An open community 
of Macintosh users,
for Macintosh users.

FineTunedMac Dashboard widget now available! Download Here

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58180 03/05/21 05:43 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
...I thought Apple believed in the KISS philosophy: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Used to be that way.
Simplicity = Vulnerability

Pick your poison. frown

(I DO think there's some overkill going on, but I'm willing to live with the tradeoff.)

Nope, Simplicity = Being Smart. That's the way Apple used to conduct business. Now, they continue to make life difficult. Sure is an example of being narrow minded.

Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58183 03/05/21 07:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
...I thought Apple believed in the KISS philosophy: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Used to be that way.
Simplicity = Vulnerability

Pick your poison. frown

(I DO think there's some overkill going on, but I'm willing to live with the tradeoff.)

Nope, Simplicity = Being Smart. That's the way Apple used to conduct business. Now, they continue to make life difficult. Sure is an example of being narrow minded.

Being smart = Locking down the system in the face of the current scenario of relentless attacks regardless of a few unhappy users, which makes your idea of narrow-mindedness diametrically opposed to mine.

If you've got a specific simpler - and at least equally smart - approach to user security than Apple has come up with, I - and, I'm certain, they - would love to hear about it.

In the meantime, though, the real life fallout from Apple's approach of which I"m aware has been negligible.


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58186 03/05/21 08:35 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
...I thought Apple believed in the KISS philosophy: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Used to be that way.
Simplicity = Vulnerability

Pick your poison. frown

(I DO think there's some overkill going on, but I'm willing to live with the tradeoff.)

Nope, Simplicity = Being Smart. That's the way Apple used to conduct business. Now, they continue to make life difficult. Sure is an example of being narrow minded.

Being smart = Locking down the system in the face of the current scenario of relentless attacks regardless of a few unhappy users, which makes your idea of narrow-mindedness diametrically opposed to mine.

If you've got a specific simpler - and at least equally smart - approach to user security than Apple has come up with, I - and, I'm certain, they - would love to hear about it.

In the meantime, though, the real life fallout from Apple's approach of which I"m aware has been negligible.

Again, you misstate the situation. If Apple really wanted to, they could be Smart and find ways to "lock down" the system without causing so many headaches. And my notion of Apple being narrow minded is right on the money. Of course the same can be said of other companies/organizations, so I am not signaling out Apple.

I do agree that for the every day user like myself, except for needing to give up on some excellent applications, the effects of all this are basically very, very little. But the one thing I am definitely not pleased about is the loss (so far) of SuperDuper! (SD), and except for Intel-based Macs, the loss of Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC). It is true that each of them have work arounds, but they are both clumsy and cumbersome, at best. I really would like to see them get back to doing it the straight forward way, but because of Apple making life difficult, and except for CCC and intel-based Macs, that is not the case. As Tom Hanks said in "Forrest Gump", Stupid is as stupid does. That's the way I feel regarding how Apple has messed up SD and CCC.

One other point: the loss of SD and CCC (except for Intel-based Macs) is a "core" operation that one must do, ie, make backups. Yes, there is Time Machine, but there are just too many advantages to using SD and CCC. That loss is definitely a bummer! I guess it is possible that in the future, both SD and CCC (with hopefully assistance from Apple, although that seems like a long shot right now) will work as usual. But then what happens with the next version of the Mac OS? Will Apple be short sighted again? What many folks are forgetting is such a situation happened with Catalina. When Apple released OS 10.15.5, it caused all kinds of issues for both SD and CCC. CCC did come up with a work around, but Apple did correct the issue with the release of V10.15.6 (and things are fine with V10.15.7). But then Big Sur is released, and the issues for SD and CCC are back.

Last edited by MartyByrde; 03/05/21 09:06 PM.
Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58205 03/06/21 05:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Offline

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
One other point: the loss of SD and CCC (except for Intel-based Macs) is a "core" operation that one must do, ie, make backups. Yes, there is Time Machine, but there are just too many advantages to using SD and CCC. That loss is definitely a bummer!

Just to be clear, the loss of functionality in SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner is the ability to make a bootable backup (clone). This is a significant distinction from Time Machine. So far on Apple's SoC M1 Macs (to date) SD and CCC can make backups of the data portions of the drive.


On a Mac since 1984.
Currently: 24" M1 iMac, M2 Pro Mac mini with 27" BenQ monitor, M2 Macbook Air, MacOS 14.x; iPhones, iPods (yes, still) and iPads.
Re: Big Sir or Not??
Ira L #58206 03/06/21 06:06 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ira L
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
One other point: the loss of SD and CCC (except for Intel-based Macs) is a "core" operation that one must do, ie, make backups. Yes, there is Time Machine, but there are just too many advantages to using SD and CCC. That loss is definitely a bummer!

Just to be clear, the loss of functionality in SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner is the ability to make a bootable backup (clone). This is a significant distinction from Time Machine. So far on Apple's SoC M1 Macs (to date) SD and CCC can make backups of the data portions of the drive.

I understand that. However, as you stated, it is the loss of making bootable backups. But, for CCC, one can make normal, bootable backups for Intel-based Macs:

https://bombich.com/blog

Read that first paragraph on that link. I am bemoaning the loss of making such bootable backups (clone) with SD. Hence, given that (for now) both of my Macs are Intel-based, I will need to use CCC to make bootable backups the "old fashioned", direct way.

Re: Big Sir or Not??
Ira L #58211 03/07/21 11:01 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by Ira L
,,,the loss of functionality in SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner is the ability to make a bootable backup (clone). This is a significant distinction from Time Machine. So far on Apple's SoC M1 Macs (to date) SD and CCC can make backups of the data portions of the drive.
Hasn't joemike reported that CCC can consistently make bootable clones of his M1 providing the hardware configuration is copacetic?


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58212 03/07/21 11:04 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
I will need to use CCC to make bootable backups the "old fashioned", direct way.
The "old fashioned, direct way?"


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58214 03/07/21 05:37 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
I will need to use CCC to make bootable backups the "old fashioned", direct way.
The "old fashioned, direct way?"

Did you not read the Bombich link I provided above? Here is what it says in the very first paragraph:

"CCC 5.1.23 can now make bootable backups of a Big Sur startup disk on Intel-based Macs."

So, just like before Big Sur, one can use CCC on Intel-based Macs even with Big Sur. And that is what I mean by "direct".

Last edited by MartyByrde; 03/07/21 06:04 PM.
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58215 03/07/21 05:40 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by Ira L
,,,the loss of functionality in SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner is the ability to make a bootable backup (clone). This is a significant distinction from Time Machine. So far on Apple's SoC M1 Macs (to date) SD and CCC can make backups of the data portions of the drive.
Hasn't joemike reported that CCC can consistently make bootable clones of his M1 providing the hardware configuration is copacetic?
Yes I have said that it is possible to consistently make bootable volumes on M1 Macs if everything is copacetic (that word takes me back to my time in the Navy) but, and this is a BIG but, that process is entirely dependent on the installer to create the crypto-logically sealed APFS snapshot that is bootable. That puts any possibility of making a clone the old fashioned direct way beyond the realm of possibility. (It also puts a huge swathe of potential malware exploits into the shredder. 😎)

Apple's ASR utility worked with Intel Macs to create a bootable clone in Catalina and early betas of Big Sur on Intel Macs, but many of the security features have been removed, relocated, reallocated, and/or reshuffled on M1 Macs. For example some security settings that applied to all boot drives attached to an Intel Mac, are specific to each specific boot volume group on M1 Macs. While I don't know enough about the inner machinations of M1 Macs and Big Sur to fully apprehend everything that is involved, I know enough to realize that could, and probably has, thrown a major monkey-wrench into the entire ASR design. When you add to that the laws of unintended circumstances and Murphy's Law, it is entirely feasible the ASR utility has become the developer's Gordian's knot. So until someone figures out how to either untie or cut that knot, clones will remain out of reach.

Last edited by joemikeb; 03/07/21 05:43 PM. Reason: clarify wording

If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58216 03/07/21 05:43 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by Ira L
,,,the loss of functionality in SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner is the ability to make a bootable backup (clone). This is a significant distinction from Time Machine. So far on Apple's SoC M1 Macs (to date) SD and CCC can make backups of the data portions of the drive.
Hasn't joemike reported that CCC can consistently make bootable clones of his M1 providing the hardware configuration is copacetic?

