I got it in stalled over Mojave but I'd recommend having 35 GB of space free. That was my main issue in installing it - freeing up enough space for it. The upgrade alone was 12 GB. The actual installation was smooth. I rather like the new UI.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is there a reason not to install MacOS 11?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh gee I don't know... maybe fact that I haven't been able to send iCloud email from Apple Mail for 2 months? Mail still fails to quit, Calendar shows duplicate items, quitting iWork apps sometimes gives me a "permanent version storage" error message, doesn't see my personal hotspot half the time. Come on man, Catalina is a highly buggy release for many people.
Can the issue be solved by Disabling gatekeeper in Catalina or does it still send the data discussed in the article to Apple? (Gatekeeper can be easily disabled in catalina with a simple terminal command), This is beyond infuriating that apple does this but if it can be resolved by disabling gatekeeper then it isn't as big of a deal. i dont want to install little snitch as the article suggested if this can be resolved by disabling gatekeeper
Well, I usually disable gatekeeper but I’m not sure disabling gatekeeper on Big Sur will prevent this spying behaviors to keep sending info to a Apple or whoever is macOS sending info to
You have to reset permissions for startup drives after booting into Recovery mode cmd R
Yeah im not updating to Big Sur at all after reading this piece of news. Can you please check and verify whether this spying is essentially disabled if Gatekeeper is disabled on Catalina? Can you look in activity monitor to check for that or perhaps you can install little snitch to check? id greatly appreciate it and im sure others would as well
I've install every upgrade since Mavericks, including this one. It runs really good on my iMac. From Mavericks to Catalina, I had a late 2013 MBP, this past July, I now have a late 2019 iMac with 64 GB of memory. The only issue I had in the past was OS X El Capitan, was minor crash issues.
Do you have gatekeeper enabled or disabled? It sounds like its way better off disabled than enabled based on the article posted in this thread
I just disabled gatekeeper via terminal, Do you think this is going to stop this data transmission to apple or is Little Snitch required to stop this deceiving data transmission?
There seems to be a few issues according to this link
bombich.com
macOS Big Sur Known Issues | Bombich Software
Is anyone else getting tired of Apple breaking things like CCC? I've used CCC for many years, and I trust what they do. If Apple cared about us, the great unwashed masses who use their computers, they'd make damn sure that 3rd-party devs like CCC had all the tech info needed to make sure that critical stuff like backup software works seamlessly across a change to the OS. Of course, it's also very possible that Apple did give CCC what Apple THOUGHT was how the new OS would work, and, Bob's your uncle, it ISN'T how it works. Either scenario is possible, with the same end result.
Do you even know what you're getting so worked up over? Gatekeeper has been around for almost a decade, and the certificate notarization/stapling since Mojave. You've been using it this entire time.
OCSP is literally just a certificate revocation scheme, much like authenticating a website TLS cert for an encrypted connection. It's not some ominous, devious, malevolent spy plot. Calm down lol
What do you mean? did you even read the article from 9to5Mac?
Do you not recommend disabling gatekeeper? Does this behind the scene data transmission continue if gatekeeper is disabled?
Also, in the firewall settings on the Mac, there are several Apple processes that i allow incoming connections for ever since i've been using my Macbook Pro, The processes are: sharingd, rapportd, netbiosd, mediasharind, gamed, avconferenced, Should all these that i just mentioned should have their incoming connections BLOCKED in the Apple firewall or left in the Allow list?
no, the notarization check happens in the exec() kernel call. you have to disable SIP entirely to get rid of the behavior, or blackhole the Apple OCSP DNS, or add your applications to the 'Developer Tools' capability under the privacy tab. nothing in the article is new information, it's just highly sensationalized
macOS 10.15: Slow by Design
I hated Catalina at first but have gotten quite used to it now. I put Big Sur on my work MBP just to check it out.... Don't like it at all...
Connection to the Apple service doesn’t mean they spy your computers. Please read what those services are for before making assumptions. The connections to those services are visible and well documented long time ago.
The only sketchy thing is that because of such services, our computers may suffer issues when there is no response from Apple servers. This happened to me yesterday during the huge **** show with BigSur release and I didn’t know the cause and I spend more that an hour trying to figure it out.
apple should rethink this “calling home” because of this problem. Nothing to do with privacy. Its a simple software validation check.
The only sketchy thing is that because of such services, our computers may suffer issues when there is no response from Apple servers. This happened to me yesterday during the huge **** show with BigSur release and I didn’t know the cause and I spend more that an hour trying to figure it out.
apple should rethink this “calling home” because of this problem. Nothing to do with privacy. Its a simple software validation check.
What i dont get is this and id like some clarification(This is regarding Catalina by the way, Not Big Sur as we already know Big Sur is pretty much immune to disabling this setting), if i was to add that address to my hosts file WITHOUT turning off gatekeeper using the simple Terminal command (sudo spctl --master-disable) , Does gatekeeper still function in protecting the mac from malware or once that address is blocked in the Hosts file then gatekeeper is pretty much useless whether its turned on or off? (Which means the mac is now prone to Malware, Right?)no, the notarization check happens in the exec() kernel call. you have to disable SIP entirely to get rid of the behavior, or blackhole the Apple OCSP DNS, or add your applications to the 'Developer Tools' capability under the privacy tab. nothing in the article is new information, it's just highly sensationalized
macOS 10.15: Slow by Design
sigpipe.macromates.com
So basically, the ONLY way to stop this transmission of data going back and forth on what apps any individual uses is by insert that address into the Hosts file? Simply disabling gatekeeper in the terminal using the Command i mentioned above does NOT stop the transmission of data to ocsp.apple.com.
AFAICT from all the available information: the notarization check always happens from syspolicyd on every exec regardless of SIP or Gatekeeper being enabled. When you 'disable' Gatekeeper or SIP all you're actually doing is turning off the 'enforcement' portion (much like how MAC is enforced under selinux, it can be passive or active)
Which is to say, using --master-disable turns off the quarantine notifications, but syspolicyd is still performing all of the signature and notarization checks it normally does.
It's too early in the release cycle to install IMHO. I also personally find the legibility to be extremely poor, but that is a personal preference thing. I like the physical layout of things, but I just think the colors used combined with the fonts are extremely hard to read, especially in light mode which I prefer.
Catalina still has numerous issues even at this point of the .7 release cycle, and I wasn't satisfied with its stability to purchase a new Mac (that would necessitate its use) until the .6 release. It's worth giving Big Sur a little time to mature, IMHO, unless you are experiencing major issues. If you are using any third party apps you absolutely must have, it's worth verifying compatibility with the maker should you choose to install it now.
Catalina still has numerous issues even at this point of the .7 release cycle, and I wasn't satisfied with its stability to purchase a new Mac (that would necessitate its use) until the .6 release. It's worth giving Big Sur a little time to mature, IMHO, unless you are experiencing major issues. If you are using any third party apps you absolutely must have, it's worth verifying compatibility with the maker should you choose to install it now.
So you’re saying the only way to stop this privacy issue is to block the ocsp.apple.com address in the hosts file? Is there a logical reason for Apple to be receiving the data that it collects from every single app that is open?
So if that address is blocked in the hosts file, and I keep gatekeeper fully enabled, I’m still protected by gatekeeper from Malware? By blocking ocsp.apple.com I’m ONLY blocking the transmission of the app opening data that was exposed on Catalina on the release day of Big Sur? (It can’t be disabled on Big Sur so I’m only mentioning Catalina)
The data transmission also occurs on Mojave or just Catalina and Big Sur?
Yes. The notarization/cryptographic signatures is pretty much the foundation for how gatekeeper works:
How notarization works
How developers get their software notarized, and how that works when you try to run it on your Mac.
eclecticlight.co
I assume you'd still be protected by MRT and XProtect, but obviously blocking the notarization signature checks disables that portion of gatekeeper
So when you say that you "Assume", it means we're uncertain at this point? How can we verify that gatekeeper still protects the mac from malware if that ocsp.apple.com is added to the hosts file and gatekeeper stays enabled?Yes. The notarization/cryptographic signatures is pretty much the foundation for how gatekeeper works:
How notarization works
How developers get their software notarized, and how that works when you try to run it on your Mac.
I assume you'd still be protected by MRT and XProtect, but obviously blocking the notarization signature checks disables that portion of gatekeeper
im not uncertain, it disables what i described. i have no intention of blocking it, it wont affect me, i dont care