f



Why must OS X applications be splattered about?

For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious 
UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the 
application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no 
longer works.

It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application 
resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one 
where the application is used.

To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed. 
What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many 
users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today. 

I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend 
or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring 
order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think 
of as order.

Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a 
long, long day, somewhat of a grump.    :-)



-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
10/23/2005 4:51:39 AM
comp.sys.mac.apps 21416 articles. 3 followers. xxx613 (1334) is leader. Post Follow

391 Replies
2534 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 44

Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages,
So, in your ideal OS then, every time you update your browser you lose all
your Favorite URLs...

-- Gnarlie

0
Gnarlodious
10/23/2005 5:03:32 AM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:03:32 -0500, Gnarlodious wrote (in article 
<BF8075C4.1615E%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>): 

> Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus: 
> 
>> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
>> contained in packages, 
> So, in your ideal OS then, every time you update your browser you lose all 
> your Favorite URLs... 

Not at all. There is no reason why the updating of a browser, or any 
application for that matter, needs to replace everything in a containing 
package. Whether or not replacement of such as favorites in a browser should 
or should not occur could be an option of the installer. Just because all of 
the constituent files in an application are clustered into a single package 
in no way prevents an application updater from selectively changing files.


-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 5:15:38 AM
In article <BF8075C4.1615E%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>, Gnarlodious
<gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:
> 
> > It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> > contained in packages,
> 
> So, in your ideal OS then, every time you update your browser you lose all
> your Favorite URLs...

I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying. This
silliness started even back in Mac OS 9 with even updaters insisting
that applications were left where they were installed instead of where
I want them.  :-(
0
Anybody
10/23/2005 5:20:27 AM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:20:27 -0500, Anybody wrote
(in article <231020051820275185%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>):

> I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
> place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying.

Say I have a single administrator account and several standard (user) 
accounts. It would seem reasonable that there be a package for that 
application in the administrator account and one in each user account. The 
administrator package would contain all of the parts of the application 
needed by any user. The standard (user) packages would contain those things 
such as settings and such that are unique to that account. Documents created 
by an application would still normally be kept in the appropriate documents 
folders. My grump is that it is far too easy for a non-UNIX savvy person to 
totally muddle up an application. 

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 5:30:47 AM
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:20:27 -0500, Anybody wrote
> (in article <231020051820275185%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>):
> 
> > I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
> > place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying.
> 
> Say I have a single administrator account and several standard (user)
> accounts. It would seem reasonable that there be a package for that 
> application in the administrator account and one in each user account. The
> administrator package would contain all of the parts of the application
> needed by any user. The standard (user) packages would contain those things
> such as settings and such that are unique to that account. 

But that is what happens, really. The "package", i.e., the application,
sits in a place accessible by all and normally modifable only by admin.
OTOH; "those things such as settings and such that are unique to [each]
account" sit precisely where you want them; in the various users'
~/Library/Preferences. If there are templates, graphical themes, (music)
loops, etc., i.e., files that are used by the app but don't properly
belong to the app, they sit in /Library/Application support/<developer's
name>. They would normally /not/ belong to each user, but to all users
of the app, i.e., globally. 

To me it is one of the more logical ways of doing things. I would hate
having to open the application packages and screw around inside them to
find stuff like that. And you'd still be stuck with having a number of
packages corresponding to the number of users + 1. 

> Documents created 
> by an application would still normally be kept in the appropriate documents
> folders. My grump is that it is far too easy for a non-UNIX savvy person to
> totally muddle up an application. 

I don't see that (I'm not trying to troll you, I just don't?). And BTW -
what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
-- 
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal: 
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
0
navn
10/23/2005 5:57:07 AM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article 
<1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 

> And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 

Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an 
application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything for 
a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the 
documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in 
several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after 
problem.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 6:20:37 AM
Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:

> my position is that everything for
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package,
Well, I can imagine the bloated size of each download if you were replacing
components continually!
The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
longer be able to overwrite an application..

-- Gnarlie

0
Gnarlodious
10/23/2005 6:33:04 AM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
<1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> 
> And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 

Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
"Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
it. 

The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.

I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.

That's one of the points (or used to be!) in buying an easy to use,
freeflowing Mac and not the stubborn, do as it says Windoze.   :-(
0
Anybody
10/23/2005 6:39:20 AM
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article 
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> 
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> 
> Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an
> application unique to a user) belong! 

I guess that remark (about keeping apps in /Applications) of mine was
actually more directed to "Anybody", who wrote:
> I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
> place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying. This
> silliness started even back in Mac OS 9 with even updaters insisting
> that applications were left where they were installed instead of where
> I want them.  :-(

Sorry about that.

I don't really see the point of moving apps any more. In OS 9 I did, too
- but no longer.

> But my position is that everything for 
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in
> several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after
> problem.

See "Gnarlodious's" remarks. They cover my issues with your position.
-- 
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal: 
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
0
navn
10/23/2005 6:40:08 AM
> Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an 
> application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything for 
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the 
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in 
> several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after 
> problem.

My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in 
/Library/Fonts.  The app simply will not run without them.  Instead of 
embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the 
developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are 
thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.

K.
0
sp
10/23/2005 7:29:12 AM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:51:39 -0500, TaliesinSoft wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in
> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the
> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application
> support folder, and who knows where else.
>
> [...]
>
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than
> the resident one where the application is used.

I actually rather like the way that OS X deals with making application
preferences and such a multi-user affair, but maybe our difference in
opinions stems from our apparently different ideas of how multi-user
operating systems usually behave. You refer to the "account in which the
application resides", as opposed to the various non-administrator user
accounts. However, in OS X one wouldn't typically install an application
in a particular account; the app would likely have to be installed _using_
some administrative account, but the program copied to /Applications would
not actually be tied to that particular account in a special way after the
installation. So to say the application "resides" in some account isn't
usually accurate (unless I misunderstand where you keep applications on
your machine).

Administrative accounts, just like non-administrative accounts, need to
keep their application settings in ~/Library/. This allows different
users to have completely independent preferences and files for the same
applications, and allows us to, for example, preserve our Safari bookmarks
between updates. I like to look at this as a modern incarnation of the
tried-and-true Unix method of keeping global applications in some
administratively-protected system directory, and users' personal files and
settings always in a subdirectory of their respective home directories.

As for why a user's application settings are often kept in more than one
location under ~/Library/... well, maybe they could have done a better job
of that. But typically you'll find a user's application settings under
~/Library/Application Support/<AppName>/, and when this is not the case it
is more often due to a poor design decision by a third-party developer
than to any fault of Apple's. (Have you ever hunted down Windows Media
Player for Mac's settings!?)

> What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious UNIX
> underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> longer works.

Hey, be careful not to anger the Unix fans; there are more and more of us
using Macintoshes every day :). Actually, the only reason I even
considered switching from Linux to OS X for my personal computing was that
Apple decided to base OS X on NeXTStep (and thus gave it its BSD
underpinnings).

More to the point, though, do you have any particular examples of where
moving an application breaks personal settings? I tried moving Microsoft
Office's apps, Opera, iPhoto, and a few others to random subdirectories on
different volumes attached to my iBook, but never saw the application fail
to find its settings, which had stayed stationary. Or am I missing your
point?

Mark

-- 
Mark Shroyer
http://plaza.ufl.edu/mshroyer/


0
Mark
10/23/2005 9:20:42 AM
Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:
> 
> > my position is that everything for
> > a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> > documents managed by that application, should be in a single package,
> Well, I can imagine the bloated size of each download if you were replacing
> components continually!
> The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
> incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
> longer be able to overwrite an application..

Not true. I have tried this with Eudora updates, where I might have put
some extra plug-ins into the Package. If you drag and drop an updated
package onto the old one, all the existing plug-ins stay there. I
believe the same happened when I tried it with Mozilla/Thunderbird too.

That is either a feature of OSX, or some damned fine programming by
Qualcomm.

-- 
Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Aug 28 2005)
0
hairy
10/23/2005 9:52:34 AM
Mark Shroyer <maSPAMISBADshroyer@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Snipped Text]

> > It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> > contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> > application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than
> > the resident one where the application is used.
> 
> I actually rather like the way that OS X deals with making application
> preferences and such a multi-user affair, but maybe our difference in
> opinions stems from our apparently different ideas of how multi-user
> operating systems usually behave. You refer to the "account in which the
> application resides", as opposed to the various non-administrator user
> accounts. However, in OS X one wouldn't typically install an application
> in a particular account; the app would likely have to be installed _using_
> some administrative account, but the program copied to /Applications would
> not actually be tied to that particular account in a special way after the
> installation. So to say the application "resides" in some account isn't
> usually accurate (unless I misunderstand where you keep applications on
> your machine).

Absolutely, the standard procedure then is to create an alias to the app
in a User/Applications folder.

> Administrative accounts, just like non-administrative accounts, need to
> keep their application settings in ~/Library/. This allows different
> users to have completely independent preferences and files for the same
> applications, and allows us to, for example, preserve our Safari bookmarks
> between updates. I like to look at this as a modern incarnation of the
> tried-and-true Unix method of keeping global applications in some
> administratively-protected system directory, and users' personal files and
> settings always in a subdirectory of their respective home directories.

Yes, so what that Unix was invented in the 70's? Why reinvent the wheel?
I think it works very well, and has proven to be a very solid and also
highly flexible system. It offers users a power to do things like no
other OS can, it comes at a price - complexity - but I think Apple have
done a damned good job of making it fairly transparent to the average
user.

It only falls down when people that know bugger all about computers
start to think they know better than the software authors.

> As for why a user's application settings are often kept in more than one
> location under ~/Library/... well, maybe they could have done a better job
> of that. But typically you'll find a user's application settings under
> ~/Library/Application Support/<AppName>/, and when this is not the case it
> is more often due to a poor design decision by a third-party developer
> than to any fault of Apple's. (Have you ever hunted down Windows Media
> Player for Mac's settings!?)

Agreed, the system is fine as it is, the locations of files are logical,
and as far as well written software goes, you find everything where
you'd expect it. Poorly written software that puts files in strange
locations is not Apple's fault.

> > What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious UNIX
> > underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the
> > application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> > longer works.
> 
> Hey, be careful not to anger the Unix fans; there are more and more of us
> using Macintoshes every day :). Actually, the only reason I even
> considered switching from Linux to OS X for my personal computing was that
> Apple decided to base OS X on NeXTStep (and thus gave it its BSD
> underpinnings).
> 
> More to the point, though, do you have any particular examples of where
> moving an application breaks personal settings? I tried moving Microsoft
> Office's apps, Opera, iPhoto, and a few others to random subdirectories on
> different volumes attached to my iBook, but never saw the application fail
> to find its settings, which had stayed stationary. Or am I missing your
> point?

PhotoShop is one, if you move the app it won't run, and updates won't
work either. Indeed, many apps won't update properly if you move them
from the Applications folder.

I find that bunging everything into the ./Applications folder is great,
you know exactly where to find all your apps. I then create a set of
hierarchal folders of aliases, in my User/Applications folder, so I can
group the application types (i.e. Office, Graphics, Audio, Internet...
etc.)

-- 
Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Aug 28 2005)
0
hairy
10/23/2005 9:52:34 AM
Hi!

 > I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a
 > friend or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an
 > effort to bring order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to
 > what some persons think of as order.

	As a newcomer to Apple, but as a fairly computer-sane person, I have to 
say, that I am amazed how *tolerant* OS-X is if you decide to move 
programs: The Shortcuts keep working, in the cases I tried, the 
applications still work OK. I think, this is precisely the consequence 
of what you critique: Because certain settings and Libraries are fixed 
at certain positions (UNIX-style, I do not know what kind of environment 
variables are used), the actual application can move easily (maybe 
helped by some magic of the UI when executing the move).

	Cheers,
		B.
0
Boris
10/23/2005 10:14:45 AM
In article <231020051939200730%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > 
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> 
> Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> it. 
> 
> The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.
> 
> I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.

And, really, what prevents you from doing so? Very few apps require that 
they be in /Applications in order to run. Those (few) apps are, simply, 
broken. Similarly, I don't think I've run across anything yet that 
forces you to use the default hierarchy that's created for a new user 
account. You can create a folder in your home called "My Stuff" and keep 
every file you create in there completely ignoring - and I think even 
deleting - Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/23/2005 12:04:32 PM
On 2005-10-23 06:51:39 +0200, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> said:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in 
> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the 
> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application 
> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone 
> not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire 
> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be 
> taken aback when the application no longer works.


You're making a big confusion between applications and their accessory data.

An application under osx/next is a directory and must (should) be self 
contained. All the needed data is in ApplicationName.app/ which is a 
directory. It contains binaries, frameworks, libraries, whatever is 
needed. Application Support and Preferences are PER-USER accessory 
data, like history, plugins, settings. This must be per-user as I don't 
want to share my data with others.


> 
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the 
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other 
> than the resident one where the application is used.


The application is a package. Settings are for user's sake.


> 
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.


Unix has been always the same actually. That's why we still have /usr, 
/usr/local, /usr/share and there's no need at all for them.


> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by 
> many users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today.
> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a 
> friend or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an 
> effort to bring order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to 
> what some persons think of as order.


Actually, I see more confusion in classic unix, with so many 
directories for libraries, and parts of applications scattered in the 
file system.


-- 
Sensei <senseiwa@mac.com>

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its 
limits. (A. Einstein)

0
Sensei
10/23/2005 12:29:55 PM
On 2005-10-23, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many
> applications in OS X have their parts splattered into
> several different places, the applications 

I am experiencing a strange sense of deja vu. Didn't this
topic come up recently? Does a quick search....

.....ah yes, posted to c.s.m.s on Sep 3, subject "Why must
applications be scattered in OS X?", 41 messges in thread.

I was going to accuse you of not checking the archive
before posting, but then I realised that you were the OP
of the earlier thread!

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
I hate people who think it's clever to take drugs --
like customs officials.
0
foo33 (1454)
10/23/2005 1:03:17 PM
Entity Andy Hewitt spoke thus:

>> The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
>> incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
>> longer be able to overwrite an application..
> 
> Not true. I have tried this with Eudora updates, where I might have put
> some extra plug-ins into the Package. If you drag and drop an updated
> package onto the old one, all the existing plug-ins stay there. I
> believe the same happened when I tried it with Mozilla/Thunderbird too.
> 
> That is either a feature of OSX, or some damned fine programming by
> Qualcomm.
It may be, yes. But more likely the Eudora app has copied the plugins to a
"Plugins" folder somewhere.
Another possibility is that overwriting packages uses some Unixy copy
procedure where files are not replaced unless they exist in the new package.

Would be interesting if someone more knowledgeable investigated these
possibilities...

-- Gnarlie

0
Gnarlodious
10/23/2005 2:19:44 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 02:29:12 -0500, Kir�ly wrote (in article 
<cZG6f.43375$S4.6423@edtnps84>): 

> My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in 
> /Library/Fonts.  The app simply will not run without them.  Instead of 
> embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the 
> developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are thoughtfully 
> accessible to all my other apps. 

