I'm pretty sure git isn't the only thing that is (or will be) vulnerable. Vulnerabilities happen, it's a fact of life. You will have to constantly update your systems no matter which OS you run.
Yes we did, and the author appears to be posting with the primary intent of spreading anti-Apple sentiments. The opening paragraph begins by insulting startups for being full of Macs. The rest of the post is full of snide comments. They go off on a tangent about System Integrity Protection and the fact that OS X is not Linux ("Apple... keeps you from twiddling", "Well, sorry. You also can't chmod", "I'll just strace it to see what it execs! Oh wait, this isn't Linux."). This could easily have been posted as a simple statement of the CVEs in question and the version of git shipped with latest OS X patch. Not difficult to post facts about a specific issue without insulting an entire operating system - and taking cheap shots at the people that use it.
>> If you rely on machines like this, I am truly sorry. I feel for you.
I don't feel sorry for myself. Odd that a stranger finds it necessary to offer me their sympathy, let alone condescending pity.
"Sometimes I think about all of those pictures which show a bunch of people in startups. They have their office space, which might be big, or it might be small, but they tend to have Macs. Lots of Macs. A lot of them also use git to do stuff, perhaps via GitHub, or via some other place entirely. There are lots of one-off repos all over the place."
If you can see a cheap shot in that paragraph, then you are reading things that aren't there. A blog post gives a certain amount of freedom for the author to elaborate on a theme.
You seem a bit defensive. I'm not sure why, but I certainly don't think that Rachel was attacking those who use Macs.
I didn't get a negative vibe from the opening paragraph on its own. If you read the rest of the post, you find a lot of unnecessary negativity regarding the entire Apple ecosystem.
>> I know, I'll just strace it to see what it execs! Oh wait, this isn't Linux. Uh, I'll dtruss it to see what it execs!
Someone who is not in the process of bashing as much as possible would have simply said something like "I'll dtruss it (OS X's equivalent to Linux's strace) to see what it execs". All the exclamation marks and passive aggressive "Uh", "Oh wait", "Well, sorry" phrasing to drive home just how terribly awful the operating system is.
The closing section with the "If you rely on machines like this, I am truly sorry" sealed it. This clear dislike for the ecosystem adds - at least for me - new meaning to the opening paragraph. Typical startup bashing for "trying to be hip and trendy". It's hardware and an operating system. Everyone has a preference for the tools they use; there's no need for passive aggressive hostility.
All that first sentence points out is that Rachel was more familiar with Linux than OS X, and mistakenly thought that strace would be on the system, and then reverted to using dtruss. She's just showing her process for trying to troubleshoot Unix processes to see what is going on under the hood, in a conversational tone.
As for the "If you rely on machines like this, I am truly sorry" - I don't really blame her. She says she's sorry because she was trying to administer a system that a. has vulnerable software she couldn't easily upgrade or even remove, and b. some of the common utilities that she uses to troubleshoot Unix systems just don't work and this makes a competent Unix admin's life harder than it needs to be.
And Rachel, by all accounts, is a very competent - no, scratch that - talented administrator. So she feels the pain of not being able to use commonly available tools and not being able to keep systems as secure as she would like.
If you feel offended by this, then it seems to me you are actively looking to be offended and you have your own agenda.
The sentiment against OS X might not show that strong, but it is clearly there. She doesn't even mention that what protects /usr/bin is System Integrity Protection, or that it can be disabled. The very idea that people might not be using system git is not even mentioned.
All in all, it really feels as if it was written from the perspective of someone that does not usually work with OS X and does not know the system well. In other words, she has not done her homework. Which is fine, if you acknowledge what you don't know. But then the condescending tone would be totally out of place.
The sentiment is there, and it does not help in spreading the message, unless what you really want is to flare up all the emotions. Otherwise, it's not the best course of action.
Fun fact, since we're comparing default system installations, my Ubuntu apparently still has git 2.5.0. I suppose I should find some PPA or something to update it.