Discussion:
Jaguar GM Candidate Questions
(too old to reply)
Morbus Iff
2002-08-05 21:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Out of curiosity:

- I had heard in previous developer releases that one could
NOT install the final, shipped version after installing
any previous developer release. Is this the same with
the Candidate GM release of 10.2? If someone were to
install it, can they then install the shipped version?

- What's the easiest way to reinstall, from scratch,
OS X, *without* formatting the hard drive? If I jumped
into Classic, removed all the various OS X directories,
mach_ files, etc., and then ran the 10.2 Jaguar CD,
would it realize this is a brand new install? Would
there be any issues with doing it this way?

Thanks for any comments.
--
Morbus Iff ( oh, i wish i was a hoggle )
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
Tech: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 - articles and weblog
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
Shawn Erickson
2002-08-05 21:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morbus Iff
- I had heard in previous developer releases that one could
NOT install the final, shipped version after installing
any previous developer release. Is this the same with
the Candidate GM release of 10.2? If someone were to
install it, can they then install the shipped version?
It is not supported or tested by Apple. You could however still do it
(you may need to remove the receipt for it so the installer lets you or
modify the installers version check script).
Post by Morbus Iff
- What's the easiest way to reinstall, from scratch,
OS X, *without* formatting the hard drive? If I jumped
into Classic, removed all the various OS X directories,
mach_ files, etc., and then ran the 10.2 Jaguar CD,
would it realize this is a brand new install? Would
there be any issues with doing it this way?
The new Jaguar installer has the ability to move aside existing
installs and optionally import user information from the old install.

Removing directories by hand could work... but I never tried it myself.

-Shawn
Matthew Butch
2002-08-06 00:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morbus Iff
- What's the easiest way to reinstall, from scratch,
OS X, *without* formatting the hard drive?
There isn't one. To reinstall from scratch, you MUST reformat the drive.
Post by Morbus Iff
If I jumped
into Classic, removed all the various OS X directories,
mach_ files, etc., and then ran the 10.2 Jaguar CD,
would it realize this is a brand new install? Would
there be any issues with doing it this way?
Yes. The BSD subsystem might get upgraded properly.

I've tried this. Something went wrong with my OSX BSD subsystem. It was
giving me weird errors in the terminal. So I booted in 9, removed all
the OSX stuff, and reinstalled- first 10.0, then 10.1.(this was before I
got around to burning a 10.1 full install CD. Stupid apple. and this
took an hour or so) When I booted back into the new X, the problems were
still there.

There is a reason Apple recommends reformatting. OSX goes screwy
otherwise. You can try it, and it MIGHT work, but I doubt it.

This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user folder,
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.




---

Matthew Butch

(ATTN: New MailPicture Picture. Delete the old one!)

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
motto"-Thomas Jefferson, 1799

Free State Project "Liberty in Our Lifetime"
http://www.freestateproject.com

Sent with MacOS X's Mail 1.1(v482)
Bill Cheeseman
2002-08-06 03:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Butch
This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user folder,
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.
And thereby lose everything you had in /Applications and /Library. Lots of
software installers put stuff in both those locations. And who knows where
else.

--

Bill Cheeseman - ***@earthlink.net
Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA
http://www.quecheesoftware.com

The AppleScript Sourcebook - http://www.AppleScriptSourcebook.com
Vermont Recipes - http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/VermontRecipes
Croquet Club of Vermont - http://members.valley.net/croquetvermont
Jesús Díaz Blanco
2002-08-06 03:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Cheeseman
Post by Matthew Butch
This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user folder,
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.
And thereby lose everything you had in /Applications and /Library. Lots
of
software installers put stuff in both those locations. And who knows
where
else.
Before going into Furby-mode regarding the upgrade issue, and w/o
breaking any NDA, maybe we should keep in mind that Apple could provide
with a method of doing any upgrade or clean install in a quite elegant
way.

I mean. It _could_ happen.

Really.

j.
Ashley Aitken
2002-08-06 07:26:05 UTC
Permalink
So true, and really annoying. This is a pet peeve of mine with Mac OS
X. I have given feedback to Apple a number of times asking them to put
their "non-system" Applications and Library stuff in a separate Apple
domain, ie Apple/Applications and Apple/Library or something like that,
and leave the machine's local Applications and Library domain alone for
us. I guess they are concerned that users will get confused having
Applications in all different folders all over the place, which is why I
also suggested they need to make it easy to have a dynamic applications
folder that collects all apps on the system etc. I think you can do
this with the new Jaguar Find, but it would be nice to be able to save
these dynamic finds.

Cheers,
Ashley.
Post by Matthew Butch
This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user
folder,
Post by Matthew Butch
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.
And thereby lose everything you had in /Applications and /Library. Lots
of
software installers put stuff in both those locations. And who knows
where
else.

--

Bill Cheeseman - ***@earthlink.net
Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA
http://www.quecheesoftware.com

The AppleScript Sourcebook - http://www.AppleScriptSourcebook.com
Vermont Recipes - http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/VermontRecipes
Croquet Club of Vermont - http://members.valley.net/croquetvermont
Chris Murphy
2002-08-06 07:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Butch
This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user folder,
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.
The only problem I see with this is that as we go forward, we'll see
increasing numbers of apps taking advantage of Services, I think. In
order for services to get "published" they have to be in /Applications
or ~/Applications or /Network/Applications (maybe one other spot) -
within, I think, 5 levels. And making a symlink or alias isn't working
(yet-maybe Jaguar).

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Chris Murphy
2002-08-06 07:59:02 UTC
Permalink
So true, and really annoying.  This is a pet peeve of mine with Mac OS
X.  I have given feedback to Apple a number of times asking them to
put their "non-system" Applications and Library stuff in a separate
Apple domain, ie Apple/Applications and Apple/Library or something
like that, and leave the machine's local Applications and Library
domain alone for us. 
They already have their own Library - it's /System/Library. What they
don't have is their own applications folder. I do not want to back up
150MB of applications that already exist on a CD somewhere, that will
be restored upon resinstalling the OS. Plus, from an organizational
standpoint it's just terrible. If I take all the apps and stick them
into /Applications/Apple - then they don't f*n get updated properly
when updates are released. Now if Apple has created a new installer
that's smarter than the average rock, perhaps the issue will be moot in
Jaguar. Even Mac OS 7.6 had a more intelligent installer for crying out
loud.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
LuKreme
2002-08-06 10:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Murphy
Post by Ashley Aitken
So true, and really annoying. This is a pet peeve of mine with Mac OS
X. I have given feedback to Apple a number of times asking them to
put their "non-system" Applications and Library stuff in a separate
Apple domain, ie Apple/Applications and Apple/Library or something
like that, and leave the machine's local Applications and Library
domain alone for us.
They already have their own Library - it's /System/Library. What they
don't have is their own applications folder.
Your own apps should go in ~/Applications. System wide apps go in
~Shared/Applications and network wide apps go in /Network/Applications.

The only stuff that BELONGS in /Applications is the system applications.
(that said, I drop my stuff in /Applications for the most part, but
then I don't back up /Applications either).
Mark F. Murphy
2002-08-07 08:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Your own apps should go in ~/Applications. System wide apps go in
~Shared/Applications and network wide apps go in
/Network/Applications.
So does ~Shared/Applications allow for services to work? Is it on
peer with /Applications?

mark
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LuKreme
2002-08-07 11:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Your own apps should go in ~/Applications. System wide apps go in
~Shared/Applications and network wide apps go in /Network/Applications.
So does ~Shared/Applications allow for services to work? Is it on peer
with /Applications?
Hmm... you know, I haven't checked. There aren't actaully that many
apps that support services yet. I suppose you could always move Omniweb
into ~Shared/Applications and see...
Mark F. Murphy
2002-08-08 07:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Post by Mark F. Murphy
So does ~Shared/Applications allow for services to work? Is it on
peer with /Applications?
Hmm... you know, I haven't checked. There aren't actaully that many
apps that support services yet. I suppose you could always move
Omniweb into ~Shared/Applications and see...
That would be very cool to find out (I don't use any services either).

I like your suggestion of putting most system wide apps in
~Shared/Applications.

Any other drawbacks about the Shared directory that might crop up?

mark
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-06 08:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Murphy
They already have their own Library - it's /System/Library. What they
don't have is their own applications folder. I do not want to back up
150MB of applications that already exist on a CD somewhere, that will
be restored upon resinstalling the OS. Plus, from an organizational
standpoint it's just terrible. If I take all the apps and stick them
into /Applications/Apple - then they don't f*n get updated properly
when updates are released. Now if Apple has created a new installer
that's smarter than the average rock, perhaps the issue will be moot in
Jaguar. Even Mac OS 7.6 had a more intelligent installer for crying out
loud.
Hmm, I seem to recall having to delete the duplicated copies of SimpleText,
Apple CD Audio Player, et al. That every pre-X installer created for me,
because they relied on "perma-paths" too. I forget what they were called,
but Apple's 7/8/9 installers certainly put folders down with stuff in them
if you'd moved the items since the last install.

And if you only want to back up _your_ applications, you're always free to
put THEM in a separate sub-folder:

/Applications/Non-Apple .

Or ~/Applications of course (especially true if you're the only user on a
machine, of course).
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

HANDLE WITH CARE: This email contains small electrically-charged
particles moving at speeds of over 500,000,000 miles per hour.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Ashley Aitken
2002-08-06 08:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Almost correct. The Mac OS X System Guide (IIRC) says that /System is
for resources that are crucial for the system to run. Stuff in here
should rarely be touched by mere mortals (even those outside the OS
group at Apple). Apple is probably not putting all their applications
in /System/Applications because they are not cruicial for the system to
run.

The domains and their "roots" are User (~), Network (/Network), Local
(/), and System (/System) and each can have it's own Applications
folder, Library folder etc etc. As I mentioned, Apple doesn't want to
put their applications and extra fonts etc in the System domain so they
throw them in the Local domain, making it a royal pain in the bum for
us.

What they need is another domain for Apple non-cruicial non-system
resources (applications, fonts, etc etc). What you suggest
(/Applications/Apple) sorta works but, as you indicate, it screws up
updates. It is even worse for /Library - do you have a separate Apple
folder inside every folder in the Library. Really, having a separate
Apple domain would do the trick nicely!

Come on Apple!

Cheers,
Ashley.

PS Some people in Apple have also expressed to me their displeasure at
how the domain system has been mucked up ...
Post by Ashley Aitken
So true, and really annoying. This is a pet peeve of mine with Mac
OS
Post by Ashley Aitken
X. I have given feedback to Apple a number of times asking them to
put their "non-system" Applications and Library stuff in a separate
Apple domain, ie Apple/Applications and Apple/Library or something
like that, and leave the machine's local Applications and Library
domain alone for us.
They already have their own Library - it's /System/Library. What they
don't have is their own applications folder. I do not want to back up
150MB of applications that already exist on a CD somewhere, that will
be restored upon resinstalling the OS. Plus, from an organizational
standpoint it's just terrible. If I take all the apps and stick them
into /Applications/Apple - then they don't f*n get updated properly
when updates are released. Now if Apple has created a new installer
that's smarter than the average rock, perhaps the issue will be moot in

Jaguar. Even Mac OS 7.6 had a more intelligent installer for crying out

loud.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Ashley Aitken
2002-08-06 08:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Forgot to mention, my current solution is to use the Network domain for
local resources. So I put my applications in /Network/Applications and
library resources in /Network/Library (actually I have these setup as
symbolic links to directories on another partition (I keep the OS
partition separate to make reinstalls easier - another reason for an
Apple domain)). Using the Network domain works fine, of course,
assuming you are not using NetInfo to mount network applications and
library resources. Of course, as Erik mentioned the User domain is
another option if you are the only user on the machine.

Cheers,
Ashley.
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-06 09:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Ashley Aitken
What they need is another domain for Apple non-cruicial non-system
resources (applications, fonts, etc etc). What you suggest
(/Applications/Apple) sorta works but, as you indicate, it screws up
updates. It is even worse for /Library - do you have a separate Apple
folder inside every folder in the Library. Really, having a separate
Apple domain would do the trick nicely!
I like the existing system and wouldn't change it. /Applications is fine.