If a font is to be available across a number of applications then it does 
make sense to have them in a shared space.

As an aside, one can place a cluster of fonts into an appropriately named  
folder and then place that folder inside a font library. This is a way that 
the source of that cluster can be easily identified. If that folder contains 
a variety of font families, some of which may involve multiple font objects, 
exporting those fonts via Font Book will create a sub-folder for each family 
and place within that folder all of the objects relevant to that family. That 
folder can then replace the original folder. This is a way to greatly 
facilitate the management of a large font collection.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 2:25:28 PM
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article 
>>And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> 
> Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an 
> application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything for 
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the 
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in 
> several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after 
> problem.

I'm not aware of any problems that has caused me.  But finding
things in a huge pile of /Applications is what irritates me.
I'd like to divide them up by categories.  Some installers will
find the app and update it wherever it is.  Others will find it
and move it back to /Applications.  Still others will say it
can't be updated because it's not installed.

Of course, I can make soft links to any of them, or Dock them,
so it's not major, but still .....

-- 
Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture.  Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
                                  -- Larry DeLuca
0
Wes
10/23/2005 2:26:14 PM
Andy Hewitt <hairy.biker@gmail.com> wrote:

> I find that bunging everything into the ./Applications folder is great,
> you know exactly where to find all your apps. I then create a set of
> hierarchal folders of aliases, in my User/Applications folder, so I can
> group the application types (i.e. Office, Graphics, Audio, Internet...
> etc.)

Well, I use AliasMenu for that purpose, and QuicKeys for making keyboard
shortcuts to them. And even ASM to get back the pull-down menu with open
apps.

After all, the Dock is only a nuisance.
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
0
per
10/23/2005 2:27:56 PM
Király wrote:
> My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in 
> /Library/Fonts.  The app simply will not run without them.  Instead of 
> embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the 
> developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are 
> thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.

Unlike Microsoft Office, which when run for the first time
PER USER, installs all of its fonts somewhere in the user's
space that AppleWorks and other apps can't find.  Not only
that, but Office won't use the OS X fonts.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
    intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
    from the common culture.  Near as I can tell, this coincides with
    the release of MS-DOS.
                                  -- Larry DeLuca
0
Wes
10/23/2005 2:32:40 PM
Sensei wrote:
> On 2005-10-23 06:51:39 +0200, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> said:
>> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be 
>> taken aback when the application no longer works.
> 
> You're making a big confusion between applications and their accessory 
> data.

Actually, there are sometimes executables/scripts/plists that
stupidly code the full absolute pathname for something instead
of making it relative to the package or to '~' ($HOME)

This is not generally Apple's fault, though I think they have
done it occasionally.

-- 
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
                        -- Peg Bracken
0
Wes
10/23/2005 2:40:01 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:20:42 -0500, Mark Shroyer wrote
(in article <pan.2005.10.23.09.20.32.548343@yahoo.com>):

> More to the point, though, do you have any particular examples of where
> moving an application breaks personal settings? I tried moving Microsoft
> Office's apps, Opera, iPhoto, and a few others to random subdirectories on
> different volumes attached to my iBook, but never saw the application fail
> to find its settings, which had stayed stationary. Or am I missing your
> point?

A good friend of mine ran tight on disk space and added an external drive. 
She then moved a number of things, applications and otherwise, to the new 
drive. Now things are really messed up to the point where clicking on a 
document will attempt to open a totally unrelated application. What seems to 
be the case is that applications got moved to the second drive but not the 
related preference and support stuff.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 2:47:21 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:52:34 -0500, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <1h4vsdl.1661jrb1baj83tN%hairy.biker@gmail.com>):

> PhotoShop is one, if you move the app it won't run, and updates won't
> work either. Indeed, many apps won't update properly if you move them
> from the Applications folder.

It seems that Adobe doesn't understand that one can have both administrative 
and standard accounts. If you attempt to run one of the applications within 
Adobe's Creative Suite 2 from a standard account things will fail until you 
go in a fix the permissions in the associated application support files in 
the administrator account.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 2:51:32 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:03:17 -0500, Ian Gregory wrote
(in article <3s1g0lFlqj1tU1@individual.net>):

> On 2005-10-23, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many
>> applications in OS X have their parts splattered into
>> several different places, the applications 
> 
> I am experiencing a strange sense of deja vu. Didn't this
> topic come up recently? Does a quick search....
> 
> ....ah yes, posted to c.s.m.s on Sep 3, subject "Why must
> applications be scattered in OS X?", 41 messges in thread.
> 
> I was going to accuse you of not checking the archive
> before posting, but then I realised that you were the OP
> of the earlier thread!


I was waiting to be caught!   ;-)

From experience I've learned that waiting a bit and then re-introducing a 
topic brings additional persons to the discussion and along with them a 
variety interesting comments. Although I may sound so, I'm not ironclad in my 
positions, and it is from ideas expressed in these discussions that my own 
attitudes often change.


-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
taliesinsoft (1864)
10/23/2005 2:56:20 PM
In article <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a 
> long, long day, somewhat of a grump.    :-)

Well, you're welcome to feel grumpy, but acting stupid is, well, stupid.

-- 
A few minutes ago I attempted to give a flying fsck, but the best I
could do was to watch it skitter across the floor. (Anthony de Boer)
0
Howard
10/23/2005 2:59:11 PM
Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Entity Andy Hewitt spoke thus:
> 
> >> The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
> >> incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
> >> longer be able to overwrite an application..
> > 
> > Not true. I have tried this with Eudora updates, where I might have put
> > some extra plug-ins into the Package. If you drag and drop an updated
> > package onto the old one, all the existing plug-ins stay there. I
> > believe the same happened when I tried it with Mozilla/Thunderbird too.
> > 
> > That is either a feature of OSX, or some damned fine programming by
> > Qualcomm.
> It may be, yes. But more likely the Eudora app has copied the plugins to a
> "Plugins" folder somewhere.
> Another possibility is that overwriting packages uses some Unixy copy
> procedure where files are not replaced unless they exist in the new package.

I would guess the second, Eudora stores all its plugins in the Package
file.

-- 
Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Aug 28 2005)
0
hairy
10/23/2005 3:06:56 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:32:40 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote (in article 
<caN6f.2163$Yn4.1185@trnddc03>): 

> Unlike Microsoft Office, which when run for the first time PER USER, 
> installs all of its fonts somewhere in the user's space that AppleWorks 
> and other apps can't find.  Not only that, but Office won't use the OS X 
> fonts. 

The installation of Office 2004 (at least in my case) resulted in a 
collection of fonts in

 Applications/Microsoft Office 2004/Office/Fonts

I copied these fonts into

Library/Fonts

where they are included (at least to my knowledge) in the font menus of all 
of my installed applications.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 3:24:05 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:59:11 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
(in article <howard-1BE6C2.10591123102005@news.supernews.com>):

> Well, you're welcome to feel grumpy, but acting stupid is, well, stupid.

And just how am I acting stupid?    :-)

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 3:25:16 PM
In article <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious 
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the 
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no 
> longer works.

Applications in OS 9 kept their Preferences in the system Preferences 
folder too. A preference file is not, in my opinion, a "part of the 
application;" it's merely the user's particular settings. It does not 
properly belong in the Applications folder, any more than the user's 
documents do.

The files that may appear in Application Support for some applications 
aren't properly parts of the application itself either; generally, this 
folder is used for foles such as a spellchecking dictionary or other 
data file that the application relies on.

Why not put those files in the Applications folder?

Because in a multiuser operating system like OS X, each user may have 
set different preferences for the same application; keeping preferences 
in the user's home folder means one application can have different prefs 
for each user.

Also, remember that you can not assume a user has write access to the 
Applications folder or to any other particular folder. Customizable 
dictionaries, for example, should not be stored in the Applications 
folder, because a user who is running on a limited-access account 
without write access to the Applications folder would not be able to 
change the dictionary.

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application 
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one 
> where the application is used.

Preferences files and so on are not typically stored in packages, for 
the simple reason that Apple's package management APIs were designed to 
locate resources within the application's package but not in any 
arbitrary package. Adding API-level support for dealing with other 
packages would complicate the API in a way that makes many of the 
advantages of packages (from the programmer's standpoint) less 
compelling.

> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed. 
> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many 
> users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today. 

And OS X bears precious little resemblance to the Unix of yesteryear. 
Unix today is about as close to Unix of the 1970s as a modern Ferrari is 
to the first Ford.
 
> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend 
> or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring 
> order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think 
> of as order.

Well, that's true in any operating system. No matter how cleanly 
designed, any operating system will produce problems if users move files 
around indiscriminately. 

This is not a technical issue; it's a user education issue. People 
should not move files whose purpose they do not know.

> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a 
> long, long day, somewhat of a grump.    :-)

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacit
10/23/2005 4:15:59 PM
In article <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
taliesinsoft@mac.com wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious 
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the 
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no 
> longer works.
> 
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application 
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one 
> where the application is used.
> 
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed. 
> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many 
> users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today. 

UNIX is still being developed, of course. You can read about it and its
history in books like Maurice J. Bach, "The Design of the UNIX Operating
System", and Leffler, MacKusick, Karels & Quarterman, "The Design and
Implementation of the BSD UNIX Operating System".

One reason as to why UNIX became what it is perhaps somewhat surprising:
although being�proprietary at times, it has always been open source, thus
giving many talented programmers to�experiment and alter it. By contrast,
Mac OS 9- is closed source, relying on only Apple's programmers for a fix.

UNIX has for the very beginning been a multiuser, multiprogrammer,
multifile OS, with the�capacity to efficiently linking programs together.
So a good UNIX program should make use of those features. By contrast, on
Mac OS 9-, one should avoid those things, as it has its origin in a
one-process OS, where the use of many files slowing it down.

