Hacker News Reader

Comment by gregoriol | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't "10.16 and higher" work for both 10.16 and 11?

Yes it would. But there is no guarantee that every package vendor does it that way. And this is only one example I can think of. It will mess up reports as well. Data from Macs is used outside of the Mac itself as well. I'll add that to my post, I'm only just now thinking of the implications. So far I hadn't thought of this as I assumed it would be fixed before release.

In fact most Enterprise software for Mac (think Palo Alto GlobalProtect, Zscaler, antivirus packages) are horribly badly packaged and I expect many issues here.

PS: Good point from tobr below too.. These things are not as simple as they seem.

Well, they'll anyway need to "do" something about the new arm macs, so it'll probably not be an issue to fix version checks at the same time if broken...

Existing Intel software (with potentially broken version checks) will work on ARM Macs under emulation. Once they rebuild with the new SDK they'll get the receive the correct version.

What if next year is 12.0 and 10.17?

Your comment made my day :-D

I don’t think this is a plausible scenario. You might also ask, “What if next year Apple releases Mac OS 9.3?”

They should. And they should release a new version of Rhapsody. The Rhapsody community (and it is a community) would love that.

Don't get me excited now...

The more plausible scenario would be 11.1 and 10.17

The trick of checking version >= 10.16 to cover both 10.16 and 11.0 would not work then, as version >= 10.17 would cover 11.0 (10.16) too.

Then what..?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com