Your /Applications/Apple can, as I have stated, just as easily be done with
/Applications/Non-Apple/ except you put all YOUR stuff in there, and leave
the rest out.
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

Home is where you hang your @
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Ashley Aitken
2002-08-06 10:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi Erik,

Not sure if you got my other post yet ...

Your suggestion works ok for Applications, but what do you do for the
library folders.

Put /Library/Fonts/Non-Apple /Library/XYX/Non-Apple
/Library/ABC/Non-Apple ...
Not sure if that will even work for fonts (is it hierarchical?).

What's so bad with adding one extra domain? and using the others as
they were meant to be used?

Cheers,
Ashley.
Hi,
Post by Ashley Aitken
What they need is another domain for Apple non-cruicial non-system
resources (applications, fonts, etc etc). What you suggest
(/Applications/Apple) sorta works but, as you indicate, it screws up
updates. It is even worse for /Library - do you have a separate
Apple
Post by Ashley Aitken
folder inside every folder in the Library. Really, having a
separate
Post by Ashley Aitken
Apple domain would do the trick nicely!
I like the existing system and wouldn't change it. /Applications is
fine.

Your /Applications/Apple can, as I have stated, just as easily be done
with
/Applications/Non-Apple/ except you put all YOUR stuff in there, and
leave
the rest out.
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

Home is where you hang your @
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-06 10:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Ashley Aitken
Not sure if you got my other post yet ...
Who knows the way the list is going? :)
Post by Ashley Aitken
Your suggestion works ok for Applications, but what do you do for the
library folders.
Put /Library/Fonts/Non-Apple /Library/XYX/Non-Apple
/Library/ABC/Non-Apple ...
Not sure if that will even work for fonts (is it hierarchical?).
What's so bad with adding one extra domain? and using the others as
they were meant to be used?
I don't see the reason. Why add an extra domain? If you want it on another
volume, symlink it over. If you want it for yourself, ~/ it.

Could you restate, simply, your need for another domain? Why? I am clearly
misunderstanding the need here, and would like to know what you mean.
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Chris Murphy
2002-08-06 11:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Your own apps should go in ~/Applications. System wide apps go in
~Shared/Applications and network wide apps go in > /Network/Applications.
Have you actually tried putting things in /Users/Shared/Applications
and seeing if application services get published? This location does
not sound familiar.

And as for sticking apps in ~/Applications - that's annoying.
Applications is where all installers by default point to even by
Apple's own recommendations. If anyone should be avoiding
/Applications, it's Apple. Not users, and not developers.
Post by LuKreme
The only stuff that BELONGS in /Applications is the system
applications.
Ridiculous as well as impractical.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Matthew Butch
2002-08-06 23:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Cheeseman
Post by Matthew Butch
This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user folder,
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.
And thereby lose everything you had in /Applications and /Library. Lots
of
software installers put stuff in both those locations. And who knows
where
else.
Yeah, so? Why would I bother copying 250 MB of Applications that I can
easily just ignore and reinstall after the reformat? I don't keep any
important preferences or documents there, I make sure of that. It is
just Apple's Applications and others that I installed, which I saved the
compressed file of.

As for /Library, I do check it to see if there is anything I need, but I
rarely find anything I need to copy(except maybe some preferences)


---

Matthew Butch

(ATTN: New MailPicture Picture. Delete the old one!)

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
motto"-Thomas Jefferson, 1799

Free State Project "Liberty in Our Lifetime"
http://www.freestateproject.com

Sent with MacOS X's Mail 1.1(v482)
Matthew Butch
2002-08-06 23:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesús Díaz Blanco
Post by Bill Cheeseman
Post by Matthew Butch
This is why I keep OSX on a separate partition from both 9 and my
documents. If I ever have to reinstall X, I just copy my user folder,
reformat the partition, and reinstall X.
And thereby lose everything you had in /Applications and /Library.
Lots of
software installers put stuff in both those locations. And who knows
where
else.
Before going into Furby-mode regarding the upgrade issue, and w/o
breaking any NDA, maybe we should keep in mind that Apple could provide
with a method of doing any upgrade or clean install in a quite elegant
way.
I mean. It _could_ happen.
Really.
I don't doubt it. And I hope it DOES happen. But then I'll believe it
when I see it.


---

Matthew Butch

(ATTN: New MailPicture Picture. Delete the old one!)

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
motto"-Thomas Jefferson, 1799

Free State Project "Liberty in Our Lifetime"
http://www.freestateproject.com

Sent with MacOS X's Mail 1.1(v482)
Matthew Butch
2002-08-06 23:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Plus, from an organizational standpoint it's just terrible. If I take
all the apps and stick them into /Applications/Apple - then they don't
f*n get updated properly when updates are released. Now if Apple has
created a new installer that's smarter than the average rock, perhaps
the issue will be moot in Jaguar. Even Mac OS 7.6 had a more
intelligent installer for crying out loud.
I know what you mean. Jeez, its not THAT freaking hard to have the
installer to find an application in a subfolder!!

grrr! The installer angers me too.

---

Matthew Butch

(ATTN: New MailPicture Picture. Delete the old one!)

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our
motto"-Thomas Jefferson, 1799

Free State Project "Liberty in Our Lifetime"
http://www.freestateproject.com

Sent with MacOS X's Mail 1.1(v482)
Bill Cheeseman
2002-08-07 02:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Butch
Yeah, so? Why would I bother copying 250 MB of Applications that I can
easily just ignore and reinstall after the reformat? I don't keep any
important preferences or documents there, I make sure of that. It is
just Apple's Applications and others that I installed, which I saved the
compressed file of.
I save all my latest application download installers, too, and of course the
commercial applications that I buy. But this is only to guard against
unexpected disk failures, not for frequent use.

To reinstall them after I upgrade the system would take, by my best
estimate, all of one day and part of the next. Then I would have to research
which of them installed essential stuff in /Library (many of them do, in my
experience) such as components, Application Support subfolders, and so on,
so I could go and find my favored settings of those that are
user-modifiable.

It is so much more efficient to do an update install when possible. And, as
somebody else who is conscious of his NDA responsibilities recently said,
maybe Apple will shortly provide an easy way to save old system stuff during
a clean install.

--

Bill Cheeseman - ***@earthlink.net
Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA
http://www.quecheesoftware.com

The AppleScript Sourcebook - http://www.AppleScriptSourcebook.com
Vermont Recipes - http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/VermontRecipes
Croquet Club of Vermont - http://members.valley.net/croquetvermont
Derek Chesterfield
2002-08-08 07:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark F. Murphy
Post by LuKreme
Post by Mark F. Murphy
So does ~Shared/Applications allow for services to work? Is it on
peer with /Applications?
Hmm... you know, I haven't checked. There aren't actaully that many
apps that support services yet. I suppose you could always move
Omniweb into ~Shared/Applications and see...
That would be very cool to find out (I don't use any services either).
I like your suggestion of putting most system wide apps in
~Shared/Applications.
Any other drawbacks about the Shared directory that might crop up?
This behaviour (apps have to be in special locations for their services
to work) is annoying. Say I dump an app in a non-special location, and
another user logs in. If they double-click a document with the
extension for that particular app, then it won't work. However, if they
launch the app manually, then the OS knows about that app, despite its
odd location, and double-clicking the document will work in the future.
So why don't services do the same??
Chris Murphy
2002-08-08 08:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Chesterfield
This behaviour (apps have to be in special locations for their
services to work) is annoying.
I agree. And making a symlink or alias to the location where you keep
your apps, and sticking it in /Applications does not work. The
application publishing services must actually be in the path (I think
within 5 levels) of an Applications search path.
Post by Derek Chesterfield
Say I dump an app in a non-special location, and another user logs in.
If they double-click a document with the extension for that particular
app, then it won't work. However, if they launch the app manually,
then the OS knows about that app, despite its odd location, and
double-clicking the document will work in the future.
Yes, I think the System Overview refers to it as lazy application
binding or something like that - as compared to periodically having to
rebuild the desktop database on OS 9 and earlier.
Post by Derek Chesterfield
So why don't services do the same??
Yes *exactly*.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Chris Murphy
2002-08-08 08:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark F. Murphy
That would be very cool to find out (I don't use any services either).
I like your suggestion of putting most system wide apps in
~Shared/Applications.
Any other drawbacks about the Shared directory that might crop up?
a.) It does not publish services. I just tried it with OpenUp and
OmniWeb. They appear when in /Applications or ~/Applications but not in
/Users/Shared/Applications.

b.) It's not at all intuitive to go looking for applications in the
Users folder.

Apps belong in /Applications. And that is a user domain, Apple has no
business making it as much of a pain in the ass to customize that
folder as they make it.

Also a test:

1. Making a symlink or alias of a folder containing applications that
can publish services, and placing it in a support application search
path does not work.

2. Making an alias of the actual applications and sticking them in the
search path does not work.

3. Making a symlink of the actual applications and sticking them in the
search path *DOES* work.


Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-08 09:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Chris Murphy
Post by Mark F. Murphy
Any other drawbacks about the Shared directory that might crop up?
Shared isn't supposed to be used for Applications. It's for documents that
you wish to share.
Post by Chris Murphy
Apps belong in /Applications. And that is a user domain, Apple has no
business making it as much of a pain in the ass to customize that
folder as they make it.
It is _not_ a user domain. It's a System Admin domain, and frankly, it's not
for you to decide what Apple should or shouldn't do. It _is_ their business,
as they're providing the OS you're running.

You're getting your panties in a twist about services, now? What services do
you use, Chris? And how is putting all of your Applications in
/Applications/Non-Apple fail to resolve whatever problem you seem to think
that you have?
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

The best things are not always the most popular.
The most popular things are not always the best.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
steve harley
2002-08-08 12:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
You're getting your panties in a twist about services, now?
Chris did a careful test that i was going to do anyway.. my
thanks to him for saving me the trouble.. i don't mind that
he added a little commentary

i hadn't trusted that Shared was a good solution.. now i'm
sure it's not
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
What services do
you use, Chris? And how is putting all of your Applications in
/Applications/Non-Apple fail to resolve whatever problem you seem to think
that you have?
i won't speak for Chris, but several people have discussed a
desire for a good way to handle the dilemma of mingling
shared applications into a folder that is munged by system
updates, and on a volume that must be reformatted for a true
reinstall.. moving apps won't solve it though, because
there's quite a bit in /Library.. i'm considering mounting
Applications and Library folders on another volume to
/Network and seeing how that works

and i do use services, particularly i use the OmniDictionary
service from Eudora, and i think TextWielder is promising too
--
steve harley
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-08 12:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by steve harley
i won't speak for Chris, but several people have discussed a
desire for a good way to handle the dilemma of mingling
shared applications into a folder that is munged by system
updates, and on a volume that must be reformatted for a true
reinstall.. moving apps won't solve it though, because
there's quite a bit in /Library.. i'm considering mounting
Applications and Library folders on another volume to
/Network and seeing how that works
and i do use services, particularly i use the OmniDictionary
service from Eudora, and i think TextWielder is promising too
I'm moderately compassionate, but I still am not sure I understand
everything. I try, though, so bear with me... :)

I have everything in /Applications and heck, I'm the only user. Furthermore,
if "backup and reinstallation" is the issue, why is /Applications/Non-Apple
still not a valid solution?

Plus, as you say, yes, much is installed outside of /Applications as well.

I'm not sure I understand why this is all such a big deal... Can someone
explain, succinctly, what the complaint is? All I have right now is this:

Apple's current setup makes backup and reinstallation a bitch.

