Talk:MacOS Sequoia

Apple Inc. High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Software: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the text "Public beta" to "Public beta 1" to make it clearer in contrast to 'Public beta 2' Mjones2160 (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Charliehdb (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent violations of WP:CRYSTAL

I have noticed that whenever a new macOS is released, some people predict the name of the next one. This happened on macOS Sonoma (before Sequoia release) as well and a few days ago, happened on macOS Sequoia as well. This is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and should be dealt with. There should be a comment and whenever a new page for any OS version is created, it should be put on semi-protection. ChipsPacketLover (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public Beta 4 released but not on Apple Developer Documentation

I noticed yesterday that Apple really released MacOS Sequoia Public Beta 4 but still hasn't published anything on their website, I would like to edit the page to cite the new beta but since there's no official proof of that I am doubtful. Iioorttv (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Sequoia "Unix"?

Should the OS family section be changed to read "Unix-like, based on Darwin (BSD)"? At the time of writing, according to the official register of UNIX-certified products by The Open Group, the most recent versions of the macOS operating system to be certified as "UNIX,"—and thus, be allowed to use the "UNIX" trademark—are versions 14.0 (Sonoma) for Intel and Apple Silicon. Apple typically certifies their desktop OS releases as compliant with version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification a little under a month before the public release of the OS, so it's odd that they haven't done it yet for version 15.0 (Sequoia). Lunaroxas (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple typically certifies their desktop OS releases as compliant with version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification a little under a month before the public release of the OS, so it's odd that they haven't done it yet for version 15.0 (Sequoia). I've not seen any indication that the date when the certificate is issued is near the date when the information about the certification is available from the Open Group site. For what it's worth, The brand certificate for Sonoma first appeared on the Wayback Machine in late October 2023, even though the certificate says that the certificate was issued in early August 2023, and the Open Brand register page for Sonoma, which gives the same registration date as the brand certificate, first appears on the Wayback Machine in mid-October 2023. Neither of those are definitive indications that the Open Group site didn't show the certification until after the OS was publicly released, but that's a possibility that I, at least, would not reject.

As such, I see nothing to suggest that Apple have decided not to request certification for Sequoia, and find nothing odd about the absence of certification information on the Open Group site. A case could be made for keeping the family for now as "Unix-like" (although I'm not sure in what fashion "Unix-like" and "Unix" really differ in the family, given that one requirement for being a UN*X is that you do at least one thing differently from the way all the other UN*Xes do it :-)) and keeping an eye on the Open Group page and updating it if Sequoia is certified.

(I.e., be careful when indulging in Apple Parkology; it can be easy for someone to become enamored of their theory and go out on a limb before it gets sawed off. Some people got inappropriately excited about Apple marketing finally deciding that they didn't need to pretend that OPENSTEP for Mach 5.0 and later was really just version 10 of Mac OS and the successor to Mac OS 9 any more, and switching to just bumping the version number the same way they were doing for all the other xxxOS systems, and decided that the change was a sign of Big Sur being a Brand New Operating System, and not just the next release of the same OS they'd been shipping since Mac OS X 10.0. Hopefully the successor being macOS 12, rather than macOS 11.1, got at least some of them to reconsider their theory.) Guy Harris (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The excitement over the change in nomenclature of Apple's desktop OS reminds me a lot of the hype that surrounds every "major" (superficial) brand change of Windows, as if 7, 8, 10, and 11 weren't just more or less incremental upgrades of the NT architecture, one that hasn't fundamentally changed since the '90s.

At any rate, thanks for the clarification! Lunaroxas (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]