[HOMBRESINIESTRO]

My guess is that security could be the next big thing in Tiger. Although th Mac is a secure paltform, Steve wants to keep that up. I could imaginge Steve introducing at least 50 of the 150 new features as security specific, ranging from an improved firewall, Redezvous Secure, better fileVault, Improved certificate handling all across the OS (think signed updates etc.), a system roll back function to new security hardware...

Tiger will keep the bad guys out. I think this is going to be the big thing about Tiger.

Tyger, Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Espacially Rendezvous Secure could be real great, allowing to limit access to certain services like printing.

[CatOne]

Improved firewall, how? It works fine now. It's very simple to configure -- more advanced functionality is not necessary, unless you're talking about OS X Server (and in that case, it's plenty easy to use -- just write scripts that create the ipfw rules from the command line... you can do this on the client also).

Better Filevault? What would you improve? It's already based on encrypted disk images, which are plenty secure. I guess you could make it "easier to use" but I'm also not sure how you'd do that?

Secure chat, I could see. iChat uses AIM which routes through central servers and is not encrypted.

Most of the security stuff is just patching/fixing bugs. OS X is already very secure by default, any extra "emphasis" would really be marketing focus only.

[HOMBRESINIESTRO]

I don't exactly know what they will improve. But that's normal with Apple for me. They always present new features that are so obvious that you ask why no one else has invented it before.
On the other hand there are three reasons, why I bet on a security focus for Tiger:
1) They can't keep up with presenting 150 new features every year. They will put some makeup on existing featurew, though.
2) Windows is too insecure to not emphasize the securita of the Mac.
3) After the first half of 2003 (with so many worms and trojan horses) security is _the_ big thing for the normal end user. They ask for it. That's why Apple will show them something.

[NeXTLoop]

Originally posted by CatOne:
Better Filevault? What would you improve?

Since FileVault was introduced many have been asking for a way to only encrypt certain folders, instead of your entire Home folder. That way you could not encrypt all your music and movies, which probably aren't really important.

[Link]

Apple should introduce AppleScriptExtreme.. a new advanced scripting language that makes it easier for enterprises to remotely administrate their machines..

Then they need to invent digitally signed drivers and make ichat internal and have the menu bar pop out warnings from time to time, like when you plug in something.. that'd be good.

That and the firewall being fixed some, a new disk utility that allows disk defragging, etc..

You know this sounds exactly like what microsoft did to windows xp. Sounds so shitty and lame.

I would like a disk defragger though. Honestly, apple should leave security in the hands of the user and add some features but not make them mandatory. I think security certs are an asinine way to do things and will NOT make programs any more secure at all. Just loose the damn automatic part, redo the help system (again) so it doesn't use the help:// protocol and make URI's easier to control/IMPOSSIBLE to change without user permission.

Honestly, computers are made to make lives easier for people, not harder. If now macs have to have digital signed ****, special authorizations, etc, you ruin the platform and OS X looks more and more like windows 2003.

[Fotek2001]

Mac OS X doesn't need a defragger if you're using 10.3 or higher and your filesystem is HFS+ (http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/apme/fragmentation/).

The article explains in detail how Mac OS X automatically defragments most files every time that they're opened and therefore keeps the system running smoothly.

Defragmentation on HFS+ volumes should not be necessary at all, or worthwhile, in most cases, because the system seems to do a very good job of avoiding/countering fragmentation.

It is risky to defragment anyway: What if there's a power glitch? What if the system crashes? What if the defragmenting too has a bug? What if you inadvertently reboot? In some cases, you could make the situation worse by defragmenting

[hmurchison2001]

Apple has remained quite about security and that's a great policy. Once you start spoutin' off about how great your security is you in effect have "thrown down the gauntlet" and dared hackers to prove you wrong. To date there have been no Virus/Trojan/Worms on OSX that would even come close to the most recent MS issue(Sasser). In fact the news is trumping up FUD as quickly as they can to humble Apple. I'm sure Apple will focus on security seeing as how they are being watched like a hawk despite having a paltry 2% marketshare