Again, if you read the link I provided above for Bombich software, you will see that a direct backup/clone from an M1-based Mac requires some additional steps. As for Intel-based Macs, on the thread "Carbon Copy Cloner Status" (which I started), jchuzi made this post:

"I'm using CCC with Big Sur and, if you follow your customary procedure of reformatting the APFS volume and cloning everything, all will be well. One caveat: Let CCC erase the destination volume as part of the cloning procedure rather than use Disk Utility to reformat and then use CCC. That worked better for me than reformatting with Disk Utility and then cloning with CCC."

Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58218 03/07/21 05:53 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by joemikeb
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by Ira L
,,,the loss of functionality in SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner is the ability to make a bootable backup (clone). This is a significant distinction from Time Machine. So far on Apple's SoC M1 Macs (to date) SD and CCC can make backups of the data portions of the drive.
Hasn't joemike reported that CCC can consistently make bootable clones of his M1 providing the hardware configuration is copacetic?
Yes I have said that it is possible to consistently make bootable volumes on M1 Macs if everything is copacetic (that word takes me back to my time in the Navy) but, and this is a BIG but, that process is entirely dependent on the installer to create the crypto-logically sealed APFS snapshot that is bootable. That puts any possibility of making a clone the old fashioned direct way beyond the realm of possibility. (It also puts a huge swathe of potential malware exploits into the shredder. 😎)

Apple's ASR utility worked with Intel Macs to create a bootable clone in Catalina and early betas of Big Sur on Intel Macs, but many of the security features have been removed, relocated, reallocated, and/or reshuffled on M1 Macs. For example some security settings that applied to all boot drives attached to an Intel Mac, are specific to each specific boot volume group on M1 Macs. While I don't know enough about the inner machinations of M1 Macs and Big Sur to fully apprehend everything that is involved, I know enough to realize that could, and probably has, thrown a major monkey-wrench into the entire ASR design. When you add to that the laws of unintended circumstances and Murphy's Law, it is entirely feasible the ASR utility has become the developer's Gordian's knot. So until someone figures out how to either untie or cut that knot, clones will remain out of reach.

Well said! And from this link for Bombich Software:

https://bombich.com/blog

note that it says:

"Support for System volume cloning on Apple Silicon Macs is disabled for now because Apple's APFS replication utility does not currently work on that platform. When Apple fixes that, we'll post an update to CCC that restores support for making bootable backups on Apple Silicon Macs"

(APFS replication utility is ASR, I believe).

And here Dave Nanian lays out the issues very specifically:

https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/

Note the "catastrophe" he described with V10.15.5 of Catalina, which I have previously mentioned a couple of times.

Last edited by MartyByrde; 03/07/21 06:06 PM.
Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58222 03/07/21 10:54 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
(APFS replication utility is ASR, I believe).

When in doubt, go to the horse's mouth (in Terminal ~ % man asr ) and you get...

Originally Posted by BSD System Manager's Manual
ASR(8) BSD System Manager's Manual ASR(8)

NAME
asr -- Apple Software Restore; copy volumes (e.g. from disk images)

SYNOPSIS
asr verb [options]
asr restore[exact] --source source --target target [options]
asr server --source source --config configuration [options]
asr restore --source asr://source --file file [options]
asr imagescan --source image [options]
asr help | version

DESCRIPTION
asr efficiently copies disk images onto volumes, either directly or via a
multicast network stream. asr can also accurately clone volumes without
the use of an intermediate disk image.

In its first form, asr copies source (usually a disk image, potentially
on an HTTP server) to target. source can be specified using a path in
the filesystem, or an http or https URL. It can also be an asr:// URL to
indicate a multicast source. asr can also be invoked with its second
form to act as a multicast server. In its third form, asr will restore a
multicast disk image to a file instead of disk volume. In its fourth
form, asr prepares a disk image to be restored efficiently, adding whole-
volume checksum information. help and version provide usage and version
information, respectively.

<snip>


If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58223 03/07/21 11:04 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
How could I be expected to know that Terminal Command? Certainly, though, Apple is not moving very quickly (if at all) to fix the asr. That's just one reason why I say Apple no longer believes in the KISS philosophy: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Is there a terminal command for that?

Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58225 03/08/21 12:03 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
How could I be expected to know that Terminal Command? Certainly, though, Apple is not moving very quickly (if at all) to fix the asr. That's just one reason why I say Apple no longer believes in the KISS philosophy: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Is there a terminal command for that?
Many Apple aficionados are familiar with the man command in Terminal. In fact, virtually all of the various utilities such as OnyX, TinkerTool, etc. are little more than GUI front ends for various Terminal commands. I simply made an incorrect assumption about the depth of your knowledge. The man (manual) command has its origins in Unix and long predates macOS X. If you ever have a question about any terminal command simply launch terminal an enter man +the command you are interested in. That is Unix however, so you have to be aware that everything in Terminal is case sensitive so it is "man asr" not "MAN asr" or "man ASR", or even "Man Asr". One other thing, although macOS is based on BSD Unix there are many macOS commands that are either unique to Apple or have Apple variant arguments. So the man command is more than useful, it is absolutely essential to using the command line in Terminal. I wish "man" had a search function so I could specify what I want and it would suggest possible commands to do it. (Hmmm 🤔. Wonder if Siri can do that? More research ☝️)

Last edited by joemikeb; 03/08/21 12:05 AM.

If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58228 03/08/21 12:19 AM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
I am well aware of how careful one needs to be when entering commands in Terminal. On some sites, there could be a terminal command shown that one needs to use for a particular purpose. What I do in that case is a copy and paste (possibly making a needed change or two), so that I do not make any mistakes.

But back to my original "beef". Apple needs to move their a** and work on modifying the asr "process" so that both SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner can work like normal, even on M1-based Macs. Again, I point to that catastrophe Apple created with OS 10.15.5. Fortunately OS 10.15.5 had nothing that I needed, and I simply went back to V10.15.4 so that SuperDuper! would work as normal, ie, KISS. At least Apple realized their snafu and fixed the issue in V10.15.6, and it remained in V10.15.7. But look what happened when Big Sur was released. Apple really messed things up regarding backups!

Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58232 03/08/21 09:50 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
I will need to use CCC to make bootable backups the "old fashioned", direct way.
The "old fashioned, direct way?"

Did you not read the Bombich link I provided above? Here is what it says in the very first paragraph:

"CCC 5.1.23 can now make bootable backups of a Big Sur startup disk on Intel-based Macs."

So, just like before Big Sur, one can use CCC on Intel-based Macs even with Big Sur. And that is what I mean by "direct".
Inasmuch as your linked doc is ancient (I'm running v 5.1.26-b2), I wasn't following you...thought you meant something else.


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58233 03/08/21 10:07 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by joemikeb
I have said that it is possible to consistently make bootable volumes on M1 Macs if everything is copacetic (that word takes me back to my time in the Navy) but, and this is a BIG but, that process is entirely dependent on the installer to create the crypto-logically sealed APFS snapshot that is bootable.

...it is entirely feasible the ASR utility has become the developer's Gordian's knot. So until someone figures out how to either untie or cut that knot, clones will remain out of reach.
I think I'm missing something.

Doesn't your first statement say that you can make bootable M1 clones while your second one says you can't?

Or am I totally misunderstanding "bootable volumes on M1 Macs?"

Or am I insinuating a "now" where none exists?


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58234 03/08/21 12:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Nope, Simplicity = Being Smart. That's the way Apple used to conduct business. Now, they continue to make life difficult. Sure is an example of being narrow minded.

Being smart = Locking down the system in the face of the current scenario of relentless attacks regardless of a few unhappy users, which makes your idea of narrow-mindedness diametrically opposed to mine.

If you've got a specific simpler - and at least equally smart - approach to user security than Apple has come up with, I - and, I'm certain, they - would love to hear about it.

In the meantime, though, the real life fallout from Apple's approach of which I"m aware has been negligible.

Again, you misstate the situation. If Apple really wanted to, they could be Smart and find ways to "lock down" the system without causing so many headaches. And my notion of Apple being narrow minded is right on the money.

I really would like to see them get back to doing it the straight forward way, but because of Apple making life difficult, and except for CCC and intel-based Macs, that is not the case. As Tom Hanks said in "Forrest Gump", Stupid is as stupid does. That's the way I feel regarding how Apple has messed up SD and CCC.

[And] what happens with the next version of the Mac OS? Will Apple be short sighted again? What many folks are forgetting is such a situation happened with Catalina. When Apple released OS 10.15.5, it caused all kinds of issues for both SD and CCC. CCC did come up with a work around, but Apple did correct the issue with the release of V10.15.6 (and things are fine with V10.15.7). But then Big Sur is released, and the issues for SD and CCC are back.

YOU'VE JUST GOT TO BE KIDDING!

Your basis for saying that I've misstated the situation, i.e. its reality, is your statement that
Quote
If Apple really wanted to, they could be Smart and find ways to "lock down" the system without causing so many headaches.
and before I buy into that, you're gonna have to document your authority for saying it: Are you a highly skilled software engineer with in-depth knowledge of Apple's core code; or have you got a well-placed contact at Apple who talks too much; or did you hear it from the tooth fairy or, perhaps, a more authoritative source such as Rudy Giuliani; or...or what?

And you'll also have to clarify your definition of "narrow-minded."

It seems to be rooted in your feeling that Apple doesn't care about CCC and SD!, and that's selling them way short. They're in business to make money, and coding out cloning ability would surely cost them dearly by driving users away from Macs.

You keep going on about the 10.15.5 glitch, which was not the first such embarrassing moment for Apple (Remember when v 10.3.3 of Panther broke our internal modems and we had to either revert to 10.3.2 or rely on an external modem until 10.3.4 was released?), nor was it the least bit relevant to any Big Sur problems, nor do they presage problems in the next version of macOS.

Heck! This is complicated business, and unforeseen things happen when MAJOR, let alone minor, changes are made to an OS, but I'll continue to have faith in Apple's ingenuity and the fact that they've long since proven themselves to be anything but stupid.


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58235 03/08/21 03:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Originally Posted by artie505
I think I'm missing something.

Doesn't your first statement say that you can make bootable M1 clones while your second one says you can't?

Or am I totally misunderstanding "bootable volumes on M1 Macs?"
I don't think that you have totally misunderstood, rather we have different understandings of what is meant by "clone". Bootable volumes can be installed on M1 Macs using the installer and then migrating the data from another installation, Time Machine, or a CCC or SD copy of the Data volume, but I think of that as an INSTALLATION. You cannot CLONE in the sense of the classic ASR, CCC, or SD replication of a complete bootable system in a single operation.

Personally I have not found Mike Bombich's work around to be at all satisfactory and after a couple of attempts to use it, I now use the installer and Apple's Migration Assistant to create a bootable external drive, but that is a NEW installation.


If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58237 03/08/21 07:49 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by joemikeb
Originally Posted by artie505
I think I'm missing something.

Doesn't your first statement say that you can make bootable M1 clones while your second one says you can't?

Or am I totally misunderstanding "bootable volumes on M1 Macs?"

Personally I have not found Mike Bombich's work around to be at all satisfactory and after a couple of attempts to use it, I now use the installer and Apple's Migration Assistant to create a bootable external drive, but that is a NEW installation.

Just to make things clear:

1. For Intel-based Macs, the current (non-beta) version of Carbon Copy Cloner will work as normal, according to Bombich Software:

https://bombich.com/blog

So, again, as some folks seem to be mis-informed, according to the very first sentence on that link, CCC works just fine with Intel-based Macs and Big Sur. No work around is necessary.

2. According to you, Mike Bombich's work around is not all that "great".

3. For SuperDuper!, and seems to be for Intel-based Macs, the work around is not all that smooth:

https://www.shirt-pocket.com/blog/

Note what Dave says about M1-based Macs, and also types of external devices.

As I've already said a few times already, given that both of my Macs are Intel-based, I'll be switching to CCC for my bootable backups/clones.

In summary, one should 1) carefully read both of those blogs, 2) listen to what joemikeb says, and 3) listen to what jchuzi stated on the "Carbon Copy Cloner Status" thread, about CCC working fine with Intel-based Macs.

Last edited by MartyByrde; 03/08/21 08:40 PM.
Re: Big Sir or Not??
artie505 #58238 03/08/21 08:09 PM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Originally Posted by artie505
Originally Posted by MartyByrde
Nope, Simplicity = Being Smart. That's the way Apple used to conduct business. Now, they continue to make life difficult. Sure is an example of being narrow minded.

Being smart = Locking down the system in the face of the current scenario of relentless attacks regardless of a few unhappy users, which makes your idea of narrow-mindedness diametrically opposed to mine.

