetta 2, even on an M1.

Thanks, admit that I hadn't thought of that. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for confirmation that Aperture with that hack works on the M1.

 

[splitimageview]

There's no way to know for sure when you make the clone that something in the cloning software didn't create a problem, one way or another. And while most of these potential problems are legitimately just errors in the software or errors incurred during the data transfer process, there is the possibility of the clone incorporating insidious intentional malicious (or just plain broken) things as well. Doing a fresh install from scratch means using an authenticated install image from Apple, with verified encryption keys and such, and using the Migration Assistant to move the data to it after the system is in place is also done in the same context of verified keys and encryption from an authenticated source.

It's overkill to do a clean install over the net when doing a restore, to replace a failed HD for example. The backup software mentioned in this thread is well-established over decades and just calls standard unix commands.

Yes, there are regular security updates for Apple operating systems. And they usually come out BEFORE any large attack has succeeded, because Apple is quite vigilant about testing and hitting anything that gets into the system quickly and efficiently. The updates are few and far between compared to what I see on other platforms, and not one that I've installed has caused any problems.

Regards backsliding and other stuff ... eh? I worked at and with Apple very intimately for a quarter of a century, and have filed thousands of bugs, complaints, and feature requests. I've fought for (what I consider to be) improvements in virtually every piece of the software and OS over time. I even fixed a couple of things myself, when I had the skills and the access to do that sort of thing, and gave it back to illustrate what I felt was better. Some of the things I felt were improvements have succeeded, others have not. It's a big company now, and there are many hands/minds at work ... I don't presume to be a wizard who has the vision of the best compromises.

By and large, what I find is that as things change, I'm more likely to be annoyed simply because the tools/workflow become different and I was used to how things used to be. Once I let that go and adopt the new way of working, it all seems to work fine. **shrug!** Sometimes the new ways work better, most of the time they're just different, and once in a while they just don't work as well. I no longer judge: I just learn and use to the best of my ability to get what I want done. And continue to file bugs and feature requests... of course. 🙂

G

As I described, not talking about bugs, talking about Apple ignoring their own long-established human interface guidelines. Improvements are of course desired; changing the way things have worked for decades for no reason, not so much.

They used to treat the guidelines as a bible, but no longer. The result is a hodge-podge; bloated, convoluted, confusing software, counter to the original Mac ethos which demanded that operations be intuitive and consistent from app to app. One of the great examples of this devolution was iTunes.

Perhaps it's because Jobs has been gone for nearly ten years now. He isn't there to say "This is s**t!" 😀

This isn't news, complaints have been around for years that Apple has lost its way: https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name

 

[Godfrey]

It's overkill to do a clean install over the net when doing a restore, to replace a failed HD for example. The backup software mentioned in this thread is well-established over decades and just calls standard unix commands. ...

Yes, UNIX commands which may, or may not, be 100% secure or up to date with the latest deviations from the "standard" incorporated into things like the file system structures, etc. Moreover, there's no problem cloning data drives and moving the bits around anyway you want. It's the boot drive and its installed system that have to be secure.

...
As I described, not talking about bugs, talking about Apple ignoring their own long-established human interface guidelines. Improvements are of course desired; changing the way things have worked for decades for no reason, not so much.

They used to treat the guidelines as a bible, but no longer. ...

The guidelines were never entirely consistent, even at the beginning, and have become less so as the complexity of the system and the expectations of users have morphed and developed over the many years. They were never implemented entirely consistently either, not by either Apple or by third party developers. Treating them as dogma, as some sort of vanished Holy Grail, is similar to the ongoing mythos that what was once wonderful is slowly going to pot, a recurring theme in all of human history.

I used to know most of the people who wrote the guidelines. They didn't go to stone tablets ordained by Steve, the people who designed them made them up as they went along and changed them when it made sense to. They were always guidelines, not laws, and Apple, and third party developers too, bent them to suit whenever necessary or when something new seemed to be a better way. (Something new fails about eight times out of 11, like most experiments... 🙂)

There's always been a lot of cruft and absurdity, which is why I've always written so many bug reports. Starting in 1984 ... 😉

G

 

[splitimageview]

Yes, UNIX commands which may, or may not, be 100% secure or up to date with the latest deviations from the "standard" incorporated into things like the file system structures, etc. Moreover, there's no problem cloning data drives and moving the bits around anyway you want. It's the boot drive and its installed system that have to be secure.

Anyone worried about things at this level shouldn't be using a computer. 😀 This is reaching the level of absurdity.

The guidelines were never entirely consistent, even at the beginning, and have become less so as the complexity of the system and the expectations of users have morphed and developed over the many years. They were never implemented entirely consistently either, not by either Apple or by third party developers. Treating them as dogma, as some sort of vanished Holy Grail, is similar to the ongoing mythos that what was once wonderful is slowly going to pot, a recurring theme in all of human history.

I used to know most of the people who wrote the guidelines. They didn't go to stone tablets ordained by Steve, the people who designed them made them up as they went along and changed them when it made sense to. They were always guidelines, not laws, and Apple, and third party developers too, bent them to suit whenever necessary or when something new seemed to be a better way. (Something new fails about eight times out of 11, like most experiments... 🙂)

No one has claimed they were 'laws.' They took the guidelines seriously enough that Addison Wesley even published the book...Apple Human Interface Guidelines.

Too bad it's no longer a priority.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

<snip>.......is similar to the ongoing mythos that what was once wonderful is slowly going to pot, a recurring theme in all of human history.
<snip>

G

Every now and then, as in the case splitimagereview has highlighted, thats exactly what has happened. It’s not an “ongoing mythos”. The notion that things can’t deteriorate is as unsupportable as the idea that things always deteriorate, canards to the contrary aside.

The observations laid out in the article referenced (https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name) are arguable, but they are not so cavalierly dismissible. This is perhaps more obvious to those of us who are merely users trying to accomplish simple tasks than they are to developers who live inside that bubble.
The move to changing the OS every year whether it satisfies any useful end or not, has probably been partly to blame for the fact that half the changes every year seem to be nothing more than a pointless, or perverse, exercise in moving the cheese, coupled with ever more inscrutable icons. And, the bizarre obsession with “thinner” at the expense of ease of use (there’s a dongle for that) is another symptom.
Why don’t I switch, then? The grass is not greener on the other side. Yet, it was definitely greener on the Apple side of the fence, for my purposes, when Jobs was running it than it is now (coincidence? I am guessing not.). That’s a fact, and one only I can be the judge of.

 

[splitimageview]

Well said, Larry. Computers were supposed to make things easier, right? 😀

 

[Godfrey]

...No one has claimed they were 'laws.' They took the guidelines seriously enough that Addison Wesley even published the book...Apple Human Interface Guidelines. ...

Why do you think Addison Wesley published the book? Because Apple paid them to publish it, because it represented an ideal to which Apple aspired, and to which they wished to promote the idea that all software developed for the platform should aspire/conform.

These things are not dogma handed down from on high. They change. as time goes on and different ideas meet the mix.

Every now and then, as in the case splitimagereview has highlighted, thats exactly what has happened. It’s not an “ongoing mythos”. The notion that things can’t deteriorate is as unsupportable as the idea that things always deteriorate, canards to the contrary aside.

The observations laid out in the article referenced (https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name) are arguable, but they are not so cavalierly dismissible. This is perhaps more obvious to those of us who are merely users trying to accomplish simple tasks than they are to developers who live inside that bubble.
The move to changing the OS every year whether it satisfies any useful end or not, has probably been partly to blame for the fact that half the changes every year seem to be nothing more than a pointless, or perverse, exercise in moving the cheese, coupled with ever more inscrutable icons. And, the bizarre obsession with “thinner” at the expense of ease of use (there’s a dongle for that) is another symptom.
Why don’t I switch, then? The grass is not greener on the other side. Yet, it was definitely greener on the Apple side of the fence, for my purposes, when Jobs was running it than it is now (coincidence? I am guessing not.). That’s a fact, and one only I can be the judge of.

Things can and do "deteriorate" over time, as you put it, but the mythos is that everything was always better at some time in the past. The truth is that things always change, when everything is static, there is no Life because Life requires change, constantly.

There are design eras that are awful and there are design eras that are wonderful. Different generations see the same eras in the opposite way, because the notions of "what is good and beautiful", "what is functional and meets the need" change over time as different generations' perceptions and expectations change.

I'm old, I've seen many waves of good and bad taste become the accepted norm, many waves of functional vs hopeless become the accepted norm. My buddy Don is 30 years older than I am ... He's verified that this is correct, and that he's seen thirty years more of the same waves roll past.

That's the human condition: the limitations of human perception, the constraints of human volition and memory. We are not constant. But when plotted against objective references of utility and real improvements, things have NOT always gone down hill. The human condition has actually, materially, improved by leaps and bounds over the past several centuries. A recent thesis from either Carnegie-Mellon or one of the other big universities/research tanks published exactly this notion along with a few hundred pages of proof to support it. If I can find the paper, I'll post a link.

G

BTW: I worked with and knew SJ personally. I went to work at Apple after he'd been ousted, watched the new wave of execs try to drive the company into the dirt, saw his return and the rise out of the muck back to something better, was hired back into my last position the day he left the company (and died of cancer a month later, due in part to his own foolishness!), watched the wave as the arc moved up, and down, and up again... My positions were always cross functional, I nearly always had to be in touch with multiple different part of the company from engineering to design to marketing, to internal coordination to external coordination. ...I think I have a better insight into the internals of what has been going on than most, simply through having lived through nearly a quarter century of nearly all of it myself, and seen it with my own eyes... 😉