In UNIX, there is such no need to put things in specific place, expect for
conventions: The programs need to find the other parts it may access. But
in UNIX, this can often be done by setting suitable environment variables,
such as lookup paths.

So one can put a program in say ~/bin, if one does not want other users
accessing it, or in /usr/bin if it comes with the OS, or /usr/local/bin/
if it is a program to be accessed by all users, a program which is not a
part of the original installation. But that is all conventions.

Now Apple has decided to make use of that underlying UNIX structure,
making its own conventions of where to put the stuff. But that is Apple
conventions, which in itself are not requirements imposed by the
underlying UNIX.

One reason for doing is these changes is that the underlying UNIX does not
have the limitations that Mac OS 9- has. For example, one reason to put a
lot of fonts of an application within the application package is that
putting them accessible to all programs would slow the OS down. By
contrast, UNIX is designed from the very�beginning to be able to handle
many small files. So you can put them all together, accessible to all
applications.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/23/2005 4:53:29 PM
In article <tacitr-BAD5EE.12160623102005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> The files that may appear in Application Support for some applications 
> aren't properly parts of the application itself either; generally, this 
> folder is used for foles such as a spellchecking dictionary or other 
> data file that the application relies on.

And under OS 9 would probably have been installed in "Extensions".

> Because in a multiuser operating system like OS X, each user may have 
> set different preferences for the same application; keeping preferences 
> in the user's home folder means one application can have different
> prefs 
> for each user.
> 
> Also, remember that you can not assume a user has write access to the 
> Applications folder or to any other particular folder. Customizable 
> dictionaries, for example, should not be stored in the Applications 
> folder, because a user who is running on a limited-access account 
> without write access to the Applications folder would not be able to 
> change the dictionary.

Prezactly.

> Well, that's true in any operating system. No matter how cleanly 
> designed, any operating system will produce problems if users move
> files 
> around indiscriminately. 
> 
> This is not a technical issue; it's a user education issue. People 
> should not move files whose purpose they do not know.

Hear, hear!

djb

-- 
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
0
Dave
10/23/2005 6:16:15 PM
TaliesinSoft:
> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> who knows where else...

Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
folder.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
Davoud
10/23/2005 6:29:51 PM
In <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft  
wrote:
> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications 
> in OS X  have their parts splattered into several different places, 
> the applications  folder itself, the preferences folder, the 
> application support folder, and  who knows where else. What happens is 
> that someone not versed in the glorious  UNIX underpinnings of OS X (
> and the satire is fully intended) will move the  application itself 
> and will then be taken aback when the application no  longer works.

So much wrong with this premise.  And Unix hating by the Mac faithful 
has been over for years.  You should be made to work in the terminal 
only until you wise up.

First, an "applications" directory and an "applications support" 
directory are not standard Unix.  Apple has freed us from standard 
layouts and path variable concerns so you DONT have to worry about them.

Your basic premise is false:  You don't have to put an application in a 
standard location.  I just moved TextEdit to my Music folder and it 
launched fine.  But it sure would be difficult for other users to know 
that.  In fact I routinely put all non Apple apps in a directory I have 
called "Third Party Apps" to separate them from Apple's apps.

As far as Application Support or Library directories, that provide 
common services, why on earth would you want to move them?  Let the 
Installer do its thing and just don't touch what you don't understand.

Preferences live where they do because it is now a multi user system.  
Each user of the machine can have different needs so the preferences 
live in a personal directory.  Again, this was hard for old Maccies to 
grasp.  Get used to it.

0
Robert
10/23/2005 6:43:18 PM
In article <20051023134318895-0500@news.airmail.net>, Robert Love
<rblove@airmail.net> wrote:

> You don't have to put an application in a 
> standard location.

This is application dependent. For example, LilyPond must be put in
Applications, I think if it should be accessed from UNIX functions. But
this is something that the developers of the program decided: that it
should be like that.

> Preferences live where they do because it is now a multi user system.  
> Each user of the machine can have different needs so the preferences 
> live in a personal directory.  Again, this was hard for old Maccies to 
> grasp.  Get used to it.

The best way to get some appreciation of the usefulness of this is to
create a few more accounts. But again, I do not think an application has
to work like that. One can make programs where the preferences of one user
influences that of another. Sometimes this can even be useful, if it has
to do with system-wide settings. But mostly this would not be desirable.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/23/2005 7:08:54 PM
In article <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious 
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the 
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no 
> longer works.

There are, of course, complications. I've discussed this here before, 
but sometimes leaving the preferences file makes sense if the user ever 
wants to reinstall the program. (Maybe they're just erasing it before 
they download an upgraded version.) Also, a program may install 
something in a System folder that another program uses as well, so you 
can't just go deleting everything.

In general, however, I do think you're right. OS X should be smart 
enough that when you drag an application to the trash, it can find all 
the files it installed, determine which are free to be trashed, and then 
ask what you want to do with them. It really wouldn't be a hard feature 
to add, OS X already stores installer manifests to use in the "Fix 
Permissions" utility.

