It also means you could have different security policies, e.g. To a large extent, nothing ought to break if you simply allow users to choose from any of the “looks and feels” of the past few years while updating the lower-level OS to be the latest. Why can’t we have OSes layered better so that the “core” can evolve but these “design”-of-the-week changes can remain compartmentalized and potentially ignored from one release to the next? the idea of adding gradient blurs everywhere), the vast majority do not. While some elements of new UI definitely require improvements to OS underpinnings (e.g. You can imagine an alternate universe where Steve Jobs walked on stage and announced "Snow Leopard comes with a brand new Finder, and it's better than ever!" The roadmap was probably planned early on, but the narrative could have been chosen later. I hadn't heard this story, but I wonder if both could be true. Not something decided early in the dev cycle. > I heard a story of some meeting where "no new features" was branded close to release. Every OS since Lion has been replaced within a year. Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard had several years of life before they were replaced. I have another theory though, and it's not the price-Apple has plenty of money-it's the development cycle. Adding QuickLook to Finder doesn't do any of those things, it just allows you to use QuickLook. Rewriting Finder is huge and risky! When they replaced mDNSResponder with discoveryd it caused problems they eventually reverted it when Vint Cerf called Tim Cook to complain.īut it's not the size, it's the focus, right? Rewriting Finder, without adding any additional capabilities, reduces technical debt and makes Finder faster and more stable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |