Comments on: Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard: A Spotty Release

by: Cyrris

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:34:51 +0000

Well, having the Windows Firewall in XP SP2 turned on has been nothing but a headache at work. Obviously when we install Windows ourselves on a PC we have the option of turning the firewall on or off during the installation procedure - which I think it what Leopard should be doing.

But each time we get a new computer from Lenovo it’s already got it installed and it’s a pain if you forget to turn it off. And we need it off to get a bunch of our remote applications working properly across the board.

by: Kelmon

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:33:37 +0000

Apple has now posted information about its Firewall, which is just as well since the settings are pretty meaningless:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306938

What’s particularly damning is the following note from the article:

Allow all incoming connections

This is the most “open” mode. Mac OS X will not block any incoming connections to your computer. This is the default mode for Leopard. If you upgraded from Mac OS X 10.4.x, your Application Firewall will default to this mode.

So, by default, and even if you had your firewall enabled under Tiger when you upgraded, Apple will setup Leopard to allow anyone to try and attack your computer. Who’s stupid idea what this? While I realise that attacks against the Mac are rare and so far don’t seem to work unless you manage to con someone into handing over their administrator password, surely this is asking for trouble if someone DOES succeed in developing a remote hack.

For a company that advertises its security Apple sure has a funny way of displaying their commitment to it.

by: Kelmon

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:39:52 +0000

In Reply to #12: I do take your point but there has to be a better way of moving a file than the current options of either: 1. Opening 2 Finder windows and dragging the file between them 2. Attempting to navigate your folders using a single Finder window and spring-loaded folders 3. In a single Finder window copy the file, navigate to the desired destination, paste the file, return back to the original folder and delete the old copy of the file All of those solutions are dumb and there's no getting away from this. Cut and Paste works damned well in Windows so I honestly don't see what the resistance is to an option to move a file rather than copy it (excluding the humongous bug discovered recently if the transfer fails). Moving a file certainly should not be as much of a faff as it is with the Finder.

by: Richard Drysdall

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:34:52 +0000

Re: Cut not working in the Finder, this is a deliberate design decision and it’s a good one - the Cut/Copy/Paste metaphor doesn’t work properly for files. Here’s an example of how it breaks (you can do this on Windows for example):
1. Copy a file (Edit->Copy)
2. Delete the file.
3. Try to paste the file (Edit-Paste)
Step 3 doesn’t work, because it never really copied the file, only a reference to it. In contrast, if you try this with some text in a word processor, everything will work as expected. IMHO, kudos to Apple for not allowing this feature.

by: Kelmon

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:48:24 +0000

In Reply to #10:

Nope. Dictionary remains in its default location of /Applications/Dictionary.app. Still, it’s nice to know both what this option was supposed to do and that it works for at least one person. It is, of course, baffling as to why it doesn’t seem to work for me having installed fresh onto a clean disk.