So the proposed solution is:
/Apple (with ./Applications, ./Library)

As well as the existing folders? Thus meaning you would have to back up:
/Library
/Applications
/Users

And nothing else, and you'd be able to restore everything "third-party"
(non-Apple). Is that what you're saying?
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

Recursive (ri kur' siv): adj. - See recursive.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
steve harley
2002-08-08 17:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
/Apple (with ./Applications, ./Library)
/Library
/Applications
/Users
And nothing else, and you'd be able to restore everything "third-party"
(non-Apple). Is that what you're saying?
yes, i think that would be very satisfactory.. alternatively
keep stock applications where they are and promote
/Users/Shared to a new status.. either way it would be
simpler to backup, reinstall, and/or mount from another
volume.. we'd have these domains in order of priority:

user
shared
local (ie, "stock")
system
network (i haven't given up that this might serve for shared)

(and of course Classic, at least for fonts)

now, while i don't really mind it, people have complained at
the multiplicity of these domains, so i propose that
implementing the "shared domain" solution be dovetailed with
the idea of an extra-hierarchical filesystem: the domains
could exist, but meta-Applications and -Library folders
would appear to simply contain every resource available to
the current user.. installers might ask, instead of "which
folder", "which domain".. further, an administrative tool
might expose the details of the domains and the
prioiritization used when an resource exists in more than
one domain
--
steve harley
Husk.David
2002-08-08 13:04:07 UTC
Permalink
I've been slightly following this thread, but one of the problems that comes to
mind with the location of the Applications directory is that it is in the home
directory of the user. Further there are Apple standard applications stored in
this directory. Since we intend to mount the users home directories on
networked storage, then we are going to end up with multiple copies of these
applications. Now it is probably possible to separate the standard applications
out and use some kind of alias scheme to exclude then but the put is I shouldn't
have to do this.

If this has been covered please ignore.

cheers
Post by Mark F. Murphy
----------
From: Erik J. Barzeski
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2002 3:22 PM
To: Mac OS X Talk
Subject: Re: Publishing services, was:Jaguar GM Candidate Questions
Hi,
Post by steve harley
i won't speak for Chris, but several people have discussed a
desire for a good way to handle the dilemma of mingling
shared applications into a folder that is munged by system
updates, and on a volume that must be reformatted for a true
reinstall.. moving apps won't solve it though, because
there's quite a bit in /Library.. i'm considering mounting
Applications and Library folders on another volume to
/Network and seeing how that works
and i do use services, particularly i use the OmniDictionary
service from Eudora, and i think TextWielder is promising too
I'm moderately compassionate, but I still am not sure I understand
everything. I try, though, so bear with me... :)
I have everything in /Applications and heck, I'm the only user. Furthermore,
if "backup and reinstallation" is the issue, why is /Applications/Non-Apple
still not a valid solution?
Plus, as you say, yes, much is installed outside of /Applications as well.
I'm not sure I understand why this is all such a big deal... Can someone
Apple's current setup makes backup and reinstallation a bitch.
/Apple (with ./Applications, ./Library)
/Library
/Applications
/Users
And nothing else, and you'd be able to restore everything "third-party"
(non-Apple). Is that what you're saying?
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski
Recursive (ri kur' siv): adj. - See recursive.
###################################################################
http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
Chris Murphy
2002-08-08 13:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Hi,
Post by Chris Murphy
Post by Mark F. Murphy
Any other drawbacks about the Shared directory that might crop up?
Shared isn't supposed to be used for Applications. It's for documents
that
you wish to share.
You misquote me above. I didn't write that. Mark F. Murphy did.
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by Chris Murphy
Apps belong in /Applications. And that is a user domain, Apple has no
business making it as much of a pain in the ass to customize that
folder as they make it.
It is _not_ a user domain. It's a System Admin domain, and frankly,
it's not
for you to decide what Apple should or shouldn't do. It _is_ their
business,
as they're providing the OS you're running.
It's my computer. They talk about all this customization you can do and
the f*'n OS has to be Type A Anal Retentive about where the hell
applications get stored; and the current installer/software updater is
such a dumbass it can't look just one more level deep in /Applications
to do updating.

And /Applications *IS* a user domain. It is not root's domain. That the
first user happens to be an admin does not mean it's not a user domain.
The admin is a user. With very few exceptions the admin will be a
regular Joe user. And quite a few people using and who will use this OS
in the future will be regular Joe users who never disable autologin.
The /Applications folder *at a minimum* is the domain of the first user
who goes through the registration and setup process. Apple should allow
their crap to be placed in a subfolder in /Applications, and still have
it work and be updated. It is their job to make the OS smarter than the
most common user who will be using the OS - who isn't going to know
better, understand or agree with the idea they can't collect Apple's
apps and stick them in a "other apps" folder within /Applications.
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
What services do
you use, Chris?
OpenUp and OmniWeb so far.
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
And how is putting all of your Applications in
/Applications/Non-Apple fail to resolve whatever problem you seem to
think
that you have?
My apps are on another partition. Sticking them anywhere in
/Applications isn't possible. And if it were, *MY* apps should get to
be top level. I should get to choose what is important to me and what
is not, and how to organize my things. I should be allowed to put my
apps wherever I want so long as I have permissions necessary to place
them there. A smart operating system would let me do that, and it would
do the thinking.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-08 13:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Chris Murphy
It's my computer. They talk about all this customization you can do and
Who is "they" and where, exactly, do they talk about "all this
customization"? You base a lot of your "logic" on premises that don't exist.
Post by Chris Murphy
the f*'n OS has to be Type A Anal Retentive about where the hell
applications get stored; and the current installer/software updater is
such a dumbass it can't look just one more level deep in /Applications
to do updating.
Nor could Mac OS 8 or 9 installs, either, and Adobe apps have a nice history
of failing if you even rename the folder. It's a problem, yes, but not a new
one Apple's invented with Mac OS X.
Post by Chris Murphy
And /Applications *IS* a user domain. It is not root's domain.
There are three kinds of domains.

User - everything in /User, and nothing else
System Admin - nearly everything else
Root - everything
Post by Chris Murphy
That the
first user happens to be an admin does not mean it's not a user domain.
It's system admin's domain.

To quote from your favorite book of late, the Mac OS X System Overview:

"Local: the domain for applications, documents, and resources shared among
all users of a particular computer." It goes on to state that system admins
are responsible for maintaining that area.

It also, previously, defines "User: the domain specific to the user who is
logged on, and defined by the user's home directory."

You're wrong, if you want to be technical about it. I also encourage you to
review "The User Domain" section of the same book - it does not cover
/Applications at all. Sorry.
Post by Chris Murphy
The admin is a user. With very few exceptions the admin will be a
regular Joe user.
No, you state as fact something you couldn't possibly imagine. My parents'
computer has an "admin" account - me - and I only ever SSH in to their
machine. Furthermore, in any company setting, regular users are likely to be
just that: regular users. Same in an educational setting. The "tech" or IT
people are probably the system admins.
Post by Chris Murphy
And quite a few people using and who will use this OS
in the future will be regular Joe users who never disable autologin.
Perhaps. But you're still wrong, and as I now realize this is a fairly moot,
off-topic point to be making, I'm gonna shaddup.
Post by Chris Murphy
My apps are on another partition. Sticking them anywhere in
/Applications isn't possible. And if it were, *MY* apps should get to
be top level. I should get to choose what is important to me and what
is not, and how to organize my things. I should be allowed to put my
apps wherever I want so long as I have permissions necessary to place
them there. A smart operating system would let me do that, and it would
do the thinking.
Great! I know an OS that lets you put them nearly anywhere! It's called Mac
OS X. I've been running it for years, and heck, I've even run applications
from the DMG they've ridden in on.
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

Life is like a box of chocolates - Sometimes you run across a nut.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
steve harley
2002-08-08 17:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Nor could Mac OS 8 or 9 installs, either, and Adobe apps have a nice history
of failing if you even rename the folder. It's a problem, yes, but not a new
one Apple's invented with Mac OS X.
it wasn't the dominant paradigm until Mac OS X.. a great
number of legacy Mac OS installers were location agnostic..
those that weren't were lowly regarded
--
steve harley
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-08 17:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve harley
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
And nothing else, and you'd be able to restore everything "third-party"
(non-Apple). Is that what you're saying?
yes, i think that would be very satisfactory.. alternatively
keep stock applications where they are and promote
/Users/Shared to a new status.. either way it would be
simpler to backup, reinstall, and/or mount from another
That would be abuse of /User/Shared.
Post by steve harley
user
shared
local (ie, "stock")
system
network (i haven't given up that this might serve for shared)
Or, heaven forbid, networked things.
Post by steve harley
now, while i don't really mind it, people have complained at
the multiplicity of these domains, so i propose that
implementing the "shared domain" solution be dovetailed with
the idea of an extra-hierarchical filesystem: the domains
could exist, but meta-Applications and -Library folders
would appear to simply contain every resource available to
the current user.. installers might ask, instead of "which
folder", "which domain".. further, an administrative tool
might expose the details of the domains and the
prioiritization used when an resource exists in more than
one domain
And asking "which domain?" is in the interests of KISS... How? I don't see
it. Most apps are supposed to be drag and drop installs, not even running
installers, so I'll disagree with you right up front on that one. :P
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

I live in a small house, but my window
looks out on a large world - Confucius
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
steve harley
2002-08-08 23:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by steve harley
alternatively
keep stock applications where they are and promote
/Users/Shared to a new status [...]
That would be abuse of /User/Shared.
or a redefinition.. i don't think most people understand,
much less use, /Users/Shared anyway.. it hasn't settled into
its role, so it's a valid target for usurpation
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by steve harley
network (i haven't given up that this might serve for shared)
Or, heaven forbid, networked things.
my reasoning was if you have a real /Network, from a server,
then it's function will be to share resources that aren't
stock.. if you don't have a real /Network, why not use it,
then, to share resources that aren't stock.. either way same
function, same result.. haven't tried it yet
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
And asking "which domain?" is in the interests of KISS... How?
okay, make it an "advanced" option, or let people manage it
post-install if desired
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
I don't see
it. Most apps are supposed to be drag and drop installs, not even running
installers, so I'll disagree with you right up front on that one. :P
i prefer drag & drop installs too, but for whatever reason
there are many installers, so it's worth standardizing their
behavior.. for drag & drop, drag the app into the
meta-Applications folder (or perhaps just drag it anywhere)
and it goes by default to "shared" (however that is
defined).. user preference can have the default be elsewhere
and if needed the resource management browser can move it
after the fact
--
steve harley
Nick Zitzmann
2002-08-09 01:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Murphy
It's my computer. They talk about all this customization you
can do and the f*'n OS has to be Type A Anal Retentive about
where the hell applications get stored; and the current
installer/software updater is such a dumbass it can't look just
one more level deep in /Applications to do updating.
Calm down. Any well programmed application, even on OS X, will
be able to run wherever you put it. You do not need to put
anything into /Applications or whatever at all. The only things
that need to be in /Applications are programs installed by OS X
(no thanks to Pax), and programs which have services you want to
use.

Right now, from a programming standpoint, it makes more sense
for the OS to just scan /Applications for programs that register
services. Otherwise, every time you logged in or a program
manually tells the OS to reload services, the OS would have to
crawl around your hard disk looking for applications. This
wouldn't be acceptable for many people since it would be a
performance hit, especially on disks that have a lot of files.
Remember how long it took System 7 to start up peer-to-peer file
sharing on large disks?
Post by Chris Murphy
My apps are on another partition. Sticking them anywhere in
/Applications isn't possible. And if it were, *MY* apps should
get to be top level. I should get to choose what is important
to me and what is not, and how to organize my things. I should
be allowed to put my apps wherever I want so long as I have
permissions necessary to place them there. A smart operating
system would let me do that, and it would do the thinking.
Then I'd call Mac OS X a "smart operating system" when all
things are considered. Many Windows programs install into
C:\Program Files, and it's been my experience with Windows
programs that some of them break if you move them from where you
installed them or change a drive letter designation or
something. Some Unix programs also have problems with fixed
paths, HFS+ case insensitivity, etc.

It's true that OS X is more path dependent than the old OS, it's
true that you can't move applications around and expect Apple's
Pax-powered installer to find them, and it's true that
applications have to be in a recognized spot for their services
to be registered if they have any. But I have yet to find a
single OS X GUI program (that is, CFM Carbon applications and
.app bundles) that refuses to run if it's not installed in an
immutable path.

For example, when I was designing HenWen (see my Web page), I
made a design decision to keep every component inside the
application bundle and not install anything in any fixed path,
or require the software to be put in one immutable place. I
could have easily whipped up an installer package that plopped
some binaries into /usr/local/bin and called on them from there,
but I didn't, since it would be too difficult for most people to
remove or upgrade. However, some components did require paths,
so I ended up using the Cocoa call to return the application
path quite often. The result is you can run it on a UFS or
non-HFS+ volume, and you can run the application _anywhere_ on
your disk, not just in some system mandated place.

Nick Zitzmann
ICQ: 22305512

Check out my software page: http://homepage.mac.com/nickzman/
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-09 06:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Nor could Mac OS 8 or 9 installs, either, and Adobe apps have a nice history
of failing if you even rename the folder. It's a problem, yes, but not a new
one Apple's invented with Mac OS X.
I disagree, many updaters in OS 9 find the app no matter where you put
it. That some less intelligent programmers make installers that don't
look around shouldn't be the users problem. Developers that make basic
behavior the problem of the user, should be publically ridiculed. Hey,
that's a good idea for a web site.
<http://ridicule-your-software-developer.com>

Well, come to think of it, maybe it's not such a good idea after all.
I've seen enough of grumpy developers in my field. That's not fun as you
all probably know. Therefore it's a good idea to keep them happy with new
things to play with every day.
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by Chris Murphy
That the
first user happens to be an admin does not mean it's not a user domain.
It's system admin's domain.
"Local: the domain for applications, documents, and resources shared among
all users of a particular computer." It goes on to state that system admins
are responsible for maintaining that area.
It also, previously, defines "User: the domain specific to the user who is
logged on, and defined by the user's home directory."
You're wrong, if you want to be technical about it. I also encourage you to
review "The User Domain" section of the same book - it does not cover
/Applications at all. Sorry.
You conveniently seem to overlook that Chris surely meant that many users
will be system admins too. I am on my box, so I don't see what you were
thinking. Not everyone have an IT dep., especially so with OS X.


in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
Michael Maibaum
2002-08-09 09:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Nor could Mac OS 8 or 9 installs, either, and Adobe apps have a nice history
of failing if you even rename the folder. It's a problem, yes, but not a new
one Apple's invented with Mac OS X.
I disagree, many updaters in OS 9 find the app no matter where you put
it. That some less intelligent programmers make installers that don't
look around shouldn't be the users problem. Developers that make basic
behavior the problem of the user, should be publically ridiculed. Hey,
that's a good idea for a web site.
<http://ridicule-your-software-developer.com>
Well, come to think of it, maybe it's not such a good idea after all.
I've seen enough of grumpy developers in my field. That's not fun as you
all probably know. Therefore it's a good idea to keep them happy with new
things to play with every day.
And how long do the installers take searching the disk, anywhere from
5-10minutes IIRC, how'd you like that everytime you want to start up?

OK, I understand the results could be cached, but given that there is
absolutely no problem with using Applications folders, I really don't see
the big deal here...

Michael
- --
Dr Michael A. Maibaum - (W)+1 (415) 561 1682 /~\ The ASCII
<***@maibaum.org> - (H)+1 (415) 626 6733 \ / Ribbon Campaign
<http://www.gene-hacker.net> X Help Cure
/ \ HTML Email
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-09 06:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve harley
.. i'm considering mounting
Applications and Library folders on another volume to
/Network and seeing how that works
Is that best done with Netinfo?

in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
steve harley
2002-08-09 10:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by steve harley
.. i'm considering mounting
Applications and Library folders on another volume to
/Network and seeing how that works
Is that best done with Netinfo?
good question.. i understand it in concept, but haven't
studied the technique.. i assume it would be about the same
as mounting swap or /Users, for which i know there are
tutorials on macosxhints
--
steve harley
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-09 06:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by steve harley
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
That would be abuse of /User/Shared.
or a redefinition.. i don't think most people understand,
much less use, /Users/Shared anyway.. it hasn't settled into
its role, so it's a valid target for usurpation
No, it's not. Its purpose is to allow everyone on a computer to see (and
edit, if the owner allows them to) documents. That's its purpose. That's
what Apple tells its customers (I have a handbook with a little series of
tutorials on /Users/Shared), and that's what the Unix people expect it to
be.

/Users/Shared is not an option. I'll rule that out right now. Any other
ideas you have might be better... But not that one.
Post by steve harley
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by steve harley
network (i haven't given up that this might serve for shared)
Or, heaven forbid, networked things.
my reasoning was if you have a real /Network, from a server,
then it's function will be to share resources that aren't
stock.. if you don't have a real /Network, why not use it,
then, to share resources that aren't stock.. either way same
function, same result.. haven't tried it yet
Then... Try it sometime...? But
Post by steve harley
i prefer drag & drop installs too, but for whatever reason
there are many installers, so it's worth standardizing their
behavior.. for drag & drop, drag the app into the
meta-Applications folder (or perhaps just drag it anywhere)
and it goes by default to "shared" (however that is
defined)..
It's already defined. It's /Applications .
Post by steve harley
user preference can have the default be elsewhere
and if needed the resource management browser can move it
after the fact
If you're not a system admin, you won't be doing a whole lot of this anyway.

I continue to see almost no problem with Apple's setup. I put a link up last
night in /Applications. I see you've responded. I'll read what you have to
say there...
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

"I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without
fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute
evenly the gift of intelligence" - John Wanamaker
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-09 06:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Elisabet Frazer
You conveniently seem to overlook that Chris surely meant that many users
will be system admins too. I am on my box, so I don't see what you were
thinking. Not everyone have an IT dep., especially so with OS X.
No, I don't conveniently overlook that. /Applications is defined as a system
admin realm. The user realm is strictly limited to /Users .

Why? Because that's the way it works. I'm fairly certain that not many of
you would be willing to give up the security Mac OS X provides, and the
other features this whole "user/admin/root" domain stuff gives you, to be
able to do something you still haven't really even explained properly.
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

God created the universe in six days because
he didn't have to worry about an installed base.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
steve harley
2002-08-09 10:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
/Applications is defined as a system
admin realm. The user realm is strictly limited to /Users .
but the average user is defined by apple as a system admin
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Why? Because that's the way it works. I'm fairly certain that not many of
you would be willing to give up the security Mac OS X provides, and the
other features this whole "user/admin/root" domain stuff gives you, to be
able to do something you still haven't really even explained properly.
you describe it as user / admin / root, but i think it's
more accurate (and consistent with Apple's terminology) to
describe it as user / local (or "machine-wide") / system /
network.. in other words, the question of scope is more
important and immutable than the question of privileges
--
steve harley
Chris Murphy
2002-08-09 08:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Right now, from a programming standpoint, it makes more sense for the
OS to just scan /Applications for programs that register services.
Otherwise, every time you logged in or a program manually tells the OS
to reload services, the OS would have to crawl around your hard disk
looking for applications.
That's not the only option. Mac OS X does the same thing for
application binding, but if you store apps in non-standard locations, X
uses a lazy method of application binding. As you browse (I think all
you have to do is click on an application, not actually launch it),
that app's file type support gets added. I'm not expecting Apple to
scan the whole frickin drive. But if an app has services to publish and
I click on it or launch it, the OS should be able to figure out that
app has services to publish, and add it to a preference or plist
(similar to the LS* files) containing services.


Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Chris Murphy
2002-08-09 08:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Hi,
Post by Elisabet Frazer
You conveniently seem to overlook that Chris surely meant that many
users
will be system admins too. I am on my box, so I don't see what you
were
thinking. Not everyone have an IT dep., especially so with OS X.
No, I don't conveniently overlook that. /Applications is defined as a
system
admin realm. The user realm is strictly limited to /Users .
No it's not Erik. The first person to setup any mac OS X system has the
ability to dump all of the apps in /Applications if they want. If Apple
wants exclusive domain, they need to lock out the user similar to
/System. Until then, /Applications is user domain. It's not the domain
of ALL users. But it is a user domain - in particular the first user
setting up the machine, which in every single home and small business,
anyone will have the ability to do whatever they want with
/Applications.
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Why? Because that's the way it works. I'm fairly certain that not many
of
you would be willing to give up the security Mac OS X provides, and the
other features this whole "user/admin/root" domain stuff gives you, to
be
able to do something you still haven't really even explained properly.
I'm asking Apple to stick their crap in an Apple Extras folder.
Marketing won't let them because they want to show off all these
applications that come with the system. Well screw them. At least let
me stick Apple's crap in an "Apple Extras" folder within /Applications,
but still let them get updated. That is not asking for the end of the
world for OS X security.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
LuKreme
2002-08-09 11:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Murphy
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Hi,
Post by Elisabet Frazer
You conveniently seem to overlook that Chris surely meant that many
users
will be system admins too. I am on my box, so I don't see what you were
thinking. Not everyone have an IT dep., especially so with OS X.
No, I don't conveniently overlook that. /Applications is defined as a
system
admin realm. The user realm is strictly limited to /Users .
No it's not Erik. The first person to setup any mac OS X system has the
ability to dump all of the apps in /Applications if they want.
That doesn't make it a user realm you doofus. PAY ATTENTION.

The first user you create in OS X is assigned to the admin group and
/Applications is writeable by the admin group. This means, are you
listening, that it's part of the ADMIN realm.
Post by Chris Murphy
If Apple wants exclusive domain, they need to lock out the user similar to
/System.
This makes no sense. No one said it was Apple domain, it's ADMIN domain.
Post by Chris Murphy
Until then, /Applications is user domain.
You're saying that doesn't make it true. Take a crap in one hand and
put your wishes in the other and see which gets full first.
Post by Chris Murphy
It's not the domain
of ALL users. But it is a user domain - in particular the first user
setting up the machine
You mean the ADMIN?
Post by Chris Murphy
, which in every single home and small business,
anyone will have the ability to do whatever they want with /Applications.
And? The admin user (any admin user) can add (or delete) applictions
from /Applications. That's what

drwxrwxr-x 36 root admin 1180 Aug 3 14:41 Applications

means.
Post by Chris Murphy
I'm asking Apple to stick their crap in an Apple Extras folder.
Marketing won't let them because they want to show off all these
applications that come with the system. Well screw them. At least let me
stick Apple's crap in an "Apple Extras" folder within /Applications, but
still let them get updated. That is not asking for the end of the world
for OS X security.
I agree that the PAX installer should be able to find application
regardless of where they have been moved. This is a shortcoming in the
Installer.app.

Nothing else you said makes any sense at all.
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-09 09:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Chris,
Post by Chris Murphy
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
No, I don't conveniently overlook that. /Applications is defined as a
system admin realm. The user realm is strictly limited to /Users .
No it's not Erik.
Yes, it is, and I quoted your favorite book of late, the System Overview,
yesterday to show it.

Furthermore, USE the darn thing and you realize it is. Why? Because only
system admins can put stuff there. If it were a User realm, any and all
users could modify it. Instead, they can only modify their home directory -
the only "user" domain.

You are wrong. No amount of logical canoodling or "Chris Murphy's Patented
Logic" or whatever term mmalc or Jésus might use to describe your attempts
will overcome the fact that _you_ are _wrong_ here.
Post by Chris Murphy
The first person to setup any mac OS X system has the
ability to dump all of the apps in /Applications if they want.
As a system admin, yes, /Applications falls within their realm. Create
another user and remove the first user as a system admin and they can't
magically still do things to /Applications can they? No. Because they're not
a system admin, and /Applications is not in their domain anymore.
Post by Chris Murphy
If Apple wants exclusive domain, they need to lock out the user similar to
/System.
/System is in root's domain (and Apple's of course). It's not even in a
system admin's.
Post by Chris Murphy
Until then, /Applications is user domain.
Perhaps if you say it enough times it will become true (to you). Perhaps
not.

You're wrong.
Post by Chris Murphy
It's not the domain of ALL users. But it is a user domain
Wrong.
Post by Chris Murphy
- in particular the first user setting up the machine,
Who may or may not be a system admin. You're still wrong.
Post by Chris Murphy
which in every single home and small business,
anyone will have the ability to do whatever they want with
/Applications.
Wrong. I sense a theme...
Post by Chris Murphy
I'm asking Apple to stick their crap in an Apple Extras folder.
Marketing won't let them because they want to show off all these
applications that come with the system. Well screw them. At least let
me stick Apple's crap in an "Apple Extras" folder within /Applications,
but still let them get updated. That is not asking for the end of the
world for OS X security.
Good, we've narrowed down your problem to one with pax and their updating
mechanism, and nothing more. When the new pax comes along (which isn't even
really pax) in Jaguar and beyond, we'll see what happens then, won't we?
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

I have no life. Do you think I could find one on Google?
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-09 11:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by steve harley
but the average user is defined by apple as a system admin
No, they're not.

