Former good article nomineeIOS was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 11, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
January 20, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024 edit

รบกวน (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace42 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Split to Security and Privacy of iOS edit

I recommend splitting the section titled "Security and Privacy" into a new article as it contains too much detail that would be better off on its own. Maybe also reducing the detail in the "Jailbreaking" section. Please discuss. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 16:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's useful information to have, but I agree that it might be better off in its own article, together with the jailbreak stuff. The primary reason for my thinking is that it's more technical information that requires a slightly deeper level of technical understanding, which clashes a bit with the rest of the article.
We can always transclude lighter, more summarized parts from the new security article into the iOS article and slap a hatnote on it that refers to the new security article. ConcurrentState (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone oppose or can we move the content? Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd say go ahead and be bold. This talk page doesn't seem that active and if it turns out to be contentious it's easily reversed and discussed. ConcurrentState (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done @ConcurrentState See new article. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please feel free to class the article. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks good at first blush. I'll spend some more time on it tomorrow to see if any improvements could be made and to class it. ConcurrentState (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mseingth2133444, I've bumped the class to B because it seems to meet the 6 criteria listed for B over at WP:ASSESS. Also added a banner shell with wikiproject banners from projects that I think would be a good fit.
I'll see if I can find some time this weekend I can dedicate to the new article and the general iOS article's S&P section. Ideally I'd transclude something digestible (whether already existing or something I created) from the new S&P article into the S&P section on the general iOS article. ConcurrentState (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 17:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Improving this article edit

The article is way too long to comfortably read, maybe split it into multiple? Also how is only C-class? In my eyes it's at least B. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

iOS is coming up on twenty years in existence. I'd say it requires a significant amount of wordage, though I'm sure it can be tightened up. Seasider53 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Official website edit

There's been some back and forth on whether the official website is https://www.apple.com/ios/ or https://apple.com/ios (without the www). Although modern browsers tend to hide the www bit, the official url does indeed include it. You can test this using a tool such as Wget.

wget --max-redirect 0 https://apple.com/ios redirects to https://www.apple.com/ios.

wget --max-redirect 0 https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/ redirects to https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/.

As HTTP 301 is a permanent redirect, we are obligated by RFC 2616 to update the url on our side to the result of the redirect. I have done so. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did this also, but @Strugglehouse reverted my edit. Hopefully this confusion is no longer there. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 15:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
RFC 2616 says

The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs.

so it's SHOULD, not MUST. Also, Apple's arguably not using 301 correctly, there, given that, unless Apple plans never to release a version of iOS called something other than "iOS 17", that redirect isn't truly permanent - it'll presumably change some time later this year. They should probably use 307 Temporary Redirect instead. Guy Harris (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'm happy with Guy's compromise. Apple's indeed not using 301 correctly, they should be using 302 I believe. --Yamla (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, 302 sounds more like "this is here, for now", which pretty much covers "www.apple.com/ios/ goes to the page for the current version of iOS"; 307 might be more like "road closed, here's the detour". Guy Harris (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

iOS based on Darwin/XNU, not macOS edit

In the fourth paragraph, there is a description: "iOS is based on macOS. Like macOS...", but later it says "The iOS kernel is the XNU kernel of Darwin." This is quite confusing, as it seems to imply that iOS is a subsystem of macOS. However, they are both operating systems based on the XNU kernel. I suggest changing the earlier statement to "based on XNU" or "based on Darwin". Nasyxx (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

macOS, iOS, etc. are operating systems based on:
  • the XNU kernel from Darwin;
  • the libSystem library from Darwin;
  • other libraries from Darwin;
  • various daemons from Darwin;
  • the Foundation framework, not from Darwin;
  • other stuff not from Darwin.
I suggest that "based on XNU" is quite incomplete (the application binary interface for those OSes is based on calls to various dynamically-linked libraries, not on system calls to XNU!), and that even "based on Darwin", although it includes most if not all of what's necessary for UN*X programs, doesn't include some non-Darwin libraries that are common to all of those OSes and that typical apps use. Guy Harris (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024 edit

197.184.181.28 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply