←back to thread

A memory leak in Apple's Network Extension framework

(obdev.at)
224 points chmaynard | 3 comments | 14 Nov 24 13:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
zackmorris ◴[14 Nov 24 16:25 UTC] No.42137794[source]▶
I wish there was an independent unit test suite for operating systems and other proprietary software.

The suite would run the most-used apps and utilities against updates and report regressions.

So for example, the vast majority of apps on my Mac can't run, because they were written for early versions of OS X and OS 9, even all the way back to System 7 when apps were expected to still run on 4/5/6. The suite would reveal that Apple has a track record of de-prioritizing backwards compatibility or backporting bug fixes to previous OS versions.

Edit: integration test suite

replies(5): >>42138112 #>>42140845 #>>42142559 #>>42142892 #>>42143717 #
brailsafe ◴[14 Nov 24 20:30 UTC] No.42140845[source]▶
Eh, I agree in a sense, but I'm also ok without the same level of backwards compatibility that Windows is beleaguered by. Every new version of Windows is little more than a thin veneer of whatever they think is a popular choice for UI design that year, and with that comes a clumsy amalgamation of hugely varying settings dialogs, the classic registry, all the goop. Meanwhile on macos, I don't expect very complex software to maintain perfect compatibility, but I can reasonably expect most of the stuff I use to carry forward 5+ years. Parallels and Omnifocus were the exceptions, but 1password from 2012 is still kicking, Data Rescue 3 somehow still works, I'm sure even Adobe CS6 would even though it's from the Carbon era.

Just as well, although I loathe some of the choices Apple's made over the years, such as it's own Settings app, the overall UI would be pretty recognizable if me from 20 years ago found a time machine (pun intended). I recently bought a new mac, and it occurred to me that it feels basically like the E-Mac I used in middle school all those years ago, albeit with the occasional annoyance I wouldn't have been aware of then.

replies(2): >>42143793 #>>42148434 #
1. jasomill ◴[15 Nov 24 16:33 UTC] No.42148434[source]▶
Out of curiosity, I just checked, and while the CS6 installer is 32-bit, Photoshop CS6, at least, is 64-bit.

The .app icon shows the "circle slash" overlay, however, and attempting to launch it from the Finder (Sequoia 15.1 running on an Intel Mac) yields the OS-level "needs to be updated" alert without actually exec'ing the binary.

The Mach-O executable in "Contents/MacOS" loads and runs successfully when called directly from a shell prompt, however, and displays an application-generated "Some of the application components are missing…Please reinstall…" alert.

Which is actually encouraging, given that I'm attempting to run it directly from the Master Collection .dmg image without actually installing anything, which, given all the prerequisite detritus Adobe apps habitually scatter around the system when installed, I wouldn't expect to work even on a supported OS.

Less encouraging is the fact that the app-generated alert box text is blurry, suggesting the application wouldn't properly support Retina displays even if it could be cajoled into running.

replies(1): >>42148898 #
2. brailsafe ◴[15 Nov 24 17:24 UTC] No.42148898[source]▶
Interesting experiment, thanks for the detail, I think I do still have my installers backed up somewhere, if not the actual disks.

> Less encouraging is the fact that the app-generated alert box text is blurry, suggesting the application wouldn't properly support Retina displays even if it could be cajoled into running.

This was actually the main reason I simply stopped using it (aside from not needing it professionally anymore and Adobe switching to subscription after CS6). CS6 was the last version before laptops started shipping with high dpi screens, and Carbon (from what I understood at the time) was simply the older cocoa UI framework that was replaced as Apple switched to a more versatile SDK. Sibling commentor suggested it was because Carbon was 32-bit only and that seems plausible, I hadn't experimented heavily with Obj-C or Apple dev, but I'm sure the switch was a massive undertaking.

replies(1): >>42156391 #
3. mananaysiempre ◴[16 Nov 24 13:47 UTC] No.42156391[source]▶
64-bit Carbon (as a port of 32-bit Carbon, which itself was an aid for porting apps from classic Mac OS to OS X) was originally loudly announced and then relatively quietly killed[1]. Not clear if any code was ever actually written, but given the announcement was at a keynote I expect that somebody, somewhere, at least judged it feasible.

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/13/leopard-drops-carbon-64...