-- 
|\/|  /|  |2  |<
mehaase(at)gmail(dot)com
0
Mark
10/23/2005 7:37:01 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:43:18 -0500, Robert Love wrote (in article 
<20051023134318895-0500@news.airmail.net>): 

> Subject: Re: Why must OS X applications be splattered about? From: Robert 
> Love <rblove@airmail.net> Date: Today  1:43 PM Newsgroups: 
> comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc, comp.sys.mac.system 
> 
> In <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft  
> wrote: 
>> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in 
>> OS X  have their parts splattered into several different places, the 
>> applications  folder itself, the preferences folder, the application 
>> support folder, and  who knows where else. What happens is that someone 
>> not versed in the glorious  UNIX underpinnings of OS X ( and the satire 
>> is fully intended) will move the  application itself and will then be 
>> taken aback when the application no  longer works. 
> 
> So much wrong with this premise.  And Unix hating by the Mac faithful has 
> been over for years.  You should be made to work in the terminal only 
> until you wise up. 

I'm not sure why my complaint about application components being strewn about 
in different places is somehow "wrong". Someone needs to explain to a good 
friend of mine that one has to be very careful in Mac OS X about where 
application components can be moved so as to not break the application.
 
> First, an "applications" directory and an "applications support" directory 
> are not standard Unix.  Apple has freed us from standard layouts and path 
> variable concerns so you DONT have to worry about them. 

Thanks for the clarification that the "applications" and "applications 
support" directories are not part of standard Unix. But, the fact still 
remains that things sometimes break if parts of an application are not in the 
right directory.
 
> Your basic premise is false:  You don't have to put an application in a 
> standard location.  I just moved TextEdit to my Music folder and it 
> launched fine.  But it sure would be difficult for other users to know 
> that.  In fact I routinely put all non Apple apps in a directory I have 
> called "Third Party Apps" to separate them from Apple's apps. 

I should have clarified that I'm aware that you shouldn't have to place an 
application in a standard place. My grump is the splattering of applications 
into many disjoint folders.

> As far as Application Support or Library directories, that provide common 
> services, why on earth would you want to move them?  Let the Installer do 
> its thing and just don't touch what you don't understand. 

Say, as in the case of my friend a hard drive becomes full and she opts to 
move it to another hard drive in order to create space. Instead of moving one 
containing folder she may have to move several folders. It seems that 
complexity is created when complexity can be avoided. 

> Preferences live where they do because it is now a multi user system.  
> Each user of the machine can have different needs so the preferences live 
> in a personal directory.  Again, this was hard for old Maccies to grasp.  
> Get used to it. 

But so often the user (standard) account has not just a preference file for 
an application hosted in say an administrative account, but the user will 
perhaps have something in, for example, application support. It would seem 
far preferable to have the entirety of what is unique to that user account be 
in a single folder.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/23/2005 7:51:48 PM
In article <231020051429514089%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> TaliesinSoft:
> > For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS 
> > X 
> > have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> > folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> > who knows where else...
> 
> Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
> Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> folder.
> 

Suppose you had several applications from the same vendor installed and 
suppose those applications shared a sizable fraction of the same code 
modules.  Where would you locate the shared modules so all the 
applications could find them and there wouldn't be redundant copies?

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 
                   7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
0
Tom
10/23/2005 8:29:52 PM
In article <0001HW.BF815404000B8367F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
taliesinsoft@mac.com wrote:

> Say, as in the case of my friend a hard drive becomes full and she opts to 
> move it to another hard drive in order to create space. Instead of moving one 
> containing folder she may have to move several folders. It seems that 
> complexity is created when complexity can be avoided. 

This might be a case of Mac OS X not being close enough to UNIX, because
to is common to chain UNIX computers so that it becomes hard to know
exactly where the stuff is put. :-) With AFS, "Andrew File System" even
hooks up the filesystem over the Internet. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_file_system>.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/23/2005 8:39:19 PM
Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> It would be possible to have, within the
> Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> folder.

If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
templates, etc.
-- 
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal: 
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
0
navn
10/23/2005 8:53:14 PM
In article <0001HW.BF81158C00040446F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> And just how am I acting stupid?    :-)

By saying silly stuff.  You've got to know better by now about why 
things are the way they are.

-- 
A few minutes ago I attempted to give a flying fsck, but the best I
could do was to watch it skitter across the floor. (Anthony de Boer)
0
Howard
10/23/2005 9:29:55 PM
I agree. As a long time OS/2 user I value the benefits of most stuff for 
an app in one place. Catering for multiple users does complicate things 
but I still find the Mac OSX 'scatter' a barrier to usefulness.
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious 
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the 
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no 
> longer works.
> 
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application 
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one 
> where the application is used.
> 
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed. 
> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many 
> users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today. 
> 
> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend 
> or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring 
> order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think 
> of as order.
> 
> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a 
> long, long day, somewhat of a grump.    :-)
> 
> 
> 
0
Bob
10/23/2005 9:30:59 PM
In article <1h4wq1c.1hfzot319613nmN%navn@mac.com.invalid>,
navn@mac.com.invalid (Jon Aalborg) wrote:

> If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
> scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
> You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
> user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
> templates, etc.