Besides, that doesn't change the fact that there is a "user" domain and a
"system admin" domain. OBVIOUSLY some people can be both users and a system
admin. Obviously!

But that does NOT make /Applications a "user" domain. It's not, by
definition. ~/Applications is a user domain (as is anything else a user
creates in ~/ obviously).
Post by steve harley
you describe it as user / admin / root, but i think it's
more accurate (and consistent with Apple's terminology) to
describe it as user / local (or "machine-wide") / system /
network.. in other words, the question of scope is more
important and immutable than the question of privileges
That's not more accurate, no. In fact, the most accurate thing is this
(reading, again, from the book...):

1. User
2. Local/System Admin
3. Network/Network Admin
4. System/Root/Apple

"The domain a program or resource is placed in defines the scope of
applicability or accessibility for that program or resource."

(paraphrased:) "If a user installs a font in his directory, only he can use
it. If a system admin does on the local stuff in his domain, everyone can."

I never said a user can't also be a system admin (they kinda have to be...).
All I'm saying is that /Applications is NOT a user domain. It's not. It's a
system admin domain. The same applies to /Library.

drwxrwxr-x 106 root admin 3560 Aug 9 13:25 Applications/
drwxr-xr-x 12 root admin 364 Jul 30 22:14 Developer/
drwxrwxr-x 37 root admin 1214 Jul 15 15:00 Library/
drwxr-xr-x 6 root wheel 264 Jun 6 15:14 Network/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 264 Apr 24 19:48 System/
drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 92 Apr 24 19:48 Users/
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
steve harley
2002-08-09 16:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by steve harley
but the average user is defined by apple as a system admin
No, they're not.
the average user takes the machine out of the box, is led
through configuration, logs in and is, voilà, a system
admin.. Apple set it up that way.. that's what i meant,
though it's a marginal point and you can certainly use the
words differently
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Post by steve harley
in other words, the question of scope is more
important and immutable than the question of privileges
That's not more accurate, no. In fact, the most accurate thing is this
[...]
"The domain a program or resource is placed in defines the scope of
applicability or accessibility for that program or resource."
this agrees with my point exactly -- the scope is not who
puts things where, but who uses them from where.. the main
discussion, Chris's wording and other quibbles aside, has
been about locating shared resources, which goes entirely to
the scope aspect
--
steve harley
LuKreme
2002-08-09 16:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Blah, blah, blah - what you're saying is, when I take my Mac out of the
box and go through all the setup hoops, once I get to the desktop I can
dump everything in /Applications and put in whatever I want.
Yeah, and?
The average user does not care about terminology. They do not care about
the admin group, nor do they want to. They don't care that they are
really in the admin realm. Anyone who uses the computer with autologin
has this power and most of the time a Mac will continue to be used this
way. In the real world, /Applications is a user domain unless you go out
of your way to turn off autologin and setup non-admin users, which most
people will never do.
No, you are STILL wrong. It doesn't matter if it is transparent to the
user that they ARE the admin, /Applications is still admin domain. And
any user who adds a second user to their machine will need to figure
this out very quickly when her husband can't install Omniweb in
/Applications.
Post by LuKreme
This makes no sense. No one said it was Apple domain, it's ADMIN domain.
Since most users are going to be admins, it's a user domain.
Every freaking user on the face of the planet could be an admin and
/Applications would STILL be admin domain. Every user could be root and
/Applications would STILL be admin domain. This is very simply a FACT.
You are arguing against a FACT.
I don't care about that. 90% of Mac users don't care about that. All we
know is we can add and remove applications from /Applications at will.
Yes, if you are an admin user. that's because /Applications is ADMIN
DOMAIN.
And that we are users of the computer. /Applications is a user domain.
Repeat it often enough and it will STILL be untrue.
You can refer to UNIX mumbo jumbo all you want to explain why this is
the case, but in the reality of most Mac users, all they know is they
can do whatever they want in /Applications. It's their turf.
If they are admin users, yes.

If you have an electronic toll pass does that mean that E-470<1> is not
a toll road? After all, YOU don't have to pay the toll booths. In
fact, MOST users of E-470 use and electronic pass. This does not meant
the road is a freeway. It's STILL a toll road.

<1> somewhat local toll road to Chris.
Chris Murphy
2002-08-09 17:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
That doesn't make it a user realm you doofus. PAY ATTENTION.
The first user you create in OS X is assigned to the admin group and
/Applications is writeable by the admin group. This means, are you
listening, that it's part of the ADMIN realm.
Blah, blah, blah - what you're saying is, when I take my Mac out of the
box and go through all the setup hoops, once I get to the desktop I can
dump everything in /Applications and put in whatever I want.

The average user does not care about terminology. They do not care
about the admin group, nor do they want to. They don't care that they
are really in the admin realm. Anyone who uses the computer with
autologin has this power and most of the time a Mac will continue to be
used this way. In the real world, /Applications is a user domain unless
you go out of your way to turn off autologin and setup non-admin
users, which most people will never do.
Post by LuKreme
This makes no sense. No one said it was Apple domain, it's ADMIN
domain.
Since most users are going to be admins, it's a user domain.
Post by LuKreme
, which in every single home and small business, anyone will have the
ability to do whatever they want with /Applications.
And? The admin user (any admin user) can add (or delete) applictions
from /Applications. That's what
drwxrwxr-x 36 root admin 1180 Aug 3 14:41 Applications
means.
I don't care about that. 90% of Mac users don't care about that. All we
know is we can add and remove applications from /Applications at will.
And that we are users of the computer. /Applications is a user domain.
You can refer to UNIX mumbo jumbo all you want to explain why this is
the case, but in the reality of most Mac users, all they know is they
can do whatever they want in /Applications. It's their turf.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Eugene Lee
2002-08-09 17:39:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:22:45PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
:
: On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 11:53 AM, LuKreme wrote:
: >
: > The first user you create in OS X is assigned to the admin group and
: > /Applications is writeable by the admin group. This means, are you
: > listening, that it's part of the ADMIN realm.
:
: Blah, blah, blah - what you're saying is, when I take my Mac out of the
: box and go through all the setup hoops, once I get to the desktop I can
: dump everything in /Applications and put in whatever I want.
:
: The average user does not care about terminology. They do not care
: about the admin group, nor do they want to. They don't care that they
: are really in the admin realm. Anyone who uses the computer with
: autologin has this power and most of the time a Mac will continue to be
: used this way. In the real world, /Applications is a user domain unless
: you go out of your way to turn off autologin and setup non-admin
: users, which most people will never do.

Chris, by stating this position, you are basically in the extreme
UI camp that believes that the best UI is PalmOS. General-purpose
computers should become single-purpose appliances. And no, you're
not the first person to take this position.

Thoughts?
--
Eugene Lee
***@anime.net
steve harley
2002-08-10 23:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Lee
Thoughts?
i don't think it's either/or -- "either you have complexity
and depth of Mac OS X or you have simplicity and shallowness
of Palm"

as someone said, it's hard to create an OS that works well
for both beginners and advanceders,- but it's not
impossible, and Apple does it well sometimes.. this was also
the core of my Dock argument a while back, that the Dock
could be just as easy and yet scale into complex uses better

so how could Apple deal with the confusion of referring to
objects sometimes by location and other times by attributes?
and and how could Apple clarify the issues of scope versus
privilege?

an approach i've mentioned, and of which Jaguar seems to
have the beginnings, is to have views in Finder which aren't
simply views of a "location" but views of a "category"..
there could be a meta-Applications folder (likewise
Library), the only one visible by default, which dynamically
displayed all apps in scope for the current user.. it would
display an app independent of its location (though location
and domain, etc., would be available on request).. we don't
necessarily need a non-hierarchical filesystem for this,
since the metadata are already encoded in the filesystem
hierarchy, though that fact could fade into irrelevance for
most users
--
steve harley
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-09 19:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Lee
: The average user does not care about terminology. They do not care
: about the admin group, nor do they want to. They don't care that they
: are really in the admin realm. Anyone who uses the computer with
: autologin has this power and most of the time a Mac will continue to be
: used this way. In the real world, /Applications is a user domain unless
: you go out of your way to turn off autologin and setup non-admin
: users, which most people will never do.
He has a point, truly. I picked it up really quick, but I know a =lot= of
other people that haven't quite. You can call them stupid or luddites if you
want, as a CLI person would towards someone who doesn't know how to use
it...

One of the nice things about the classic OS for =many= people was that they
felt like they were in charge of the computer, and could put stuff where
they wanted, when they wanted. They made the computer do what they wanted,
they didn't have to work within the confines of the computer.

I'm not discounting that if you make up structures, and abide by them, those
structures can then give you more power. But which is more friendly, having
two application folders, three font folders, 3 library folders, etc for the
common user, or letting them log in and knowing they have =one= folder in
which to put their fonts, and =one= place where there preferences are
stored? It feels windowsesque.

Again, having the above gives you more power if you need it, and it should
be an option. But it would be inherently more intuitive (especially when I
have to explain it to people over and over) to let the OS do all the hard
work and letting the user feel like they're in control.

If 95% (pulled from my *) of your users will never have more than one user,
then it does stand to reason that defaulting to something like the above is
a lot simpler than making everyone learn the multiple user paradigm even
though they won't use it. :)
Post by Eugene Lee
Chris, by stating this position, you are basically in the extreme
UI camp that believes that the best UI is PalmOS. General-purpose
computers should become single-purpose appliances. And no, you're
not the first person to take this position.
Oh man, that is very raskinque. He essentially thinks that everything should
be akin to the palm OS, or rather buttons on the computer you'd press for
sending emails, etc. He has a point, as it is more intuitive. But it always
breaks down when you try to get even mildly complex and all he does is say
"this is the way it should be" instead of backing it up and doing something.
:) I heard he's doing an open source project on it this last year, but I'll
believe it when I actually see stuff coming out of it.

Raskin really does have a point, in the same way its easier for a new user
to grasp the dock than it is the apple menu. But the hardest thing about UI
is making it easy for a novice but giving power to those who want/need it.

So far I haven't seen one raskinesque OS that has scaled really well
(including palm), so you're left with kiosk/appliances, which haven't sold
well at all with the exception of handlhelds (which aren't doing all that
well right now).


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-09 19:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
The average user does not care about terminology. They do not care about
the admin group, nor do they want to. They don't care that they are
really in the admin realm. Anyone who uses the computer with autologin
has this power and most of the time a Mac will continue to be used this
way. In the real world, /Applications is a user domain unless you go out
of your way to turn off autologin and setup non-admin users, which most
people will never do.
No, you are STILL wrong. It doesn't matter if it is transparent to the
user that they ARE the admin, /Applications is still admin domain. And
any user who adds a second user to their machine will need to figure
this out very quickly when her husband can't install Omniweb in
/Applications.
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
Chris is really meaning that PRACTICALLY the /Applications folder is a
user domain as many users on personal X boxes are also system admins and
that they don't even know that.

The opponents then cry out loud that by the book /applications is not a
user domain, as Chris see fit to not point out that he meant "a user
domain in practise". I'm pretty sure Lu and Erik knew this all along and
are just taking the piss and polluting the discussion for the rest of us.

Lesson to be learned 1: Chris, please start and use the english language
more properly and explain your terminology if you implicitly hide
assumptions in what you write.
Lesson to be learned 2:
Erik and Lu, please don't let your valid arguments degrade to a question
of semantics.


Now, would you please learn form your experience and move on?

in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
LuKreme
2002-08-09 20:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
because Chris is the list Humpty Dumpty who uses words to mean what he
wants them to mean.

he keeps saying "user domain"

see, trouble is, that MEANS something, and not what Chris thinks it
means/wants it to mean.

then he says "Not Admin domain" which is simply Chris saying that the
sun rises in the West and damnit if he says so it must be true, facts be
damned.
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-09 19:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Maibaum
And how long do the installers take searching the disk, anywhere from
5-10minutes IIRC, how'd you like that everytime you want to start up?
OK, I understand the results could be cached, but given that there is
absolutely no problem with using Applications folders, I really don't see
the big deal here...
Dear Michael,

it's usually done in under 2 minutes and IT'S NOT "everytime you want to
start up". We are talking about updates here. Get it? Do you run updaters
everyday?

Your whole argument is flawed, as there's NOTHING stopping the updater
programmer from asking the updater to first look in /Applications, ask if
that's the app the admin wants updated and if not start a search or let
the user point it out.

Choice is good, dammit!

in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
Michael Maibaum
2002-08-09 20:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by Michael Maibaum
And how long do the installers take searching the disk, anywhere from
5-10minutes IIRC, how'd you like that everytime you want to start up?
OK, I understand the results could be cached, but given that there is
absolutely no problem with using Applications folders, I really don't see
the big deal here...
Dear Michael,
it's usually done in under 2 minutes and IT'S NOT "everytime you want to
start up". We are talking about updates here. Get it? Do you run updaters
everyday?
well, 2min rather depends on the size and speed of the disk, no? anyway
my point was a couple of minutes or so.

I was actually refering to the case of when an app was moved and the
binding would have to be redone periodically, more than installation.
ie, I have an app I move out of Applications, it'll take a couple of
minutes to find it. Whenever I need to look for it, ie the first time
that type of document is opened for example. I could have been clearer,
and as I clearly state, it could be cached, so it wouldn't be every
time.
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Your whole argument is flawed, as there's NOTHING stopping the updater
programmer from asking the updater to first look in /Applications, ask if
that's the app the admin wants updated and if not start a search or let
the user point it out.
While that wasn't my argument, I agree, a snesible installer would look
there first.

My main point is, there is absolutely no problem with using
Applications, ~/Applications or /Applications/MyApps, so

what is the problem? Why do people object to using them?

There is *NO* disadvantage to putting apps in one of these three (or
analogous places).
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Choice is good, dammit!
sure, I can choose to dive solo, doesn't mean it is sensible, putting
things somewhere sensible, is, well, sensible.

Putting fonts somewhere random didn't work on OS9, all OS's have things
that need to be in certain places, how much they constrain varies for
sure, but it certainly isn't new, not even to the Mac.


yours, baffled by somethings people choose to complain about....,
Michael
- --
Dr Michael A. Maibaum - (W)+1 (415) 561 1682 /~\ The ASCII
<***@maibaum.org> - (H)+1 (415) 626 6733 \ / Ribbon Campaign
<http://www.gene-hacker.net> X Help Cure
/ \ HTML Email
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-09 20:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
it's usually done in under 2 minutes and IT'S NOT "everytime you want to
start up". We are talking about updates here. Get it? Do you run updaters
everyday?
Your whole argument is flawed, as there's NOTHING stopping the updater
programmer from asking the updater to first look in /Applications, ask if
that's the app the admin wants updated and if not start a search or let
the user point it out.
I could care less how long an application takes to install in general, as
long as it doesn't make me =quit= everything else or make me reboot, and if
its a KEXT (like itunes) give me the option of not rebooting knowing I won't
get that functionality until I do.


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-09 20:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Ditto. :)
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
because Chris is the list Humpty Dumpty who uses words to mean what he
wants them to mean.
he keeps saying "user domain"
see, trouble is, that MEANS something, and not what Chris thinks it
means/wants it to mean.
then he says "Not Admin domain" which is simply Chris saying that the
sun rises in the West and damnit if he says so it must be true, facts be
damned.
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

If death doesn't get you, life probably will.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-09 20:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
because Chris is the list Humpty Dumpty who uses words to mean what he
wants them to mean.
he keeps saying "user domain"
see, trouble is, that MEANS something, and not what Chris thinks it
means/wants it to mean.
then he says "Not Admin domain" which is simply Chris saying that the
sun rises in the West and damnit if he says so it must be true, facts be
damned.
Lol. So be the bigger man, and say "you're saying this, but I =think= you
mean this, correct?" and take the conversation from there.

It's a lot more constructive in the end, but does involve actually listening
to what the person is getting at instead of what they're saying if they
don't always know the correct ways to express it, and many times can involve
asking a question back for clarification instead of going off on a semantic
error.

Whether you consider it a debate, or a discussion or an argument, you'll
probably come out ahead.


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-09 21:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Thing is, nobody knows what he means to say, but what he is saying is wrong.
His flippant use of clearly defined terms does not serve him well. Ever.
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
because Chris is the list Humpty Dumpty who uses words to mean what he
wants them to mean.
he keeps saying "user domain"
see, trouble is, that MEANS something, and not what Chris thinks it
means/wants it to mean.
then he says "Not Admin domain" which is simply Chris saying that the
sun rises in the West and damnit if he says so it must be true, facts be
damned.
Lol. So be the bigger man, and say "you're saying this, but I =think= you
mean this, correct?" and take the conversation from there.
It's a lot more constructive in the end, but does involve actually listening
to what the person is getting at instead of what they're saying if they
don't always know the correct ways to express it, and many times can involve
asking a question back for clarification instead of going off on a semantic
error.
Whether you consider it a debate, or a discussion or an argument, you'll
probably come out ahead.
Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

You don't truly understand something until
you can argue it from both sides of the fence.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-09 21:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
because Chris is the list Humpty Dumpty who uses words to mean what he
wants them to mean.
he keeps saying "user domain"
see, trouble is, that MEANS something, and not what Chris thinks it
means/wants it to mean.
then he says "Not Admin domain" which is simply Chris saying that the
sun rises in the West and damnit if he says so it must be true, facts be
damned.
So, if you know all that you can anticipate what he will say, understand
him the right way and write your response based on what he meant, instead
of trying to scream or repeat ad nauseam what we-1 know already until he
understands. The latter which, in the discussions at least, haven't
worked. Try another strategy. Please?


in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
LuKreme
2002-08-09 23:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Why do you guys always have to degrade any discussion into semantics?
because Chris is the list Humpty Dumpty who uses words to mean what he
wants them to mean.
[Snip]
Post by Elisabet Frazer
So, if you know all that you can anticipate what he will say, understand
him the right way and write your response based on what he meant, instead
of trying to scream or repeat ad nauseam what we-1 know already until he
understands.
I have no idea what Chris thinks or why he says some of the things he
says. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that he really
intends to be contrary just for the sake of being a pain in the ass.
Post by Elisabet Frazer
The latter which, in the discussions at least, haven't
worked. Try another strategy. Please?
There's always a risk on a mailing list. the web is infinite in detail
and you never know when some nonsense that Chris spews will end up on
someone's screen who simply doesn't know Chris or how mistaken he is.
When he says something completely counter to fact like "/Applications is
user domain" there is at least SOME responsibility to reply.

I usually give Chris about 3 tries to grasp something before giving up.
Vince Sabio
2002-08-09 23:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
I usually give Chris about 3 tries to grasp something before giving up.
You're more patient than I am. I gave him 2.5 tries (he posted two at
once) on the non-compete clause discussion before my cluebat
completely lost interest.

BTW, on the flip side of encluement: Prepare To Be Assimilated(tm)
into the Cartel. [1] Not sure when it will happen, probably sometime
in the next month. Recommend you prepare a Last Will and Testament,
say goodbye to your loved ones, etc. Consider this fair warning.

[1] Note: This is not a Good Thing. For example, we made Shawn King
what he is today. (Like I said, this is not a Good Thing.)


__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio ***@vjs.org
LuKreme
2002-08-10 10:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Sabio
Post by LuKreme
I usually give Chris about 3 tries to grasp something before giving up.
You're more patient than I am. I gave him 2.5 tries (he posted two at
once) on the non-compete clause discussion before my cluebat completely
lost interest.
BTW, on the flip side of encluement: Prepare To Be Assimilated(tm) into
the Cartel. [1]<2> Not sure when it will happen, probably sometime in the
next month. Recommend you prepare a Last Will and Testament, say goodbye
to your loved ones, etc. Consider this fair warning.
[1] Note: This is not a Good Thing. For example, we made Shawn King what
he is today. (Like I said, this is not a Good Thing.)
<2> But I thought TINC <3>
<3> Oh, wait, that's n.a.n-a.e
Vince Sabio
2002-08-10 15:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Post by Vince Sabio
BTW, on the flip side of encluement: Prepare To Be Assimilated(tm)
into the Cartel. [1] <2>
<2> But I thought TINC <3>
<3> Oh, wait, that's n.a.n-a.e
Usenet-wide, actually. It started with the spam canceler, IIRC.


__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio ***@vjs.org
Chris Murphy
2002-08-09 21:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Lee
Chris, by stating this position, you are basically in the extreme
UI camp that believes that the best UI is PalmOS.
Difficult to agree to because I don't like PalmOS. NewtonOS on the
other hand I thought was pretty cool at the time I had an MP2k, but I
haven't used the thing in years.
Post by Eugene Lee
General-purpose
computers should become single-purpose appliances. And no, you're
not the first person to take this position.
Thoughts?
Actually I will disagree because I think the way OS X handles multiple
users is, for the most part, pretty good. By default the more obvious
aspects of it being a multi-user OS are hidden from the users. Out of
the box the UI behaves like a single-user OS that anyone who has
physical access to can simply use. And for those people who want a more
structured approach have that option. This isn't an option in PalmOS -
but then how many people share a PDA? A PDA is a personal thing. For
some people it's like underwear.

I've yet to find the single-appliance argument compelling. I can't
imagine the things I do, and that my customers do, being split up among
multiple appliances.

Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-10 01:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Murphy
I've yet to find the single-appliance argument compelling. I can't
imagine the things I do, and that my customers do, being split up among
multiple appliances.
I find it compelling, only because for a lot of people you can break down
their basic computing needs into simple categories. Ie, for your average
teenager it would be: "email, web, AIM, music, file sharing, and the need to
find whatever files they have created easily". If you couldn't add/remove
from the dock, and it added another button for a file browser that only
showed one directory of their files you'd pretty much have a decent
appliance. Support costs become minimal, lots of costs become minimal.

The only problem is that it seems as though the market place has pretty
firmly stated that appliance OS's just aren't viable either because people
want to add more functionality (and then the OS and its paradigm breaks
down) or costs aren't quite low enough to make them so attractive that you
just can't beat them ($150?) that hopefully they will take off.

I dunno, I'm looking forward to the day when those who want/need the extra
power will buy a computer (such as myself or anyone on this list) but the
average user can go buy a $150 15" flat screen slab with a keyboard and
never have to learn anything about users or permissions or drivers at all.

Ah well, pipe dreams probably. It'll be like IBM way back in the day, when
they hobbled products so as not to compete with their real money makers and
it took some young upstarts putting together the available tech around them
to make it.


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-10 04:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Thing is, nobody knows what he means to say, but what he is saying is wrong.
His flippant use of clearly defined terms does not serve him well. Ever.
Is it with this logic that you put values in your variables, Erik?

If you're going to discuss with Chris, then why not as a first response
send a questionairre to him and ask him to please define the terms he
uses so that you know what he's talking about and can refer to his
response later if needed.

You'd save both us and yourself a whole lot of trouble and make the
experience of subscribing to Mac OS X Talk a lot nicer. Is that too much
to ask?

in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
LuKreme
2002-08-10 10:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
If you're going to discuss with Chris, then why not as a first response
send a questionairre to him and ask him to please define the terms he
uses so that you know what he's talking about and can refer to his
response later if needed.
Because as soon as Chris feels he is losing the argument the definitions
change.
Richard
2002-08-10 19:34:01 UTC
Permalink
As far as I am concerned Chris is sometimes right,
sometimes wrong, sometimes doesn't express himself
unambiguously when words might have some
precise technical meaning and probably
scores lower on the verbal abuse score than some.
I am also inclined to give him some credit for knowledge
of that part of the publishing industry with which he is intimately
familiar.

I am puzzled by those obsessed with discrediting
him at every single opportunity. I just can't get that bitter
and twisted if someone says something I disagree
with.
darrell wilkins
2002-08-10 04:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
Post by Eugene Lee
Chris, by stating this position, you are basically in the extreme
UI camp that believes that the best UI is PalmOS. General-purpose
computers should become single-purpose appliances. And no, you're
not the first person to take this position.
Oh man, that is very raskinque.
No it's Donald Norman thing that computers should be come single purpose
appliances.

These are Raskin's words :

* I read that I don't like the idea of general purpose computers. False, it
is Don Norman who takes that position. I think that general purpose
computers are the way to go. I published a critique of the idea that you can
do it all with separate appliances.
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
He essentially thinks that everything should
be akin to the palm OS, or rather buttons on the computer you'd press for
sending emails, etc. He has a point, as it is more intuitive.
I don't know where you get that from. Have you ever read any of his work?
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
But it always
breaks down when you try to get even mildly complex.
Not true. It is *very* hard to design systems that are easy for beginners
and experienced users to use but it is possible.
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
and all he does is say
"this is the way it should be" instead of backing it up and doing something.
Not true. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
So far I haven't seen one raskinesque OS that has scaled really well
(including palm), so you're left with kiosk/appliances, which haven't sold
well at all with the exception of handlhelds (which aren't doing all that
well right now).
Not true. It all depends on the field your working in. There are lots of
computing devices that need interfaces not just the ones that sit on desks.
Think plane cockpits, think Air traffic control systems, think medical
equipment.

Just because Raskin hasn't built a well known GUI/OS that runs on a PC or a
Mac since he (helped) design the original Mac OS doesn't mean that his ideas
are not valid.

cheers

darrell


- specialmoves

020 7278 7448
www.specialmoves.com
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-10 05:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Elisabet,
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
Thing is, nobody knows what he means to say, but what he is saying is wrong.
His flippant use of clearly defined terms does not serve him well. Ever.
Is it with this logic that you put values in your variables, Erik?
That makes little sense, and needs clarification.
Post by Elisabet Frazer
If you're going to discuss with Chris, then why not as a first response
send a questionairre to him and ask him to please define the terms he
uses so that you know what he's talking about and can refer to his
response later if needed.
Because it was clearly stated that the terms were used, defined, declared,
and "taken" terms. I quoted from System Overview. I should not need to ask a
"questionnaire" when someone says something - they should mean what they
say, and say what they mean.

You're being plain silly.
Post by Elisabet Frazer
You'd save both us and yourself a whole lot of trouble and make the
experience of subscribing to Mac OS X Talk a lot nicer. Is that too much
to ask?
Yes, Elisabet, it is, as both Kreme and I have pointed out to you.

And actually, the one way in which the list could become "nicer" is if Chris
left entirely or everyone stopped responding to him at all. I'm guessing,
but 75% of the "bad" stuff runs between him and others, and he's usually the
wrong one, the misinformed one, or the just plain luddite whiny one.

Since I'm fairly certain he's not unsubscribing, and I know any "nobody
respond to Chris" rule will certainly fail to actually be enforced, I, as
Kreme does, feel obligated in some way to correct the just plain stupid
wrong shit he spews.

He's blatantly misusing terms. That much is clear to everyone of a second
grade intelligence and higher. Yet he continues to use them - WRONGLY.

Fortunately, I've got my CMRL, and somewhere to be today, so eventually I
give up trying to correct his bullshit (lies, mistruths, incorrect "facts",
etc.).
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

Whoever dies with the most software, wins. :)
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-10 05:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
There's always a risk on a mailing list. the web is infinite in detail
and you never know when some nonsense that Chris spews will end up on
someone's screen who simply doesn't know Chris or how mistaken he is.
When he says something completely counter to fact like "/Applications is
user domain" there is at least SOME responsibility to reply.
Yes, but I'm asking you to clarify the discussion for the benefit if all,
as well as the facts that you state already. Is that too much too ask?
Post by LuKreme
I usually give Chris about 3 tries to grasp something before giving up.
He does grasp it I think, at least he did this time. You're just talking
on different language levels. If you can't even think of abridging that,
then you might as well give up from the start. For the benefit of all I
might add.


in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
Jesús Díaz Blanco
2002-08-10 19:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by darrell wilkins
No it's Donald Norman thing that computers should be come single
purpose
appliances.
No, it was Ronald McDonald.

j.
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-10 20:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard
As far as I am concerned Chris is sometimes right,
sometimes wrong, sometimes doesn't express himself
unambiguously when words might have some
precise technical meaning and probably
scores lower on the verbal abuse score than some.
I am also inclined to give him some credit for knowledge
of that part of the publishing industry with which he is intimately
familiar.
Don't you understand that here where emperor Mmalcolm rules with or
without clothes, it doesn't matter if Chris or any other subject is right
or wrong?
When a subject is wrong he's wrong and when he's right he's even more
wrong. That's the rulers creed. And if you disagree you're in for a
topping, boy. Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been
validated for you by the boys club.

(To clarify for less intelligent readers: The fact that Chris have a
tendency to actually be somewhat wrong on many occasions doesn't enter
into it)
Post by Richard
I am puzzled by those obsessed with discrediting
him at every single opportunity. I just can't get that bitter
and twisted if someone says something I disagree
with.
I guess you have to be bitter from the beginning. At least it makes it
easier.

in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
LuKreme
2002-08-10 21:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Don't you understand that here where emperor Mmalcolm rules with or
without clothes, it doesn't matter if Chris or any other subject is right
or wrong?
COngrats, you've jsut been *plonked*

I mean, talk about pot. kettle. black.
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-10 20:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
If you're going to discuss with Chris, then why not as a first response
send a questionairre to him and ask him to please define the terms he
uses so that you know what he's talking about and can refer to his
response later if needed.
Because as soon as Chris feels he is losing the argument the definitions
change.
So why do you let him? If you just don't accept his definition and just
state your facts, everything will be quite clear.

in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
jason.kamen
2002-08-10 21:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been validated for you by the
boys club.
"Boys"? You are going to be dissing the entire other half of the species
just because of one sick puppy?

jK
Chris Devers
2002-08-10 21:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by jason.kamen
Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been validated for you
by the boys club.
"Boys"? You are going to be dissing the entire other half of the species
just because of one sick puppy?
Doesn't she have a point though? As far as I've noticed, she is the only
regularly vocal woman on the list; otherwise it's quite the sausage party.

And yes, deliberately replying to a private message onlist is rude.

...but that doesn't mean that the things she said weren't true :)
--
Chris Devers
who doesn't care
how famous someone is,
obnoxious is obnoxious
no matter who does it.
LuKreme
2002-08-10 21:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Devers
Post by jason.kamen
Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been validated for you
by the boys club.
"Boys"? You are going to be dissing the entire other half of the species
just because of one sick puppy?
Doesn't she have a point though? As far as I've noticed, she is the only
regularly vocal woman on the list; otherwise it's quite the sausage party.
And yes, deliberately replying to a private message onlist is rude.
...but that doesn't mean that the things she said weren't true :)
Yeah, but then she launches into a personal attack on "Emperor Mmalcom"
after whining at the whole list about not engaging in personal attacks.

As for the sex of list members I have no idea. Most of the names
*appear* to be male, but I know several people who don't disclose their
sex online. And I've know females named Chris, Steve, Michael, James,
Homer, and George. OK, Steve was a bitch<1> but still.

Which set of genitals you have doesn't excuse you for being a hypocrite,
rude, or a whiner.

She's joined Xah as the only other plonked macosx-talk poster. If I
notice an improvement in her tone in quoted messages I'll unplonk her.
Not holding my breath.

<1> An actual bitch. As in a dog of breeding age.
Elisabet Frazer
2002-08-10 21:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by jason.kamen
Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been validated for you by the
boys club.
"Boys"? You are going to be dissing the entire other half of the species
just because of one sick puppy?
I was hinting at the boys club Mmalcolm is a part of. That's not everyone
on this list or even more than a handful and I wasn't pointing at anyone
particular, except for the few, maybe mostly males, who are willing to
back up Mmalcolms right to use invectives as he see fit without anyone
can tell him to back off. I call upon you the people in this list to
recognize this as oppressor tactics. I won't acknowledge Mmalcolm the
right to be a bully. I don't understand why he wants to be one either.

I enjoy when Mmalcolm lectures effectively about something he's
knowledgable in, like Apple strategy or tech talk, but just because of
that I won't stay silent when he's making attacks upon people. I'll
forgive him if I thought it lead to somewhere. Fat chance....



in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet

"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
jason.kamen
2002-08-10 21:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Devers
Doesn't she have a point though?
Didn't say she didn't ;-)
Post by Chris Devers
And yes, deliberately replying to a private message onlist is rude.
My grandma says: rudeness begets rudeness.

If I were forced to come up with a "positive" take on the people she
comments about, I'd say that the list saves lives. :-) The people who
constantly exhibit rude and thuggish behavior on this list (you know who
they are :-) couldn't possibly afford to do that in real life in front of
their colleagues, friends and customers. Whatever their ailment is, the
brutish play-acting on the list hopefully dissipates enough of their pent-up
problems that they save their noses getting punched out of shape in real
life.

Now I wish I was getting paid for all this psycho-handholding :-)

jK
LuKreme
2002-08-10 22:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by jason.kamen
Now I wish I was getting paid for all this psycho-handholding :-)
Don't hold hands with psychos, they bite.
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-11 04:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Elisabet,
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by LuKreme
Post by Elisabet Frazer
If you're going to discuss with Chris, then why not as a first response
send a questionairre to him and ask him to please define the terms he
uses so that you know what he's talking about and can refer to his
response later if needed.
Because as soon as Chris feels he is losing the argument the definitions
change.
So why do you let him? If you just don't accept his definition and just
state your facts, everything will be quite clear.
That's what we've constantly been doing, and what you "cam down on us" for
to begin with! Jeezus... :P
--
Kindest regards,
Erik J. Barzeski

If nobody's going to RTFM why WTFM?
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
Erik J. Barzeski
2002-08-11 04:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Enough is enough. You were both ninnies, but Elisabet, he was a ninny off
the list, to you, and you did it publicly. I don't care what he said: you
lose.

Do we need to keep talking about "I hate her" "No, I hate him!?!!"

No. Can't we get back to defending the language from Chris Murphy
redefintions or something?

Drop it. Please. Go to nutters, get a room, whatever. Just not here.
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by jason.kamen
Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been validated for you by the
boys club.
"Boys"? You are going to be dissing the entire other half of the species
just because of one sick puppy?
I was hinting at the boys club Mmalcolm is a part of. That's not everyone
on this list or even more than a handful and I wasn't pointing at anyone
particular, except for the few, maybe mostly males, who are willing to
back up Mmalcolms right to use invectives as he see fit without anyone
can tell him to back off. I call upon you the people in this list to
recognize this as oppressor tactics. I won't acknowledge Mmalcolm the
right to be a bully. I don't understand why he wants to be one either.
I enjoy when Mmalcolm lectures effectively about something he's
knowledgable in, like Apple strategy or tech talk, but just because of
that I won't stay silent when he's making attacks upon people. I'll
forgive him if I thought it lead to somewhere. Fat chance....
in the groove
wondergirl.elisabet
"If you never had the bad times how would you know you had the good times"
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
--
Best wishes,
Erik J. Barzeski

I am an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac.
I stay up all night wondering if there is a dog.
###################################################################
Email: erik@(anything below) AIM: iacas

http://iacas.org http://weims.net
http://techstra.net http://barzeski.com
http://cocoadevcentral.com http://soundsetcentral.com
http://freshlysqueezedsoftware.com http://applescriptcentral.com
###################################################################
David Evenson
2002-08-11 10:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by Richard
As far as I am concerned Chris is sometimes right,
sometimes wrong, sometimes doesn't express himself
unambiguously when words might have some
precise technical meaning and probably
scores lower on the verbal abuse score than some.
I am also inclined to give him some credit for knowledge
of that part of the publishing industry with which he is intimately
familiar.
Don't you understand that here where emperor Mmalcolm rules with or
without clothes, it doesn't matter if Chris or any other subject is
right
or wrong?
It does matter whether he's wrong or not (and generally he is). That's
sort of the point.
Post by Elisabet Frazer
When a subject is wrong he's wrong and when he's right he's even more
wrong. That's the rulers creed. And if you disagree you're in for a
topping, boy. Don't you dare to have an opinion that haven't been
validated for you by the boys club.
Bullshit. I don't know another way to say it. You're not in a Women's
Studies program are you?
Post by Elisabet Frazer
(To clarify for less intelligent readers: The fact that Chris have a
tendency to actually be somewhat wrong on many occasions doesn't enter
into it)
ohhh... thanks. <== (obviously one of the less intelligent readers)
Post by Elisabet Frazer
Post by Richard
I am puzzled by those obsessed with discrediting
him at every single opportunity. I just can't get that bitter
and twisted if someone says something I disagree
with.
I guess you have to be bitter from the beginning. At least it makes it
easier.
Eat it up baby... if it makes you feel better.