If you've got a specific simpler - and at least equally smart - approach to user security than Apple has come up with, I - and, I'm certain, they - would love to hear about it.

In the meantime, though, the real life fallout from Apple's approach of which I"m aware has been negligible.

Again, you misstate the situation. If Apple really wanted to, they could be Smart and find ways to "lock down" the system without causing so many headaches. And my notion of Apple being narrow minded is right on the money.

I really would like to see them get back to doing it the straight forward way, but because of Apple making life difficult, and except for CCC and intel-based Macs, that is not the case. As Tom Hanks said in "Forrest Gump", Stupid is as stupid does. That's the way I feel regarding how Apple has messed up SD and CCC.

[And] what happens with the next version of the Mac OS? Will Apple be short sighted again? What many folks are forgetting is such a situation happened with Catalina. When Apple released OS 10.15.5, it caused all kinds of issues for both SD and CCC. CCC did come up with a work around, but Apple did correct the issue with the release of V10.15.6 (and things are fine with V10.15.7). But then Big Sur is released, and the issues for SD and CCC are back.

YOU'VE JUST GOT TO BE KIDDING!

Your basis for saying that I've misstated the situation, i.e. its reality, is your statement that
Quote
If Apple really wanted to, they could be Smart and find ways to "lock down" the system without causing so many headaches.
and before I buy into that, you're gonna have to document your authority for saying it: Are you a highly skilled software engineer with in-depth knowledge of Apple's core code; or have you got a well-placed contact at Apple who talks too much; or did you hear it from the tooth fairy or, perhaps, a more authoritative source such as Rudy Giuliani; or...or what?

And you'll also have to clarify your definition of "narrow-minded."

It seems to be rooted in your feeling that Apple doesn't care about CCC and SD!, and that's selling them way short. They're in business to make money, and coding out cloning ability would surely cost them dearly by driving users away from Macs.

You keep going on about the 10.15.5 glitch, which was not the first such embarrassing moment for Apple (Remember when v 10.3.3 of Panther broke our internal modems and we had to either revert to 10.3.2 or rely on an external modem until 10.3.4 was released?), nor was it the least bit relevant to any Big Sur problems, nor do they presage problems in the next version of macOS.

Heck! This is complicated business, and unforeseen things happen when MAJOR, let alone minor, changes are made to an OS, but I'll continue to have faith in Apple's ingenuity and the fact that they've long since proven themselves to be anything but stupid.

NO, I AM NOT KIDDING!

First, I am not a software engineer (although I am a former software developer, and used a different language, different applications, and different platforms). But all along, Apple has been touted as being so much more innovative than Microsoft, including the ease of using a Mac over a PC. Recently, it's very, very clear that Apple is moving away from that.

Secondly, unlike you, I do not listen to a tooth family, nor do I put a quarter under my pillow for the tooth fairy, nor do I listen to Rudy Giuliani. As it is, you are the one who lives in NY, not me! Hence, you would listen to him.

Third, and you FINALLY state something that makes sense, yes, I am pi**ed off that Apple is trying to kill off SD and CCC. Until Big Sur, everything was fine, but since then, not so good.

Fourth, regarding that snafu by Apple with V10.15.5 of Catalina, note what Mike Bombich says about it:

https://bombich.com/blog/2020/05/27...ts-bootable-backups-weve-got-you-covered

So, besides David N., even Mike B. moaned about it. You state that this snafu "nor was it the least bit relevant to any Big Sur problems". Yes, as far as running Big Sur, that is true. But, 1) it was very relevant to making backups with SD or CCC and Catalina, and 2) it showed just how callous and narrow minded Apple could be. If not, how could they fix it so easily in V10.15.6?

In actuality, both Dave and Mike are holding out some hope that Apple is working on the issues with their asr, and possibly would be resolved in the future. We'll see. If Apple does come through, it will restore my faith in Apple as being an innovative company that believes in the KISS philosophy (like they have in the past).

Re: Big Sir or Not??
MartyByrde #58240 03/08/21 09:00 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
Moderator
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 16
I want add one additional comment:

I am/was a great fan and advocate of Mike Bombich's use of ASR in beta versions of CCC in Catalina. It was elegant, very fast, and in my experience highly reliable. I am eagerly anticipating its return in future versions of CCC when Apple finally gets it to work with both Intel and M1 Macs. Until then I will use a separate installation of macOS 11.x on an external SSD as my experimental drive and keep the internal drive installation for production purposes. (Until then, I will be a happy camper if I can just get SoftRAID to play nice. )


If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?

