Adobe says it is not providing free copies of Creative Studio 2 - <AUTHOR> http://forums.adobe.com/message/4974662 <comment><USER2> TL;DR

Blogs - "You can grab yourself a free, legitimate copy of Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite 2, right now, direct from Adobe. No catch."[1][2][3]

Adobe - "You have heard wrong! Adobe is absolutely not providing free copies of CS2!"

1- [http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/grab-photoshop-and- cs2-for-...](http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/01/grab-photoshop-and-cs2-for- absolutely-free-right-now/)

2- [http://lifehacker.com/5973750/download-adobe-creative- suite-...](http://lifehacker.com/5973750/download-adobe-creative- suite-2-including-photoshop-and-illustrator-for-free)

3- [http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/07/adobe-may-be- offering-a-...](http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/07/adobe-may-be-offering-a- free-and-legal-download-of-creative-suite-2/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Lots of comments here say that this doesn't really change anything for Photoshop, but I think that it does. Compare downloading a cracked version to downloading this version.

The cracked version might contain terrible malware. It might still contain activation code that will phone Adobe with your serial number. You probably downloaded it from BitTorrent, which we know is easily trackable. If a serial number is still required, you will be using a number that is well known as a pirated number.

This version will not contain terrible malware (it may even come with updates from the vendor!) It has been modified by the people who wrote it to definitely not contain activation code. You will have downloaded it directly from Adobe at their request, along with their other paying customers. If your serial number is ever reported, you are indistinguishable from a legitimate user. The bar has been raised from "this IP reports a pirated copy" or "this IP downloaded a pirated copy" to individually auditing possibly legitimate customers in person. Adobe can't even include the hash in the list of hashes that will trigger ISP copyright enforcement alerting systems such as "six strikes". Unlike existing cracked versions, the risk for using this is very low.

I too was expecting an interesting business announcement when I clicked the link, and I too was disappointed. However, if you think this is a harmless mistake and no different from the existing Pirate Bay release, you aren't thinking very scrappy. This could easily make CS2 the version of choice for students and startups. (And Mac users can run it in VirtualBox on WinXP)

</comment><comment><USER4> It might have been a screw-up, but Oracle does the exact same thing for all their products: you are free to download and install everything you want (and they provide universal license codes for acquired products that might still need them), but you're not actually allowed to _run_ anything past 30 days (with some exceptions, like Enteprise Linux, SQLDeveloper, XE etc). Nothing in the software actually forces you to stop, but should Oracle sue you, you're screwed. It's a win-win for everyone: users can easily train themselves, and Oracle gets mindshare and goodwill without renouncing their expensive support contracts and license renewals.

<comment><USER5> Adobe is trying to use it's 'creative cloud' to do this, without the risk of tonnes of people just taking the software and never paying for it.

This whole CS2 thing is total screw up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> IBM has done this forever. Its called soft licensing. (or at least that is what their term was)

It not a free copy. If you use this and they have proof, you would be sued for violating the licenses. Its the same as stealing. Just because they aren't locking you out doesn't mean you can use it.

<comment><USER7> It's not the same as stealing. When you steal something the person who formerly had it no longer has it. This term is commonly used inappropriately when talking about software and media licensing.

<comment><USER8> American Heritage Dictionary: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Collins: to take (something) from someone, etc. without permission or unlawfully, esp in a secret manner

Both of these trivially apply here.

<comment><USER9> They apply so far as we willingly ignore the distinction between moving and copying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So, Adobe is providing copies of CS2 that are activation free and are providing the serial numbers with the download? So it's basically an honesty system not to pirate it?

<comment><USER11> Photoshop is one of the most pirated pieces of software. It is not hard to find CS6 online for free. One way or another it's always been the honor system, no?

<comment><USER12> With the difference being that to most people it would appear the second method is advocated by Adobe whereas no one expects that Adobe wants you to pickup Photoshop from pirate bay.

<comment><USER13> I disagree. Adobe actually relies* (not that they could care to admit it and they shouldn't) on college kids pirating their software so they get familar with it and when they leave for jobs they can put on on their resume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What I find surprising is that the download page itself contains no mention whatsoever of licensing. It lists the system requirements and has a big graphic up the top apparently attempting to upsell you to CS6 / Creative Cloud.

Would it have been so hard to say something like, 'These downloads and keys are provided for users who already possess a valid CS2 license. If you have not paid for any of these products, you are not entitled to use them.' ?

Makes me lean more towards publicity stunt.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why have they not changed the information on their download page yet? <http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html>

For news sites that have not redacted or said something about this error, many of their readers are still going to be pushed towards downloading a free 'legitimate' program.

</comment><comment><USER16> For older Macromedia products they just provide special serial numbers: [http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy- pricing/macromedia...](http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy- pricing/macromedia-legacy-activation-error.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Looks like they released a statement via their blog [http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2013/01/update-on- cs2-a...](http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2013/01/update-on-cs2-and- acrobat-7-activation-servers.html)

<comment><USER18> And yet, it still doesn't say outright that random people hitting the download page aren't allowed to use it. Just: "While this might be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free, we did it to help our customers."

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What's the legality of this? Would it be illegal for me to download proprietary software from the owner's domain if the owner didn't mean to make available for free?

If a movie studio broadcast a brand-new movie over the air for free by mistake, would it be illegal for me to record it? Would I have to delete it? I'm pretty sure I couldn't put it up on a server for free download, otherwise I could do that with NFL games right now.

Does the fact that they require a license key (or make you click a box saying "I own a license") change this from legal to illegal?

<comment><USER20> > Does the fact that they require a license key (or make you click a box > saying "I own a license") change this from legal to illegal?

Definitely not. They should have released a version that doesn't not require a license key to use, but they were too lazy to open up the source code so they're giving out the special keys instead.

The fact is the program is their copyright, so you can't download it (or use it, or share it) without a license, under penalty of a lawsuit.

<comment><USER19> At what point does something enter the public domain, though? (I know the Disney/Sonny Bono 70-odd years rule for copyrights, but this seems different)

If an algorithmic trading company that is killing it happens to mistakenly leave a link to the copyrighted source code, can I use it? What if they publish their algorithm on the front page with no explanation? What if they publish it on the front page with a note saying "Free, take it!" but then retract that, saying it was a rogue employee? What if the CEO sends it to the WSJ or posts it to a comment box on another site? What if they make t-shirts with it, and a huge banner on the side of their building?

Basically, at what point of ridiculousness does the protection break down (if any)?

<comment><USER21> The law, contrary to what people in this thread have been saying, recognizes intent. It's the same principle as the recent, controversial ruling about the AT&T data leak. Yes, AT&T should have taken better steps to secure their data. But you retain control over even implicitly private data. Technical measures like DRM and passwords help to cement the intent, and impede people who would ignore a written warning.

In this case it's probably buried in the EULA for the non-activation version that you still need a valid CS2 license. While not all EULAs are enforcable, this seems like a pretty clear case where that condition would be upheld in court.

Your examples are all a bit silly, because that's what we have licenses for. In general, I would say if you found code with no license, or code being made available contrary to the license in the headers, it's not suitable for including in any project. I think a court would agree that a reasonable developer, finding what looks like proprietary code with no license attached, should not copy or derive code from that sample.

The t-shirts and huge banner are a funny case, because if you consider Oracle v Google ( or any other IP case involving open source ), it's entirely possible to make code available and retain control over it. Hell, even copyleft licenses are based on the idea that you can distribute something but legally restrict it's use.

In short, if you make a creative work you have broad control over how it's used, even if it's technically possible to use that work in ways you don't allow. In the absence of an explicit license, it's only safe to assume that you have no permission to use anything.

<comment><USER22> How would the EULA be enforceable on software a user reasonably found? That's like a contact in a book you find on the bus. Without a sale the UCC won't apply...

Copyright is called that because its about creating new copies, not reading an existing one.

<comment><USER21> How is the GPL enforcable? If you download code from Github, the copyright holder can restrict your usage, up to and including prohibiting anyone from using it. It's silly to conflate digital works with physical media, copyright properly refers to a creator's right to control and potentially profit from their intellectual property.

edit: I find it funny that on one hand, when 'stealing' comes up, people who reject IP law say 'but it's not like physical objects, they still have it'. Then when licenses come up, it's like 'finding a book on a bus'.

<comment><USER22> The GPL is enforceable in that it doesn't try to prevent anything. Using it merely means you share title in your derived work.

This (having GPLed code laying around) is a 'found book' scenario. You've got a copy that you didn't violate copyright to make, thus it's legal to use.

EULAs are a non-copyright attempt to control this usage. They used to be based on the idea that any and all copying, incidental or otherwise, was prohibited and thus to use software (and copy it into memory) you needed a license. But this has been specifically denied in current US copyright law.

Blanket permission is now given for copying where it's an inherent part of using the work. This supports the idea that usage is generally unrestricted (unless you or your agent acquired this specific copy by license). Which makes sense; they'd have called it UsageRight instead of CopyRight if they meant that.

Now EULAs are (usually) based on the Uniform Commercial Code but that requires a contract (of sale) which can, of course, only be binding on the original parties and their agents.

So again, why would a EULA be enforceable on software a user found?

As for forum humor, do you know what I find funny? It's when someone takes caricatures of different people's views on different topics, conflates them, declares them inconsistent, and shoots down an unrelated argument based on this trail of "logic".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does it really cost that much to keep an activation server running? How much are we talking here?

<comment><USER24> I think it's not only the actual cost of running an activation server, but supports associated with it. (E.g. People maxing out activation count, etc.)

<comment><USER25> Seems like the best approach would be to replace the activation server with something that says "Yep, you're activated."

That way you can gather potentially useful data, and perhaps change your mind later, while not requiring any support and resources beyond 0.001% of a CPU somewhere.

<comment><USER24> That's probably the approach Microsoft is taking with their activation, not sure if Adobe incorporates similar scheme. Not that Microsoft's server always respond "yep, you're activated" but I heard from somewhere they do reset activation counts after a certain period after last activation. (Something like 6 months.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A good marketing ploy to save money by decommissioning their Validation servers. Would be interesting to see the cost of maintenance versus.

Having said that, this is bad for the GIMP guys

</comment><comment><USER27> I have to believe that Adobe did this on purpose, at least from a marketing standpoint. If they indeed didn't want blogs releasing this as "free" all of these major publications (LIKE FORBES) would not be using that word in the headline.

I think the PR team at Adobe labeled this as free or, at the very least, pitched at reporters that way, and I frankly don't think this is a problem or that they're upset about it.

<comment><USER28> Anybody can have a blog on Forbes, and it's not Forbes the editorial team publishing them. It's sad that Forbes hinged its brand on the occasional piles of malarky that are published on those blogs, especially since you're using the "It's Forbes!" argument here. Most "Forbes" blogs are around the quality level of Business Insider (read as: pollution).

<comment><USER29> I often find Forbes blog entries more interesting than the actual magazine articles, though that is, of course, not the same as saying that the blogs are on average any good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Seems an honest mistake, although it would be brilliant marketing to release CS2 for free or very cheap because people (companies) who pay $1000+ for Adobe CS would not still be stuck on CS2...

<comment><USER31> Maybe where YOU work they're not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> If problems is shorthand for "has a lot of cease and desist paperwork to file" I agree.

I'm not clear what Adobe did wrong here, other than actually try to not completely screw people running very old versions of their software.

Sadly, no one would seriously make an accusation that they were screwing up if they had just shut off the validation servers and posted an note to their knowledge base, ID #FU-CS2-15-01734-81-CS6-plz.

</comment><comment><USER33> _What is true is that Adobe is terminating the activation servers for CS2 and that for existing licensed users of CS2 who need to reinstall their software, copies of CS2 that don't require activation but do require valid serial numbers are available._

==From Adobe

</comment><comment><USER34> "Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." Henry Ford

<https://twitter.com/Adobe/status/288382433391435777>

If this is meant to be related it's borderline genius.

</comment><comment><USER35> [that page](<http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html>) is still up for me with serial #. I didn't even purchase CS2.

</comment><comment><USER36> So, CS2 is free but it is actually not free? Interesting that they would make CS2 free as it is only compatible with PowerPC based Macs.

Should have just made CS4 free and had more people jump onto the upgrade bandwagon!

<comment><USER11> No, I'm pretty sure it's not free at all.

Yes, you can get away with using it without paying for it, but that doesn't make it free or legal.

<comment><USER37> Yes, it's very clear on the forum that you need to already own a license to use this. There's just nothing in place to stop you from using it if you don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> 'Own Goal'!

[http://normanconquesttech.blogspot.com/2013/01/adobe- scores-...](http://normanconquesttech.blogspot.com/2013/01/adobe-scores-major- own-goal.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> Awful title. I half-expected to see bankruptcy proceedings.

</comment><comment><USER28> I never advocate changing titles, but this one is in need of work. It took me a bit to realize what was going on.

Also, this seems like a non-issue. As I understand it, they've built a version that doesn't require activation and takes a special serial number, so they can phase out the CS2 activation servers. Some blogger (shocker, at Gizmodo) being fast and loose with the facts, well, got that wrong. Other blogs copied that mistake (a real problem in the "blogosphere"), Adobe took down the page that was linked, Monday rolls on. We're talking about software that won't even run on an Intel Mac here, people.

The rest of this story is, "hey, check out the beating Adobe is taking on their forum!" Thanks, blogs. You win again.

<comment><USER40> Candidly, it's not just "in the blogosphere" - it's a staple for media in general, to the point where one could forgo labeling it a problem, and just call it an aspect.

Other than that, agree with your post.

<comment><USER11> I agree that this problem is not exclusive to the medium, but it is endemic. I mean, many blogs speculated about Adobe's motivation for releasing "free" software, but did anyone pick up a phone or send an email to ask them about it?

<comment><USER41> Of course they didn't. Mostly because they just wanted to have the story "first", and secondly because most of them either don't have editors / fact- checkers or don't care about them.

It's the price we pay for getting news as fast as we do.

<comment><USER42> You're right about they trying to get the story out ASAP, I always wonder why bloggers won't have the same adrenaline rush to get their facts right.

<comment><USER43> Because those articles are generally boring, disappointing, and come out hours after all the other sites have amassed 22k shares and likes for their articles, earning them The Master of the Internet badge on publishers-circle- leaflet.com for the day. It's a new social site where bloggers get badges for having other people do all the hard work, and all your positive reputation gets reset by a rogue cron script at night.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Oh, so they have a special copy of CS2 with a key that will allow it to work since Adobe's activation servers are down. That having been said, it is _intended_ for users that already hold a CS2 license.

</comment><comment><USER45> Sounds like someone at Adobe is having a very bad day.</comment>


Calorie restriction and intermittent fasting can help regenerate brain matter - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/reboot-your-brain-science-says-its-possible-a-galaxy-classic.html <comment><USER2> I've seen calorie restriction articles posted a few times on here. Why the fascination? It's a rather challenging approach to longevity, and for most people there are easier ways to improve long term health. Specifically:

Avoid all foods with hydrogenated oils (promotes heart disease.)

Avoid homogenized milk (promotes blood vessel plaque, heart disease.)

Eliminate excess sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Substitute with agave nectar which is just as yummy and very low glycemic. (promotes diabetes and creates inconsistent blood glucose levels which promote obesity.)

Avoid refined carbohydrates, substituting whole grains, vegetables, sweet potatoes, nuts, legumes, berries, greens, etc. Substitute wheat for quinoa and teff. Substitute white rice for brown rice. (Refined carbs deplete B vitamins and promote glucose instability.)

Avoid all meat packed with sodium nitrate (promotes colon cancer). Look for "uncured" meats.

Avoid artificial sugars, flavors, colors. (Nearly all of them have unfortunate side effects.)

Try to get 90% of your protein from plant sources. (excess animal protein is associated with disease)

Go outside! (Sunshine promotes vitamin D which is critical for immune function, and vitamin D strongly prevents cancer.) While you're there, exercise! :)

Read: The China Study by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Cancer-Gate by Dr. Samuel Epstein

<comment><USER3> I don't mind a little sun, but there are less carcinogenic ways of getting Vitamin D.

As for the whole list, it's just a list of plausible theories to me; unfortunately, it would take quite a bit of tedious research to approach figuring out what's quackery. Could you recommend some high quality research (or surveys of it) for any/all of the above?

<comment><USER2> Yeah, there's a lot of disinformation about health running around. I've been researching nutrition informally for about 10 years. The only really useful pattern is that most of the disinformation is profitable to someone. It's frustrating how much that disinformation prevents people I know and care about from making even basic improvements to their diet.

As for sun and cancer, sunlight is actually more helpful than harmful, and policy recommendations suggestion avoiding the sun are causing problems. <http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/03/23/8666.aspx> You can get Vitamin D from supplements though.

For the rest of the things on the list, The China Study is where I suggest starting if your just getting into health and nutrition, and prepare to be blown away.

I don't think anything I mentioned is particularly disputed or hard to confirm with some Googling. There's opposition though. The dairy industry certainly won't tell you that homogenizing milk puts plaque in your blood vessels, for example. The meat industry doesn't want you to know about sodium nitrate, etc.

My argument is just that, for most people, there's something basic they're already doing routinely to sabotage their health, so trying calorie restriction without fixing those first is bad optimization.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the replies, both of you.

My organic milk (I only buy it because I prefer the taste) is more homo. than cheap milk. I wonder if it's therefore worse in any meaningful way.

<comment><USER2> Organic avoids the heavy hormones and antibiotics from regular milk. You can definitely get non-homogenized organic milk though. You just have to shake it before drinking. Avoid Horizon brands (see the Organic Consumers Association reports on them for details.) HTH.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >But again, additional research suggests that not all exercise is equal. Interestingly, some researchers found that exercise considered drudgery was not beneficial in neuronal regeneration, but physical activity that was engaged in purely for fun, even if equal time was spent and equal calories were burned, resulted in neuronal regeneration.

D'oh.

<comment><USER5> D'oh or not, many people consider exercise a chore and treat it like one. Might be a good idea to variate a bit.</comment></comment>


The Bureau – XCOM Declassified Launches for Mac OS X - <AUTHOR> http://www.ihash.eu/2013/12/bureau-xcom-declassified-launches-mac-os-x/

<comment><USER2> I posted this link on hn a while ago: [http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/8/19/4614410/xcom- the-b...](http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/8/19/4614410/xcom-the-bureau- development-2006-2013), but it didn't get much traction. I thought it was a great example of software development done wrong.</comment>


Texts from Xcode - <AUTHOR> http://www.textfromxcode.com/

<comment><USER2> So glad I don't have to deal with iOS development.</comment>


8bitworkshop IDE: Designing Hardware with Verilog - <AUTHOR> http://8bitworkshop.com/blog/release/2018/12/15/verilog-programming.html <comment><USER2> Hey this is great! I still can't believe how hard this stuff is to do these days (lack of good 'newbie' tooling and tutorials with the exceptions)

</comment><comment><USER3> I use that to play with Atari 2600 programming. My bookmark was to the 2.1.1 version, guess I've been missing out on some nice features.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting. Buying the 3 books in kindle and may read it on the plane. Wonder what Env needed.

<comment><USER4> Seems all online no offline one.

<comment><USER4> Actually you can offline as in detailed in the GitHub

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Brilliant!</comment>


Backdoor mechanism still active in devices using HiSilicon chips - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/researcher-backdoor-mechanism-discovered-in-devices-using-hisilicon-chips/ <comment><USER2> [https://habr.com/en/post/486856/](https://habr.com/en/post/486856/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not a HiSilicon thing, but instead a "feature" of Sofia DVR software made by XiongMai (Hangzhou Xiongmai Technology Co.,Ltd).

I tried the exploits on my HiSilicon Hi3518 IP camera, and none worked. It has no weird open ports (including telnet, ssh, ftp, http[s]) and communicates with temporary udp ports and the local broadcast IP address.

Basically you broadcast the camera's name, command and hash that includes the password, and if it acknowledges your request it will reply to you on the specified IP and port with a UDP packet. If you want to watch the camera, you have to listen on a port and tell it to send the stream to you. It's a push not a pull configuration.

</comment><comment><USER4> When I read the title, I thought the chip has backdoors.. so misleading...</comment>


You can be busy or remarkable, but not both... - <AUTHOR> http://calnewport.com/blog/2013/04/03/you-can-be-busy-or-remarkable-but-not-both/

<comment><USER2> I agree that filling your time with non-technical professional obligations and meetings can really destroy your productivity. However, the author seems to think that Tao's greatness is in large part attributable to his working schedule. I'm not really convinced of that. I imagine there are a lot of other things that make Tao really good at what he does. Moreover, I also would guess that for many academic (and probably industrial) careers, non-technical professional obligations, like serving on committees, can be good for increasing your visibility and the size of your network. As with anything, prioritization and moderation are key.</comment>


Why Andy Rubin left Android - <AUTHOR> http://stratechery.com/2013/the-real-reason-andy-rubin-left-android/

<comment><USER2> "The report said Rubin told a room full of Google executives that Google-owned phone-maker Motorola was a hedge against Samsung growing too powerful."

Andy Rubin was perfect for the job of breaking into carriers and OEMs. At Danger, he learned exactly how unfair that process is, and he was ready to wield Google's market power like Thor's hammer.

"Rubin's comments indicated a view of Android as something to preserve and protect."

That would be the right mind-set - if Rubin were still at Danger. But the struggle with OEMs and carriers is largely over and won more thoroughly than Rubin himself likely dared wish for.

Now Android, or Chrome, or both, are ready to carve up the carcass of the Windows PC business. That requires a completely different approach.</comment>


MacOS Sierra - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/macos-sierra/id1127487414?mt=12 <comment><USER2> Heads up for anyone using Karabiner to remap their keyboard-- it's not updated for Sierra yet.

I figure that's a more popular app among HN crowd than most places, and losing it is really painful.

<comment><USER3> What can Karabiner do better than Ukelele?

[http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=...](http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=ukelele)

<comment><USER2> It can do almost anything with the keyboard. I'd suggest just checking it out. A lot of people make changes to caps lock, shift key, left/right option/command, etc. I only do two things, setting fn to send hyper and swapping semicolon/colon. It's more about individual rules than a new keyboard layout (which is what Ukulele appeared to be in my 5 minutes with it).

Maybe other people can chime in on their uses, since I'm not the best to fully answer your question.

<comment><USER4> It also has a lot of prebaked configurations in it. For example there's one that changes Slovenian Apple layout (which is pretty nonsensical with @ on 3rd level) to the standard layout used by PCs. That's hugely useful for people who use Mac Minis / iMacs with non-Apple keyboards (since Apple refuses to add the standard layout to OS X).

With Karabiner that's an issue of a single tick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not a macOS release with out the Ars Technica review: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/macos-10-12-sierra- the-...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/macos-10-12-sierra-the-ars- technica-review/)

They also have an article to create a bootable USB install drive for clean installs: [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/how-to-make-your- own-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/how-to-make-your-own-bootable- macos-10-12-sierra-usb-install-drive/)

<comment><USER6> I miss Siracusa's review.

Not to diminish the current author at all. But it was as old as OS X itself. The style, depth, hidden jokes and all, kind of a tradition. Something I would look forward to almost as much as the upgrade itself

<comment><USER7> and complaints about the Finder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been running the final beta for a couple of weeks, tonight I plan on downgrading to El Cap, and staying there for a few months.

I have not found a single useful feature, and many bugs, both on the OS (time machine seems more broken than usual) and in other apps (notably Emacs keeps crashing).

Maybe I'm getting old, but I would strongly recommend leaving this one until at least .1, if not .3

<comment><USER9> That seems to be the norm for OS X / macOS releases lately... I definitely won't be upgrading any time soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "Copy a quote, image, or video from an app on one device and paste it into > an app on another device."

Oh my I'm looking forward to this. How many silly workarounds (pastebins, email drafts, iMessages to self, Safari bookmarks) have we used to approximate this?

<comment><USER11> While they're at it, can we make paste and match style the default? I can never remember the four key chord to do this and as a result send emails that look like ransom notes because of mismatched formatting.

<comment><USER12> You can do the "paste into address bar and re-copy" dance. I'm getting pretty fast!

CMD-C CMD-T CMD-V CMD-A CMD-C CMD-W CMD-V

<comment><USER13> If you're using chrome, the omnibar seems to send out whatever you type to (google's?) server for search suggestion, so you shouldn't do that if you're copying sensitive data. You can use ⌘+shift+v to paste the text without formatting (and without sending your data to some random servers).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Siri makes its debut on Mac"<\- because cortana received such positive reviews?

Siri has been in iOS since 2011 and still can't handle basic parsing/questions.

There was that demo of something that looked a lot better, but I've never seen it actual rolled into the product.

<comment><USER15> Is it a voice/accent thing? Siri and Google both do fine with my general questions and commands. If you have some list, I would love to test them.

<comment><USER16> > Siri and Google both do fine with my general questions and commands

I think it depends. For instance asking Siri while my phone is locked what time it is and Siri will tell me (useful when I'm across the room, in the shower, etc). Google? I ask it for the time and it tells me to unlock the phone. Yet Siri can't handle asking anything about current events whereas Google can.

If only there were a way to combine them or at least see progress on them working on their shortcomings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For non-technical users, is there a good tutorial I can point them at to disable iCloud Desktop/Document deleting? This is extremely bad behavior and I have no clue why Apple thought this was a good idea.

Like, this is class action material imho. You can't just take people's files and lock them behind a paywall just because they previously opted into the paywall on a case by case basis.

Edit: For those downvoting, it doesn't change the fact that Apple is turning file deletion on by default. This is not a good idea, especially when most of the world and part of the US still has pretty shitty Internet, or people have Internet caps.

Apple fanboyism helps no one.

<comment><USER18> Can you elaborate on this? Is OSX deleting iCloud documents if you run out of space?

<comment><USER19> No, it deletes documents off your computer and puts them in the cloud.

If you subsequently stop paying for iCloud, you risk losing them. Or having to pay to restore them.

Yeah, it's opt-in and somewhat "implied", but I think the OP is saying there really should be an "* if you use this feature, an active iCloud subscription is required"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Finally need a new Mac ! My 2009 MBP has been cast off from the upgrade train - forever to be stuck in ElCapitan :( Over the years I could upgrade the HD speed and size from 5400 rpm -> 7200 -> Momentus -> 512 GB SSD. Can't say that about the newer MBPs .. (waiting for October to see what comes out)

<comment><USER21> I have the same feelings about my infrequently used but trusted 2009 Mac Pro. After upgrading RAM, GPU and spending SSD disks it was performing "well- enough" after all these years. It's sad that I have to replace it not because of performance issues but being stuck with an old OS now.

<comment><USER22> Is this so terrible? Presumably El Capitan will get security updates and your machine will continue to work for some time to come.

<comment><USER23> It's kind of a pain though as there's no current equivalent machine if you've got an older Mac Pro with decent graphics card in it

For desktops it's either the aging and not user upgradable Mac Pro or the aging (but less so) iMac.

<comment><USER24> Do not, under any circumstances, buy the 'new' MP.

Literally the worst thing I've ever spent 6k on. DO NOT DO IT.

Buy the iMac 5k 3 times instead.

<comment><USER21> Care to explain? I really planned to buy a Pro instead of an iMac because of upgradeability. Why don't you recommend it?

<comment><USER24> Well, I don't know what the next nMP looks like, but presumably it will have the same form factor, so... none of it is upgradeable (apart from RAM, but... RAM is basically infinite these days)?

I've had a lot of issues with it, specifically:

1\. Does not send display signal over mDP consistently. I have 2x 30" Apple Cinema displays connected to it. Sometimes it boots up without displaying anything on them. I have to restart it several times, unplug-and-replug both mDP and USB (the Cinema Display needs USB plugged in to work), clear NVRAM, etc until I finally see the login prompt.

It's not my machine because my partner has the same exact machine with the same configuration and it happens to her.

This is with the D700's so... who knows.

2\. USB power is hit and miss. Sometimes it won't power up my Apple keyboard (no key input registered, caps lock light won't turn on, etc). Sometimes it won't power up anything on a specific port/bus until reboot. Again, not machine specific.

3\. The SSD (Model: APPLE SSD SM0512F) is slow. I paid $$$ for the 512Gb SSD (the 1Tb was some ridiculous $ at the time, and I thought the better allocation of $ was to the GPU -- I regret this decision now because I'm SOL and can't expand my internal storage. I have a SSD-on-USB3 connected now for my VMs and what not). Sometimes I launch Finder and have to wait like 4-5 seconds before it shows me my home directory. There's really not much in there. A lot of other FS operations take longer than expected.

It's a longer list than this, but I really feel this thing is a lemon.

Maybe they'll address all these issues in the next rev, but my 2008 MP was on its last legs and I needed something to drive two monitors.

The iMac 5k is basically an awesome screen with a free computer attached. You can throw it out (or donate it, or whatever) and buy a new one every 2 years with the money you'd spend on the nMP every 5-6 years. It might not be the most powerful computer in the world, but it's good enough for like 95% of use cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Worth noting that the GPGMail plugin doesn't work yet with sierra.

[https://gpgtools.org/](https://gpgtools.org/)

</comment><comment><USER26> We really just need new hardware!! What is worse is they're selling their hardware at full price. I was in the Apple Store and the rep was trying to sell an iMac / Mac Pro to a poor punter who had no idea of their age. I didn't quite have the courage to interrupt the conversation but I did leave this little gem: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgury35bsickbvu/MacProProtest.jpeg...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgury35bsickbvu/MacProProtest.jpeg?dl=0)

<comment><USER27> They're probably busy working on the ARM architecture switch.. that would explain the long delay

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So, there's no new features that anybody asked for, save the clipboard thing, which has unfortunate security implications, and there's a ton of nonsense none of us will ever use, as the Mac platform gets increasingly complex ("the computer for the rest of us" is now anything but), moves away from Unix compatability, and doesn't do anything useful with this additional complexity, but _does_ cause emacs to crash.

I'd wait until they stabilize it a bit before upgrading. Or just don't upgrade.

<comment><USER29> > _So, there 's no new features that anybody asked for_

Many asked for tabs in every app, shared clipboard, more voice control, improved Photos app and better iTunes, picture in picture, and more full featured Messages app. Plus few would ask Apple to take back the ability to save space (up to tens of GB) through iCloud/Desktop integration and more.

In the meantime, there's also a new filesystem on the way, already in early public developer versions.

> _and there 's a ton of nonsense none of us will ever use, as the Mac > platform gets increasingly complex_

Like? I can't possible thing anything that got made more complex, save for a couple of trivial things (with an equal amount of other stuff or more becoming easier).

> _moves away from Unix compatability_

In what way it had moved one iota from Unix compatibility?

> _and doesn 't do anything useful with this additional complexity_

What complexity? What exactly did you find more complex compared to 10.10, or 10.7 or 10.5 or whatever?

Besides something like "sandboxed apps make it difficult to piss all over the filesystem, like old apps could".

<comment><USER28> >Like? I can't possible thing anything that got made more complex, save for a couple of trivial things (with an equal amount of other stuff or more becoming easier).

UI complexity: Apple keeps moving the goalposts on its UI focus, and it shows: The new interface is WAAY more complex.

EC did some interesting unix things, which broke some stuff IIRC.

The new FS will be nice, but it's not there _now_.

<comment><USER29> > _UI complexity: Apple keeps moving the goalposts on its UI focus, and it > shows: The new interface is WAAY more complex._

What would be a concrete example?

(And is that example major and/or indicative of lots of changes towards difficulty, or just a random example, among other things that got easier and some that got harder?)

> _EC did some interesting unix things, which broke some stuff IIRC._

Well, even Linux might break some UNIX stuff ocassionally (systemd anyone?). But is there anything specific and important in EC or Sierra regarding that?

> _The new FS will be nice, but it 's not there now._

A developer version is included with Sierra, but yes, it's no there fully formed and default.

<comment><USER28> Systemd is crap, but it broke little.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Who else is going to wait for the .2 or .3 release for better stability?

It used to be that Windows was the one that was always made fun of for its instability and bugs, and everyone would upgrade to a new version only after SP1 was released. Well, at one point it got even more funny (for other reasons) when the very first release of Windows Server 2008 was actually Windows Server 2008 SP1 (so the first "service pack" released later was SP2). [1]

The scene on the OS X/macOS front has not been good for a long time with respect to .0 releases. If there is one release of Mac OS X that will be held dear and always remembered of fondly, that'd be Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. It came nearly two years after its predecessor, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, and had only under-the-hood improvements. [2] But subsequent releases after it have become more bloated and not provided a great experience in their .0 versions. After a long gap, OS X El Capitan was supposed to be like Snow Leopard, with improvements mainly in stability and performance.

The problem with bloated and less stable major releases is that whenever a better release comes along, many Macs may not be eligible to upgrade to them. This leaves the owners of those machines stuck with a relatively newer but somewhat crippled OS with no easy way forward. It would be good to have Apple focus more on the stability and performance aspect in every single major release, but that's just a dream.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Service_Pa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Service_Pack)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard)

<comment><USER31> I think your feeling that Apple keeps dropping support for computers by releasing bloated, less stable releases is a bit off base.

I can't remember who, but I was hearing an ex-Apple employee (it was someone like Don Melton who lead the Safari and WebKit team) talk about Snow Leopard after they left Apple. They were saying the "No Major Features" tagline was something that was thought up by marketing very late in the process. Also, the bug count was on par with other releases. Sorry to drop such a bold claim without a specific citation. I think if it was more rock-solid than other releases it was more luck than anything else.

While that may not have been their goal marketing/Steve Jobs might have picked up on how that version developed. Snow Leopard dropped PPC support, which I'm sure streamlined a lot of things and shrank the size of their fat binaries. Finder was rewritten in Cocoa--which is very user-facing (and could have introduced major bugs). With the drop of PPC support it dropped support for the largest number of computers I saw in use by friends and family. OSX releases from Mountain Lion (2012) until just today with Sierra, didn't drop support for any computers. Even then, the newest computers they dropped support for were from 2010.[1]

I'm not saying new versions aren't slower than predecessors. OSX 10.0 was incredibly slow and I think there was a lot of low-hanging fruit to increase performance (heck, moving desktop rendering/compositing to the GPU lightens the load on the CPU a lot).

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Sierra#System_requiremen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Sierra#System_requirements)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is there anything noteworthy under the hood that would compel power users to upgrade? None of the features listed on Apple.com look like things that would be useful from my perspective.

<comment><USER33> I guess the new file system is kind of exciting.

<comment><USER30> The new file system (APFS) will be released in 2017. It's available only as a developer preview now with macOS Sierra.

<comment><USER33> Shoot. (Siri, wake me in 2017.)

<comment><USER34> Okay, I found this on the web for 'wake me in twenty seventeen'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Standard protocol applies: wait 90 days after GA and assess if it's time to upgrade. There should be one or two minor updates by then.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm, there's surprisingly little in there if you don't have (or want) an iPhone. Is it time for us that don't want to use (and only use) Apple devices to shop elsewhere?

<comment><USER29> It's free, adds lots of stuff in the backend (libs etc), it's the default version from now on (the one with all the new hardware support, security updates, etc), it fixes several bugs from older versions (and of course will introduce some new of its own, nothing is perfect), and for those "without an iPhone" it has better voice control, tabs everywhere, new Messages and Photos app, updated Mail app, and a nice Cloud integration to save you space, with on-demand transparently downloaded files.

OS X is not like some third party program that works for decades and you decide whether to bother to uprgade to the next version or not. It's more like modern browsers: it's evergreen and you're supposed, if your hardware supports it, to be running the latest version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> If you use tmux you need to use reattach-to-user-namespace if you want copy and paste to work. I had removed this from my config since I didn't need it for El Capitan, but just had to re-add it for Sierra.

      set-option -g default-shell "/bin/bash"
      set-option -g default-command "reattach-to-user-namespace -l $SHELL"

</comment><comment><USER37> I'd rather see updated Mac hardware. According to MacRumors, it's been 490 days since the last MacBook Pro Retina was released.

<comment><USER38> MacMini 705 days (2 years)

Mac Pro 1009 days (almost 3 years)

Appalling!

<comment><USER30> Yeah, it is appalling. Making Macs has truly become a tiny side business for Apple in more ways than one. It's clear that Macs don't make a dent in its profits and so aren't important. Considering how much money Apple has, it's not an issue of not having people to work on this or of lack of talent.

<comment><USER39> I'd love a new Mac as much as anyone else, but really for what they do, they do most everything well right now. Until prices favor a major upgrade or Apple favors a major change to macOS, I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to do an iterative update of the non-mobile line. A new iPhone moves products. A new Mac, not as much.

The desktop/laptop realm enjoys a great amount of freedom in that most everything works well and there just aren't a lot of features that Apple is ready to compete on. They aren't going to win with gaming, they aren't controlling enough of the market to battle for niche programs, and the major software suites they do have run pretty damn well on current hardware.

It would be a numbers update only and I just don't really see a lot of reason until Apple starts doing something to justify the numbers. Youtube and Facebook can only load so fast for their users.

<comment><USER30> I get your points, but Apple's inattention poses a few issues for certain users:

a) There are machines with better spec'd hardware from other vendors while Apple sits around doing nothing or close to nothing for a few years.

PLUS

b) At any point in time, there are people with older Macs who'd like to upgrade to the current state-of-the-art...or more importantly, to get the best bang for their buck.

PLUS

c) Apple continues selling older hardware at the same prices and does not reduce prices over time until it releases a new model, which could be several years later. This makes the hardware overpriced compared to non-Apple ones.

The above combination of factors make it quite hard to justify expenses on older hardware for a good number of Mac users (as can be seen on various forums) who're invested in the Mac/OS X platform and wouldn't want the hassle of switching to Windows or Linux. It thus creates a lot of fence-sitters who keep refreshing the Macrumors Buyer's Guide regularly and hope for something to happen.

<comment><USER39> c) resonates the strongest for me out of the arguments, as the first two are just sort of different versions of the same argument (just want bigger numbers), though I do appreciate both.

I would think though that in most cases, the persons considering a Mac are rarely looking at the specs to make the decision - Apple hasn't tried to compete with specs for a long time, and instead relied on word of mouth and OS X to carry them. Maybe a refresh would help make that a bit better, but I also feel they're stuck in a bad loop where because of how long it has been since a refresh for some devices, they need to really release something crazy good for the price to avoid the ire of purchasers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm not so sure how i'll use siri. I think i'll be faster and more precise with the keyboard, forever. There is the inverse, the good old "say" command.

"say" is wonderful. Try peppering bash scripts or build systems with verbal status about success or failure. Seems to cut through the context switch time really well.

</comment><comment><USER41> Hopefully this means that Pascal drivers aren't far away for Hackintosh setups with Nvidia's 1000-series line.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone know if a different storage engine can be used in place of iCloud?

(I ask because I'm not keen on my data being exported to foreign country with very different privacy laws and I'd also like to be able to shop around without being tied to a single storage supplier).

<comment><USER29> > _Does anyone know if a different storage engine can be used in place of > iCloud?_

Obviously not. There was not even a chance in hell that that could even be possible.

<comment><USER42> Conceptually, any such application is just an internet-connected filesystem driver with (presumably) a local cache in front. So there's no technical reason it couldn't be pluggable, just Apple being Apple as usual.

<comment><USER29> > _Conceptually, any such application is just an internet-connected filesystem > driver with (presumably) a local cache in front._

If we oversimplify to death, yes.

In the real world, it's an application created on a deadline, to work on a specific backend and take advantage of its features, and to serve as a basis for future development (and to work across OS X, iOS, etc). Some of the stuff also includes tight integration with the filesystem and/or kernel -- which would be a gaping security hole to pass to third parties to play with.

> _So there 's no technical reason it couldn't be pluggable, just Apple being > Apple as usual._

It's a for profit company being a for profit company as usual. No proprietary OS maker develops such a flagship feature as an interchangeable pluggable infrastructure to hand to competitors (Google Drive, MS equivalent, etc).

Not only it makes no sense from a competitive point of view, it would limit them technologically too, as they would need to specify entry points and APIs that they then can't change.

<comment><USER42> > as they would need to specify entry points and APIs that they then can't > change.

Presumably they could add new extensions as they go, and disable functionality that depends on them if they're not available. This stuff isn't exactly rocket science.

<comment><USER29> They could, but apps would break (especially ones whose devs are not quick to update or have abandoned), third party devs will complain on changes, etc. They wouldn't be able to iterate as they like, or make it depend on stuff only deep integration can provide.

And what would they get in instead? The ability to have the storage be powered by a third party cloud service because some folks might not trust or wont adopt iCloud?

If anything, they want folks to have reasons to adopt iCloud, not commoditize it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've written it elsewhere, but it might be worse repeating here:

OS X is not like some third party program that works for ages and you decide whether to bother to upgrade to the next version or not.

It's more like modern browsers: it's evergreen and you're supposed, if your hardware supports it, to be running the latest version.

Regardless of any major new features, a new version gets the security updates going forward, the bugfixes that stop for the previous OS, is the one compatible with new hardware, etc.

<comment><USER31> To play devil's advocate; I honestly don't see that many bugfixes in new OS releases that weren't introduced by the major release.

I think a lot of people might be much happier if they just stuck to what was installed when they bought it. You don't have to worry about performance degradations, things in the UI moving around, new bugs, etc. People complain about their phones becoming so slow and unusable they feel "forced" to upgrade. If they stuck with the version of software installed when they got it, it would perpetually perform the same. In the old days Windows was an exception to this. As you used it, it would get slower, required routine maintenance and seemed to benefit from the occasional re-install. Phone calls, e-mail, audio playback, twitter, basic browsing, and the fitness app you might use doesn't really need the latest version.

Like you mentioned, you miss out on modern security updates. The other big thing (you also mentioned) is buying a new shiny device and finding out you need a newer OS to support it.

I tend to update everything, but I'm also willing to take the time to read and debug so I know what's happening inside and out. I don't blame people for not wanting to spend that energy or deal with the hassle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> As someone who doesn't connect my phone to my work computer, there are very few new features I can use. Picture-in-picture is the main one.

</comment><comment><USER44> In case anyone is doing anything in Matlab and is considering macOS Sierra, watch out this incompatibility with some non-US locales:

[http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/303757-is- mat...](http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/303757-is-matlab- compatible-with-macos-10-12-sierra?s_tid=answers_rcts)

</comment><comment><USER45> When I try to visit this page on my iOS device, it opens the App Store instead, where I am shown a nearly-blank screen informing me that "macOS Sierra is only available on macOS". I can then click a link to "Learn More [sic] about this app", which opens the page I originally wanted to view in Safari.

</comment><comment><USER46> While waiting for the webpage to load I eagerly imagined a port of all my favorite old games to OS X.

<comment><USER47> If you mean DOS games... use Boxer (it's basically a way to package DOSBox into self-contained apps).

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Does anybody know if the upgrade to Sierra also takes an eternity if you have many files in /usr/local? (homebrew, tex, etc.) Previous upgrades moved all files, one by one, out of /usr/local and then back in during the upgrade.

</comment><comment><USER49> Does any method of converting the store image to a bootable disk, like the previous versions, exist? Anybody tried it?

I prefer testing major upgrades as clean installs.

 _EDIT_ : createinstallmedia method is reported to be working. Haven't tried it yet myself.

<comment><USER50> [http://macdaddy.io/install-disk-creator/](http://macdaddy.io/install-disk- creator/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Sierra wiped my iTunes library

<comment><USER52> That's a problem... Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER51> It wiped my playlists. Every time I restore my playlist backup it syncs and rewipes it. Will report back when I figure out the fix

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm not seeing it on the "Updates" tab within the App Store. Are people usually supposed to search for it?

<comment><USER54> New OS versions are not considered "updates" to anything so you have to look for them on the Mac App Store. Though Apple usually puts a big link on the front page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Anyone having trouble with macports or homebrew?

<comment><USER56> I haven't installed yet as I'm just waiting for a current backup to complete. However, generally you have to run the command below after every OS update since El Cap.

sudo chown -R $(whoami) /usr/local

<comment><USER55> how disappointing... everything is working fine, even stuff installed by macports.. the only thing that doesn't works is the port command itself

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Anyone config apache locally by hand? Every year seems to be another game of "What do I have to re-enable for vhosts, php versions, etc".

<comment><USER58> I'm using MAMP Pro, which has its own version of Apache so the config files won't get overwritten. [https://www.mamp.info/en/mamp- pro/](https://www.mamp.info/en/mamp-pro/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> [https://puu.sh/rikNL/c0ecb8bcff.png](https://puu.sh/rikNL/c0ecb8bcff.png)

outlook unclear

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> OP here. OT, but I came across a post on HN saying macOS Sierra was out, and it gave instructions on how to navigate to it from the App Store for download. So I did, then I copied the direct link and posted it. Now I'm on the front page. HN is funny.

<comment><USER16> Your post provided less friction. The least amount of friction _typically_ wins :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> The new file system has been delayed by a year, right?

<comment><USER30> When it was announced in WWDC, Apple clearly said APFS would be released in 2017. As announced then, what's available now is a developer preview.

> "So Apple File System will ship, by default on all devices in 2017. So to > summarize, Apple File System will be the default file system for all Apple > products 2017,... " [1]

[1]: [https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/701/](https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/701/) (go to the transcript and search for "2017")

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Let's count the useful features since Snow Leopard:

1\. Messages integration to text from laptop

2.

<comment><USER62> For you maybe, for others, many of the new features have been very useful.</comment></comment>


Haven't heard a single critical analysis of Thunderbolt. So here I go.. - <AUTHOR>

I am not an expert by any means, but I do have something to say about this Thunderbolt thing.
First things first, Thunderbolt is just a technology, not a protocol, which is good, but it also has some implications. For instance, it cannot really replace any existing protocols. So questions about the fate of USB 3.0 in the wake of Thunderbolt sound misguided to me.
It seems to me that Apple's intention behind this technology is to have a single type of port to connect everything. That would make it seem like you can get rid of your USB, firewire etc. ports. But since your device expects to be plugged into a certain port, you ultimately have to provide that port. Which means that you do need to buy a new dongle, unlike what people are claiming. For instance, if you have a USB flash disk, one end of the Thunderbolt cable can be plugged into your MacBook, but the other end has to expose a USB port (assuming Thunderbolt will carry USB packets, which it does not today). So either the cable has to be Thunderbolt on one end and USB on the other, or the device needs to have a Thunderbolt port. This is good for Apple because eventually they can have only Thunderbolt ports on their Macs, which saves money and makes them cheaper, but pushes the cost out to consumers or device manufacturers.
Also, currently supported protocols are PCI Express and Displayport. PCI-E is interesting because it makes it sound like you can in theory connect just about anything. But there are a couple of problems with this. If I want to make my USB device play nice with Thunderbolt today, I have to have something that understands the PCI protocol. That means, my USB device needs to carry an embedded USB controller. Similarly, if I have a SATA disk, it needs to carry a SATA controller. As one can imagine, this is expensive, not scalable, and just a waste of money. The other problem is that Operating Systems and BIOS's don't expect their PCI devices to get hot-plugged, which in theory they should, and Apple can certainly ensure that for the MACs. But most PCI devices themselves do not expect to be hot-plugged. Given these two problems, I don't see how an ecosystem can develop around Thunderbolt. But its Apple, so they might have a brilliant plan that I cannot imagine myself.
I do see this technology as ideal for docking solutions. Imagine your iPad or iPhone with a single Thunderbolt connector that can be docked onto something which can then connect to a mouse, keyboard, display and what not. Beyond that, I am running out of ideas. <comment><USER2> Yes, this is something that I've been thinking about the last couple of days. Thunderbolt doesn't seem to be a complete protocol stack like USB - at least that's what Intel's emphasis on Thunderbolt's PCIe protocol implies. Rather, it seems to have a simple encapsulation protocol. Without a protocol stack you can't have stuff like class drivers or channel categories (bulk, isochronous, etc). Not unless you re-use another protocol or technology that also uses PCIe, like USB EHCI or something.

But then what does the EHCI talk to over the Thunderbolt-PCIe? An EHC? Where? On the Thunderbolt device? In the Thunderbolt cable? Or is the EHCI reprogrammed to include a software EHC? Maybe that's what how Thunderbolt will work - re-implement every hardware bus controller (SATA, USB, etc) in software. A peripheral plugged into a Thunderbolt port on a computer would be either

\- A peripheral with a Thunderbolt connector itself, connected with a Thunderbolt-to-Thunderbolt cable. The peripheral would actually be communicating Thunderbolt-encapsulated USB packets (or SATA or whatever) with a software USB EHC in the computer.

\- A legacy peripheral (USB/SATA/whatever) connected with an expensive Thunderbolt-to-USB cable. The cable would have to do the Thunderbolt encapsulation and transcoding for the peripheral. Again, it would be communicating with a software USB EHC in the computer.

I can kind of understand why Intel would be interested in this. If doing anything useful over Thunderbolt means implementing existing hardware controllers in software (SATA HBA, USB EHC, etc), Thunderbolt is going to be a great way of burning excess CPU cycles. Just as USB was a less CPU-efficient connector than Firewire, Thunderbolt may need even more CPU cycles. This would be a great technology to promote if you're in the business of selling people CPU cycles.

<comment><USER2> Update for my post. I was sort of right the first time:

 _But then what does the EHCI talk to over the Thunderbolt-PCIe? An EHC? Where? On the Thunderbolt device?_

It appears from details emerging that Thunderbolt really is just an encapsulation connector/protocol. Don't think of it is a USB competitor - it's a USB encapsulator. Think of having a Thunderbolt connector on your laptop but then also in your monitor at home. The monitor has an USB EHCI, a SATA HBA, etc to support a bunch of integrated USB ports and maybe an eSATA connector or two. You get home, connect your laptop to your monitor via Thunderbolt, and new USB and SATA adapters appear in your laptop's PCIe configuration.

Thunderbolt is more of an external PCIe bus than a peripheral bus like USB. It doesn't compete with USB for mice or keyboards. But given that eSATA is a far superior connector for storage devices than USB 3 is (NCQ, DMA, RAID, etc), and that Thunderbolt will be able to encapsulate SATA connections, Thunderbolt _might_ compete with USB 3 on at least that level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > But most PCI devices themselves do not expect to be hot-plugged

Is that actually true? It's been some time since I went through the protocol, but PCIe does have native support for hot-plug. Certainly during the enumeration, I don't see why a card (distinct from the host) would care in the least whether the rest of the system was booted or not.

Don't forget that ExpressCards are effectively PCIe, and they have no problems with being inserted or removed whilst a system is turned on.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is true that in theory, they should be hot-pluggable. But try plugging out a hard-drive while your system is running, bad things happen. USB devices, on the other hand, expect to be hot-plugged, and take appropriate measures for that. For example, removable media flash drives don't do as much caching in volatile memory as internal SATA hard drives. Another example would be a graphics card, which, if you plugin while the system is running, won't get recognized. But if you want to use Thunderbolt to power external displays that carry their own graphics cards, the underlying assumption being that the card already knows how to talk PCI, then you can see that there will be a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your entire post looks like speculation without expertise to back it up. Your ideas about hot plugging are completely wrong. Have you ever designed a hardware device, or at least implemented a driver?

Seeing as how you created your account right before posting this, it feels like astroturfing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am certainly not an expert and can definitely be wrong here. Perhaps you can provide your insights. I just haven't seen many insightful articles on the interwebs.

ps: Had to look up what astroturfing is. No, I am just mostly a lurker on HN.</comment></comment>


What is now where Bitcoin was circa 2009? - <AUTHOR> Question is self-explanatory. What other thing do you personally believe is now in the just-prior-to-explosive-growth stage, and people mostly do not know?<p>Yes, I want to get in on the ground floor, thank you very much :-) <comment><USER2> First and foremost, Bitcoin could have (still could) fail. So in our version of the future, where bitcoin was not taken over or destroyed by now?

There is literally nothing like Bitcoin in 2009. Maybe the idea of paper money, or the idea of using money at all. Perhaps space exploration is similar but has a much longer time scale.

I do not think it is too much to tell you, there is literally nothing like bitcoin, it was and is revolutionary.

If you do not believe/understand this statement, I would say, first spend more time learning about Bitcoin and my guess would be that very soon you will realize why it is such a big deal and not just another investment vehicle for the wealthy (you) to get more wealthy.

If a teleportation devices was invented, if e-mail could be monetized, life- extension, antibiotic resistance proof antibiotics... all WOULD have a similar outcome to Bitcoin.

If you are just talking about which "alt-coins" do we think will pump up in price the fastest and the most in the next year or so, I would say, only the ones with some new tech. to add on top of what bitcoin does, and there are not very many and mostly have already been pumped into what many are saying is an "alt-coin bubble" right now (I agree).

Ethereum - Decentralized computer

Monero - Anonymous transactions

Zcash - Different kind of anonymous transactions

Steem - Decentralized Social Media Platform (like Reddit)

Decred - Decentralized Organization and ~25% APR on locked away coins.</comment>