/dave

***@openedgemedia.com
-------------------------------
David Evenson
OpenEdge Media
Carbondale, CO
970.704.1596
Scott Stevenson
2002-08-12 11:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve harley
have the beginnings, is to have views in Finder which aren't
simply views of a "location" but views of a "category"..
there could be a meta-Applications folder (likewise
Library), the only one visible by default, which dynamically
displayed all apps in scope for the current user..
iTunes 3 implements this via Smart Playlists, so Apple is at least
thinking in this domain.

- Scott
Patrick Coskren
2002-08-12 11:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Stevenson
Post by steve harley
have the beginnings, is to have views in Finder which aren't
simply views of a "location" but views of a "category"..
there could be a meta-Applications folder (likewise
Library), the only one visible by default, which dynamically
displayed all apps in scope for the current user..
iTunes 3 implements this via Smart Playlists, so Apple is at least
thinking in this domain.
Hell, as mentioned here before, it was one of the more-touted features
of Copland, i.e. the original plan for OS 8. You could save searches as
folders that would automatically update themselves. Damn cool idea.

People complain about spring-loaded folders, but *this* is the OS 8
feature I miss most, even if it never got implemented in a shipping
product. :-)

-Patrick
Chris Devers
2002-08-12 11:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Coskren
Post by Scott Stevenson
Post by steve harley
have the beginnings, is to have views in Finder which aren't
simply views of a "location" but views of a "category"..
there could be a meta-Applications folder (likewise
Library), the only one visible by default, which dynamically
displayed all apps in scope for the current user..
iTunes 3 implements this via Smart Playlists, so Apple is at least
thinking in this domain.
Hell, as mentioned here before, it was one of the more-touted features
of Copland, i.e. the original plan for OS 8. You could save searches as
folders that would automatically update themselves. Damn cool idea.
Gee, sounds like things BeOS did years ago... :)
Post by Patrick Coskren
People complain about spring-loaded folders, but *this* is the OS 8
feature I miss most, even if it never got implemented in a shipping
product. :-)
Well, Apple *has* hired Be's filesystem engineer, Dominic Giampaolo, to
work on this stuff. If anyone can get their hands on a copy of Scot
Hacker's _The BeOS Bible_, it has an 8 page long interview with him. He
sounds like a really smart guy: before working on BFS, he worked with SGI
on filesystem journaling for enormous Irix machines so that when they
[inevitably] crashed, they'd be back up & running within minutes instead
of within hours.

I'm hoping Apple allows this guy to come up with a BFS-ish successor to
both HFS+ and UFS. Clearly this two filesystem model is a pain in the ass,
and having a successor that could support features like you mention above
would be a worthwhile & valuable upgrade.

I wonder if we'll see something as soon as Jaguar's successor...
--
Chris Devers
Chris Devers
2002-08-12 11:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Devers
Gee, sounds like things BeOS did years ago... :)
/me does a doubletake at the subject line, and finds this fitting :)
--
Chris Devers
David Herren
2002-08-12 15:04:25 UTC
Permalink
OK, so I have to ask... which gender is Rosyna...?
Post by Chris Devers
Doesn't she have a point though? As far as I've noticed, she is the only
regularly vocal woman on the list; otherwise it's quite the sausage party.
/david

--
david herren - shoreham, vt

Presidential IQs:
Kennedy - 175 Clinton - 182 Bush Sr. - 93 Bush Jr. - 91
Republican double digiters--I guess anyone really can grow up to be
President...
LuKreme
2002-08-12 15:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herren
OK, so I have to ask... which gender is Rosyna...?
<pedantic>
People do not have a gender. Gender is a grammatical term and applies
to nouns, not people. The word you are looking for is "sex."
</pedantic>
--
You are responsible for your rose.
"Rule 5: Get Kirsten Dunst wet" (p 74 of Time 20-05-02)
Charles Jacobs
2002-08-12 18:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Well, Webster and the OED disagree with you here. "Gender" used to describe a person usually
refers to the social aspect of their sex, rather than the biological (a distinct and
useful word/concept).

<reprimand>
The internet is a great resource to use to check your facts before getting pedantic.
<politeness>
:)
</politeness>
</reprimand>
Post by LuKreme
Post by David Herren
OK, so I have to ask... which gender is Rosyna...?
<pedantic>
People do not have a gender. Gender is a grammatical term and applies
to nouns, not people. The word you are looking for is "sex."
</pedantic>
--
You are responsible for your rose.
"Rule 5: Get Kirsten Dunst wet" (p 74 of Time 20-05-02)
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
David Herren
2002-08-13 13:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-15 18:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by darrell wilkins
No it's Donald Norman thing that computers should be come single purpose
appliances.
That wasn't what I was saying- Jeff Raskin has many times said things along
the same lines. No, not that computers should become single purpose, but
that they should become "appliance-esque" in their ease of use.
Post by darrell wilkins
* I read that I don't like the idea of general purpose computers. False, it
is Don Norman who takes that position. I think that general purpose
computers are the way to go. I published a critique of the idea that you can
do it all with separate appliances.
I've noticed Raskin's words change depending on who is offering to interview
him at the time. :)
Post by darrell wilkins
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
He essentially thinks that everything should
be akin to the palm OS, or rather buttons on the computer you'd press for
sending emails, etc. He has a point, as it is more intuitive.
I don't know where you get that from.
In the humane interface, under the heading of "interface unification" he
makes great points about how an interface needs to be consistent across
applications. Great stuff from the mac days. But then he goes into his
current shtick- file systems are bad for users, folder heirarchies are
confusing and bad, why file names aren't right for humans and unnatural,
etc, etc, etc.

One of the major things he talks about is that if you're in a word
processor, and you want to make a new paragraph, how would you do it as a
new user? How would you even know where to start? Well, add it to the
keyboard! it's right there, you just press the button.

File hierarchies: they suck. If you want to find and open your email app,
and you don't even really know how computers work, just =finding= it can
really suck. The solution? ADD IT TO THE KEYBOARD, or onto the computer. :)
Basically that you shouldn't have to find stuff, it should be right there in
front of you. That there shouldn't even be a desktop, there shouldn't be
"applications" you should just press the button for writing and email and up
it would pop. He talked about adding keys for redo/undo, keys for "new
paragraph", keys for a history of you selections.

It sounds good, kind of opendoc-ish. And he raises great points, which I
respect him for raising. But he has no solutions to the problems.
Post by darrell wilkins
Have you ever read any of his work?
I've only read "the humane interface", and some of the original mac stuff
he's posted on his website a good while ago. Everything since then has been
through interviews.

I enjoyed it very much, and like I said originally, he makes good,
common-sense points. But I stick by the fact that since the macintosh he
just comes up with good, common-sense points but with no =answers= to the
problems.
Post by darrell wilkins
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
But it always
breaks down when you try to get even mildly complex.
Not true. It is *very* hard to design systems that are easy for beginners
and experienced users to use but it is possible.
Uh huh. Where is it? I'm not talking about a website UI, and nothing I've
seen is dead simple for a computer illiterate (kiosk-esque) but yet allows
those who need it to extract the things they need as a power user.

I'm actually curious, maybe there is something out there I haven't seen that
you can point me to. Palm OS is dead simple to get started with, but not
intuitive to extend. Windows? Heh, that's an OS you learn, not that works
around you. OS2/warp? Cool OS, not for newbies. MacOS9? Fairly close, and
once you "got it" you "got it", its weirdness was consistent. I (and others
will disagree) think OS9 was light years ahead of the windows UI, but it was
not a power user interface, and there was still a learning curve. KDE/Gnome
are atrocious as a whole (but have cool things in them), openstep was
awesome was you groked it, but you had to grok it. OSX is pretty simple for
a new user, but is hardly (in its current form) a power user OS with the
exception that you have access to the terminal- and its biggest problem is
that it just doesn't scale. There have been so many points as to why it
doesn't (check out arstechnica, togs' reviews) that I won't relist them
here.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but so all of his suggestions break down.
His stuff above, about adding to the keyboard, etc? =That= is why people
think he's talking about specialized appliances. Because it isn't a bad
idea, if all you're doing is word processing. But it doesn't =scale=.
Post by darrell wilkins
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
and all he does is say
"this is the way it should be" instead of backing it up and doing something.
Not true. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
There's really no way to respond to this statement. That's like me saying
"the sky is never pink elephants" and you saying the above. Just no way to
respond.
Post by darrell wilkins
Post by Michael Bryan Bell
So far I haven't seen one raskinesque OS that has scaled really well
(including palm), so you're left with kiosk/appliances, which haven't sold
well at all with the exception of handlhelds (which aren't doing all that
well right now).
Not true. It all depends on the field your working in. There are lots of
computing devices that need interfaces not just the ones that sit on desks.
Think plane cockpits, think Air traffic control systems, think medical
equipment.
Remember, we're not =talking= about specialty, separate appliances for a
specific task, as you pointed out. All of the above is not it, and in his
discussions, he is talking about =computers=. General purpose, things he
thinks are wrong with todays interfaces.
Post by darrell wilkins
Just because Raskin hasn't built a well known GUI/OS that runs on a PC or a
Mac
No, not just well known. Nothing that I can see, whatsoever. A lot of the
principles he pushed weren't new, but the implementations he and others (it
wasn't just raskin, I believe) worked out through some hard science =were=
and helped set the stage for having concrete reasons for why unified
interfaces are good, amount other things.

I give him tremendous respect for that, and I thought I was being clear on
that. What I'm saying (and I'll stick to) is that he makes valid,
common-sense criticisms about today's current UI's, but none of his
suggestions work, and he's never built anything that would =show= it would
work. He has one project that started a good bit ago over at stepwise I
believe, to "impliment his ideas" but no work is being done on it.
Post by darrell wilkins
since he (helped) design the original Mac OS doesn't mean that his ideas
are not valid.
I looked at the email I said, and in it I said over and over again that he
had valid points. Just no solutions, and no one does right now. Naming files
sucks for new users, so what is the solution? What is a new paradigm that
would =work=?

He doesn't have one, but he doesn't just say that.


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-15 18:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik J. Barzeski
He's blatantly misusing terms. That much is clear to everyone of a second
grade intelligence and higher. Yet he continues to use them - WRONGLY.
Once I was in a meeting, and two of the OPS guys were both unix guys. We'd
be having a conversation about trying to work up contingency plans, and
they'd get side tracked =forever= on a point of vernacular when they both
knew what the other meant, but had some in-built inability to just let it go
and focus on the real issue.

Swear to god, we'd steer the meeting back and you could =tell= they wanted
nothing more but to make the other one admit he was wrong. Those two never
really got much of anything done, it seemed.


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman
Michael Bryan Bell
2002-08-15 18:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jason.kamen
Post by Chris Devers
And yes, deliberately replying to a private message onlist is rude.
My grandma says: rudeness begets rudeness.
My grandma says: You can really find out what a person is about not in how
he treats his friends, but his enemies.

Really though, taking someone's personal message and posting it in a public
forum is just bad form.
Post by jason.kamen
The people who
constantly exhibit rude and thuggish behavior on this list (you know who
they are :-) couldn't possibly afford to do that in real life in front of
their colleagues, friends and customers. Whatever their ailment is, the
brutish play-acting on the list hopefully dissipates enough of their pent-up
problems that they save their noses getting punched out of shape in real
life.
Got a point there. I just assumed they don't date much, and an online circle
jerk is better than nothing I suppose.


Michael Bryan Bell
------------------
ICQ: 16106263 Yahoo: mhbell1
No Link for you! AIM: drunkenbatman

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...