[geeks] Apple applications phoning home

[Mark]

Wow this turned out quite long... you might need a coffee to read  
this over... Oh and I'm sorry if I screwed any quotes up anywhere ;)

On 22 Oct 2007, at 18:02, Shannon Hendrix wrote:

>> Erm WTFBBQWorldWideWeb?
>
> I'm talking about <idonotneeditmyself>.apple.com, obviously, not port
> 80 everywhere.

Oh, pardon mousier. *wallops self with large serving tray*

> ...and for that matter, sometimes blocking port 80 makes it more
> useful... :) :) :)

True that.

> I rather I was able to tell it to not try.

Actually, I think the point of this rather protracted discussion is  
that you should never have had to tell it not to try in the first place.

> It's pretty common wisdom that it is better if applications tell you
> if they are going to make connections.  I think it is perfectly
> reasonable for users that want it, that they should be able to get
> this information and make their system work--without annoying polite
> messages--even if they block things.
>
> It's just good design.
>
> Apple is famous for highly detailed design, so this isn't a major
> expectation given their attention to detail elsewhere.

Apple also are a fan of things working seamlessly and limiting user  
input to what is really necessary. See Apple's account authentication  
for admin operations vs. Microsoft UAC. The fact is a few other apps  
probably make outgoing requests in the background and you'd never  
have noticed unless you were Snitching for them. I'll bet you've  
found others, blocked them and nothings gone wrong? This is just one  
example where they got a little out of whack regarding what to do if  
it fails I suspect. Address Book head architect needs a smack on the  
head with a heavy book from Uncle Steve I think...

> No, I'm noting the fact that setting preferences should not require
> net access.

Like I said, technically it doesn't, it just issues a notice if it  
'can't do something', and carries on t o work as normal. If it  
*required* internet access it'd fall over in a huge heap of sharp  
bits and stop working.

> Even if I were a .Mac user, I would only want my system to
> contact .Mac for things like addresses or deliberate sync and share.
> I would not want it syncing my preferences.

The way .Mac works is it keeps all data on the .Mac server so your  
preferences for .Mac remain in tact in the event of the excrement  
hitting the rotary ventilating device. Tiger doesn't take much  
advantage of it really but Leopard really does from the looks of it.

> Seems pretty obvious to me, but Apple pushes their pay-for services
> very hard, and makes it difficult to not use them instead of
> something else.

Yep.

> Aside: one guy has used a UNIX server to replace .Mac with his own
> server.  Pretty neat, and worked out because Apple is basically using
> WebDAV for nearly everything.  I'm not sure how hard it would be to
> keep maintaining something like that, but I for one would like to see
> Apple publish .Mac as an open standard so that their applications can
> be used with other services.

Hmmm... welcome to the world of Apple and 'we use open standards  
where we feel it's appropriate' :). I've heard about people setting  
up .Mac alternatives that you can spoof using the hosts file and a  
set of addresses, but it's not easy. Any commercial vendors I've seen  
who have tried to launch competing services that spoof OS X have  
quietly sunk without trace.

> The reason is simple and pragmatic: I already have net services from
> other places, so I have no need to buy .Mac.

Simply, I got mine from Apple first because it was free, then they  
pulled the double-dirty on us and started charging for it. I've  
almost ditched it several times now but it's finally starting to  
mature in to a very useful service, especially with the new 'Back to  
my Mac' features apparent in Leopard.

I've had to purchase some duplicate services from other places  
because, especially in web hosting, .Mac is a bit weak but overall  
it's served me well.

> Of course, I'm sure Apple is not interested... :)

I'm sure... What'd really make my day is Rails hosting on .Mac. They  
seem to like Ruby on Rails and have adopted it as a platform right  
through 10.5, even into X-Code by the looks of it. Will be mega fun  
to play around with.

> Little Snitch.  I never got a dialog like you did.  Maybe something
> about our configuration differs?  Do you still use .Mac?  I could
> sign up for a 60 day account and see what happens.

I have had a .Mac account since they existed. There's more or less no  
configuration options in Snitch that would affect it (if there are  
any at all!?). What version are you using?

>>> Any application that phones home when it doesn't need to is broken.
>>
>> It does need to, you just don't use the features that want it to...
>
> ...which means it doesn't need to... :)

Damn it, I knew you'd say that ;)

> Agreed.
>
> I was faced with two alternatives three weeks ago: buy a Windows
> machine or buy an Apple.  I needed some new things for home and work,
> and Linux wasn't able to cut it.
>
> Windows was the most pragmatic choice, and I tried for two weeks and
> gave up.  That's pretty much how it has been with me for 15 years: I
> try to like it, and just can't stand it enough to use daily.

I use Windows XP at work and have few if any major grumbles outside  
the usual Windows UI gripes, but it is a tool at work that I use as a  
means to an end so it's not that much of an issue. Every time I boot  
Windows XP on my Mac I am reminded what a cluttered and confusing  
environment it is to 'live' in on a personal machine. Maybe it's just  
me but it seems to discourage much in the  way of organization. I've  
even tried Vista (I don't hate it either - what do you know!!) and it  
seems just as confusing and disorganized but on a different set of  
levels. Oh and it's not finished yet, but hey it's not even got to  
it's first service pack ;)

> MacOS generally works and stays out of my way.

Yep. And with it it's also secure and full of UNIX goodness. Not only  
that but *some* (by no means all) of Apple's hardware products are  
several leagues above the competition and not any more expensive.

> I think geeks needs a Mac list...

Hey, we'd lose like 50% of the conversation from this list if we  
split it off, and what would all the non-Apple users laugh at us for  
then huh? ;) ;)

> I ordered Leopard for $10.50 today.

Hehe, licky - mine cost me GBP 85 :\

> I will probably put it on an external drive to play with it first.

It's not vastly different from 10.4 to e honest, I've played with it  
and I'm sorta impressed but the new desktop is a bit repulsive,  
especially when you've been used to the simple elegance of 10.4 and  
earlier.

> I'm hoping it will fix a few problems in Tiger instead of create too
> many new ones.

Oh it'll create new ones - have no fear. I know for one a LOT of  
people are gonna hate the Dock for starters...

> For example, Tiger is rather famous for kernel crashes triggered by
> USB devices.  I have seen far too many grey screens of death due to
> USB IOKit failures.

Those have ben an issue in MAc OS X for a lot longer than Tiger, they  
used to be rife in older versions. I haven't had many thankfully, but  
I think the USB manufacturers are to blame as much as Apple for not  
sticking to supposed standards for USB devices. Lets be honest it's  
the one place Apple have to cope with everyone and their dog, so they  
are gonna have issues, just like Microsoft do with Windows.

-- 
Mark Benson

My Blog:
<http://mdblog.68kmac.org>
68kMac.org:
<http://www.68kmac.org>
Visit my Homepage: <http://homepage.mac.com/markbenson>

"Never send a human to do a machine's job..."