— Albert Einstein
Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58241 03/08/21 10:32 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Offline

Joined: Sep 2009
I’ve been following this “conversation” for some time now in the hope that it would help me decide when to make the leap to Big Sur. Just like Plantsower I guess. The view count of over 1000 and over 70 replies suggests quite a few others might have also. It hasn’t helped.

I usually wait until version 2 or 3 of a new OS to allow creases to be ironed out. Version 3, I think, is around the corner and, despite the concerns aired here about bootable clones etc, I will take the leap when it does arrive. I can’t wait any longer. CCC has been part of my backup strategy for a long time (and will continue to be) but I only ever booted from the resultant clone to run Diskwarrior for the occasional maintenance check. I don’t do that any more smile

Re: Big Sir or Not??
andycap #58242 03/09/21 01:23 AM
Offline

Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by andycap
I’ve been following this “conversation” for some time now in the hope that it would help me decide when to make the leap to Big Sur. Just like Plantsower I guess. The view count of over 1000 and over 70 replies suggests quite a few others might have also. It hasn’t helped.

I usually wait until version 2 or 3 of a new OS to allow creases to be ironed out. Version 3, I think, is around the corner and, despite the concerns aired here about bootable clones etc, I will take the leap when it does arrive. I can’t wait any longer. CCC has been part of my backup strategy for a long time (and will continue to be) but I only ever booted from the resultant clone to run Diskwarrior for the occasional maintenance check. I don’t do that any more smile

I similarly wait at least until the third version of a new Mac OS arrives. Besides getting bugs worked out, I have a requirement that all my third party software I use is compatible with the new OS. In the case of Big Sur, it eventually came down to 2 such programs: SuperDuper! and Tech Tool Pro. Unfortunately, SuperDuper! is not yet compatible, but given that Carbon Copy Cloner works fine with Big Sur and Intel-based Macs, I am good to go in that regard. For Tech Tool Pro, Micromat did recently release V13.0.2 of Tech Tool Pro for Big Sur compatibility on Intel-based Macs (both of my machines are Intel-based). Unfortunately, with V11.2.2, I could not create the needed eDrive with that version of Tech Tool Pro (other folks who use Tech Tool Pro had the same issue). From discussions here, it seems there were issues in V11.2.2 of Big Sur that possibly caused the issue. V11.3 supposedly corrects those issues.

In any event, when V11.3 is released, I will test it on my test external Samsung T7 1 TB SSD, along with V13.0.2 of Tech Tool Pro. If all is well, I'll move from Catalina, V10.15.7, to Big Sur, V11.3, along with moving to Carbon Copy Cloner. But I know I'll miss SuperDuper!.

I also rarely need to boot from my clone, but when the need arises, I was sure glad I could.

Last edited by MartyByrde; 03/09/21 08:02 PM.
Re: Big Sir or Not??
joemikeb #58243 03/09/21 08:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Online

Joined: Aug 2009
Likes: 15
Originally Posted by joemikeb
Originally Posted by artie505
I think I'm missing something.

Doesn't your first statement say that you can make bootable M1 clones while your second one says you can't?

Or am I totally misunderstanding "bootable volumes on M1 Macs?"
I don't think that you have totally misunderstood, rather we have different understandings of what is meant by "clone". Bootable volumes can be installed on M1 Macs using the installer and then migrating the data from another installation, Time Machine, or a CCC or SD copy of the Data volume, but I think of that as an INSTALLATION. You cannot CLONE in the sense of the classic ASR, CCC, or SD replication of a complete bootable system in a single operation.

Personally I have not found Mike Bombich's work around to be at all satisfactory and after a couple of attempts to use it, I now use the installer and Apple's Migration Assistant to create a bootable external drive, but that is a NEW installation.
Got it now. Thanks for the clarification. (I somehow thought that you've reported being able to create an actual clone.)


The new Great Equalizer is the SEND button.

In Memory of Harv: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  alternaut, dkmarsh, joemikeb 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.046s Queries: 65 (0.034s) Memory: 0.7494 MB (Peak: 0.9655 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 12:58:48 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS