Out of curiosity, what programs do you use that break post-10.7?

The only program I've run into that works on 10.7 but not anything after is QuarkXPress 8 (and earlier) using a License Server (the license server networking code uses a deprecated system library).

Other than that, Yosemite has been grand.

A simple reason--I find more value in the content of Snowden's releases than in the others.

Selling military hardware plans is not ideological and it doesn't expose government abuses.

Two differences from standard criminal charge of entrapment. First, counter intelligence personnel (CIA, FBI, DOD--whatever) are allowed to set up operations like this when government issued security clearances are involved. Second, entrapment is specifically when the entrapper targets a person and convinces that person to do something he would not normally have done. If there were suspicions about this person, I'm guessing he had raised flags already, thus negating that aspect of entrapment.

I'm a big support of Snowden. Much less so of Manning. This guy deserves whatever he gets.

Counter intelligence folks do this all the time. Part of getting (and maintaining) a government security clearance. No chance of entrapment.

Hmmm... that is interesting. I have checked, but I image some mackintosh forums would be the place to know for sure. In either case, we're talking about a less than one year difference, so not huge either way.

Fully agreed--I wish Apple would have included the EFI compatibility shims. I think this--MacPro 1,1--is a perfect example of Apple doing something badly.

Perhaps "many" for small values of many. The majority of all Intel mac models support the latest operating system, even post–Mavericks. The only exceptions are:

1) single core processors
2) 32-bit only processors / EFI
3) a very few unsupported graphics cards

Barring a few major architectural shifts (68k-PowerPC, PowerPC-Intel, 32-bit–64-bit), Apple tends to support computers for a long time. If you're unlucky enough to be an early with low-end hardware, you might miss out. This is true, and a valid complaint. This should not be over-generalized, however!

I do not believe it's fair to say OS X has a "short shelf life" as stated by the GP (unless meaning that new versions are released frequently).

I would never say Apple is better than OSS in terms of support. The FreeBSD dev lists have been discussing some pty changes recently, and one of the mandates was maintaining jail support for FreeBSD 4 released in 2000. Other kernel options extend binary compatibility back probably to 20 years before that! You're not going to beat that. Apple certainly isn't going to even try.

FWIW, Yosemite runs faster on my 2007 macbook pro than Mavericks did (and I hated Mavericks).

I work at a publishing company that relies on some proprietary software that is rarely updated (and hugely expensive when it is). We had a few terminals running OS9 until around 2009. We still have a G4 1.25ghz powermac running OS X 10.4.11 and that same software today (PowerMac 3,6 circa 2003). We even ran some G3 desktops past 2002, and I kept a G4 PowerBook until well into the Intel era.

I'm really not sure by what standard your 1999 G3 was "obsolete" by 2002! As a company, we didn't even start upgrading to OS X at all until 10.3 (test beds) and then 10.4 "for real." My recollection is that G3s were supported by OS X just fine?

There have been 4 major shifts in modern Apple history (3 hardware, 1 software):

1) 68k to PowerPC (first PowerPC macs released in 1994, new OS 8 releases supported 68k for another 4 years)
2) OS9 to OS X (first beta release in 2000. Default OS in 2002. Many big name programs not updated until 2003/2004)
3) PowerPC to Intel (first Intel macs released in 2006, last version of OS X to support PowerPC-only apps was 10.5 in 2008).
4) Intel to 64-bit Intel (first OS to be 64-bit only was Mavericks in 2013, supporting most Intel Macs released since 2007/8).

Apple is not like Microsoft in terms of legacy support. No arguments there. During this major architectural shifts, they have given a minimum of several years of transition. I think you would have more room to criticize iOS, but I really don't see much to complain about with Mac pcs,

FUD is when people made false statements to try to prove their point. As an example of FUD, here's your statement:

I'm assuming you made an error and meant OS X Mavericks, not OS X March? Even if so, you're absolutely wrong. Mavericks and Yosemite can run on any MBP (Macbook Pro) from 2007 on. So, maybe you made a second typo and had really meant 2009 MacBooks (not Pros)? Alas, Mavericks/Yosemite (they have the same system requirements) will run on early-2009 Mac Books, as well. So, you're basically just entirely wrong. Here's the Apple support page if you don't believe me: http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT6412.

I do think it's worth noting that the Intel macs that are not supported are either 32-bit only or computers with 32-bit EFI. Mavericks and Yosemite are 64-bit only, so the 32-bit processors computers are out. Most of the Macs with 32-bit EFIs can easily run Yosemite, albeit not officially. I'm running Yosemite on my 2006 Mac Pro 1,1. It runs great and was very easy to install.

Nope. Apple has in no way "dropped support" for any laptops still under warranty or support contract. They merely do not support the older Macs with the latest version of the Operating system. The minimally supported systems are still at least 4-5 years old and 7+ years old in many cases (like my own). Works for me.

Apple dropped the Xserve entirely--they stopped selling Xserves and announced the end of the line, what, 4 years ago? Too bad, IMHO, but announced and expected.

Macbook Pro 3,1 (2007) running the latest Yosemite right here (with upgraded 6gb ram and SSD). Fully supported.

My work computer is a Mac Pro 1,1 (2006). Doesn't officially support Yosemite (due to a 32-bit EFI and Yosemite being 64-bit only) but was a piece of cake to install with an EFI override.

7-8 years of support doesn't seem too bad to me!

BS! OS X comes with bash, tcsh, and just about every commandline tool you can think of. I spend as much time in Terminal.app as I do any other program. The OS X installer even allows you to install X11.app!

What "pile of addons" are you possibly talking about? Anything else you need is just a few keyboard commands away using one of the package managers like brew or MacPorts.

That's where I am right now. I'm running Yosemite on my 2007 3,1 mbp with SSD. I have not, so far, used Trim Enabler to disable kext signing. We'll see if it ever comes to that.

Well, I think there is a legitimate complaint in that there is no official Apple-approved mechanism for enabling trim on a non-Apple installed drive, but yes, this is a manufactured scandal.

Apple, for whatever dumb reason, has _never_ enabled Trim on non-Apple branded SSDs. I do not know of any HDD manufacturers that ever provided any kernel extensions that would enable Trim for their drives, so effectively, third-party SSDs have never had any official trim support on OS X.

Before Yosemite this has never been an issue. Any user who was able to install their own SSD could also download the handy TRIM Enabler software that forced Trim on for non-Apple SSDs. One toggle switch, one reboot, piece of cake. I've been running multiple Macs since OS 10.6 with multiple brands of SSDs (OCZ, Samsung, Intel, etc) with absolutely no issues and no signs of performance degradation.

The difference in Yosemite is, as the summary says, non-signed Kernel extensions cannot be loaded by default. Since non-signed kexts are blocked, software like Trim Enabler cannot load. You CAN override this behavior, but there are potential issues (see the Trim Enabler site for more information).

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the decision to make Yosemite require signed kexts has anything to do with the status of trim on non-Apple SSDs. I doubt trim even crossed anybody's minds during the decision-making process. Trim Enabler is just an unfortunate casualty of kext signing (which itself is probably not a bad thing!).

tl;dr -- a rather hysterical take on an issue that DOES display some Apple stupidity. Just let us enable trim on non-Apple drives natively and there's no problem!

GP is a troll, no doubt, but my recollection was that it was 5.x series with the SMP bits starting to rollout (the start of the removal of GIANT). Am I misremembering?

How about Safari?

You definitely both hit the nail on the head and answered your own question. The last Dice article on Swift was one of the worst programming articles I've ever read. Thanks to you for mentioning that this is an another Dice article--I'll save myself a waste of time and NOT RTFA.

I don't think Yahoo was ever top dog search?

I remember switching from Altavista to Google sometime around 98/99. WebCrawler before that? Yahoo is one of those companies I've never understood why people used their products. Or, for that matter, how they're still around today.

I, on a personal level, am skeptical about the usage--or at least the possible over-usage--of mood-altering medications primarily because we know so little about the way they work. See TFA as an example. I'm doubly skeptical on using SSRIs and other drugs on childrens, adolescents, and even young adults, as there are even more uncertainties about these drugs on still-developing brains!

Having said that, SSRIs are common medications today. The kind of people who are suicidal or have such a mood-disorder that going on a shooting rampage seems like a good idea are exactly the people for whom you would expect SSRIs to be prescribed! In other words, are SSRIs causing these issues (and earning your blame), or were the problems there to begin with?

I don't know, and I don't know of any studies or other medical evidence that points either way. IMH(and not not scientifically grounded)O, I would, like you, suspect some causal relationship.