One practial use of this separation can be seen if the user directories
are being backed up, and the system crashes. Then the setup can be
restored by reinstalling the OS and applications, plus the backupped user
directories. If the user preferences are tucked into the application
directories, which is not computationally impossible, this restoration
process will not be possible. In fact, it is hard under Mac OS 9- to
figure out which directories to back up, if one does not want to back up
the whole installation, but only the user stuff.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/23/2005 9:41:00 PM
In article <231020051429514089%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
>
>Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
>Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
>would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
>sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
>named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
>file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
>folder.

Or, you could just mark that folder as a package, and let the Finder treat
it as one.

The same things (whether justified or not) that prevent Adobe from
putting all of Photoshop's stuff in the Photoshop package prevent them
from putting it in a single folder under Applications.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.
0
russotto
10/23/2005 10:19:58 PM
Davoud:
> > Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
> > Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> > would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> > sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> > named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> > file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> > folder.

 Tom Stiller: 
> Suppose you had several applications from the same vendor installed and 
> suppose those applications shared a sizable fraction of the same code 
> modules.  Where would you locate the shared modules so all the 
> applications could find them and there wouldn't be redundant copies?

This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.

I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
present no great challenge to a programmer.

If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
disks on my new Mac.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
Davoud
10/23/2005 10:21:23 PM
Davoud:
> > It would be possible to have, within the
> > Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> > would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> > sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> > named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> > file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> > folder.

Jon Aalborg:
> If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
> scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
> You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
> user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
> templates, etc.

"Not possible" is pretty strong language. My scheme would have all
users' preferences in the same folder. The app would say "Ah, Davoud
has logged out and Jon has logged in. I will now load Jon's
personalized pieces."

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
Davoud
10/23/2005 10:23:56 PM
In article <cZG6f.43375$S4.6423@edtnps84>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
(Kir�ly) wrote:

> > Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an 
> > application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything
> > for 
> > a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the 
> > documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not
> > in 
> > several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after 
> > problem.
> 
> My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in 
> /Library/Fonts.  The app simply will not run without them.  Instead of 
> embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the 
> developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are 
> thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.

There are some things that should be in certain locations, although Mac
OS X even spreads fonts through about four different locations.  :-(

But there's no reason at all that all applications or user documents
should HAVE to go in certain locations. You can't even move some
applications to a sub-folder of Applications without updaters
complaining.
0
Anybody
10/23/2005 10:36:39 PM
In article <uce-8E1F73.08043223102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <231020051939200730%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > > 
> > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> > 
> > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > it. 
> > 
> > The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.
> > 
> > I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.
> 
> And, really, what prevents you from doing so? Very few apps require that 
> they be in /Applications in order to run. Those (few) apps are, simply, 
> broken. Similarly, I don't think I've run across anything yet that 
> forces you to use the default hierarchy that's created for a new user 
> account. You can create a folder in your home called "My Stuff" and keep 
> every file you create in there completely ignoring - and I think even 
> deleting - Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.

Some applications will run from anywhere, some won't. Some updaters
will find applications anywhere, other refuse.

The problem is that Mac OS X is trying to be too fancy / comlicated for
it's own good. Most computers are probably single-user so they don't
need all the twiddly nonsense for multiple users, home folders, etc.
0
Anybody
10/23/2005 10:39:40 PM
In article <caN6f.2163$Yn4.1185@trnddc03>, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Király wrote:
> > My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in 
> > /Library/Fonts.  The app simply will not run without them.  Instead of 
> > embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the 
> > developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are 
> > thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.
> 
> Unlike Microsoft Office, which when run for the first time
> PER USER, installs all of its fonts somewhere in the user's
> space that AppleWorks and other apps can't find.  Not only
> that, but Office won't use the OS X fonts.

What do you expect? It *is* Microsloth. They are always trying to do
things their own way and ignoring any standards.  :-(
0
Anybody
10/23/2005 10:41:52 PM
In article <231020051216152959%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <tacitr-BAD5EE.12160623102005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
> 
> > The files that may appear in Application Support for some applications 
> > aren't properly parts of the application itself either; generally, this 
> > folder is used for foles such as a spellchecking dictionary or other 
> > data file that the application relies on.
> 
> And under OS 9 would probably have been installed in "Extensions".

Mac OS 9 (and 8 I think) has an "Application Support" folder inside the
"System Folder" as well.
0
Anybody
10/23/2005 10:44:12 PM
In article <241020051139409614%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-8E1F73.08043223102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <231020051939200730%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> >  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > > > 
> > > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> > > 
> > > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > > it. 
> > > 
> > > The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.
> > > 
> > > I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.
> > 
> > And, really, what prevents you from doing so? Very few apps require that 
> > they be in /Applications in order to run. Those (few) apps are, simply, 
> > broken. Similarly, I don't think I've run across anything yet that 
> > forces you to use the default hierarchy that's created for a new user 
> > account. You can create a folder in your home called "My Stuff" and keep 
> > every file you create in there completely ignoring - and I think even 
> > deleting - Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.
> 
> Some applications will run from anywhere, some won't.

And those that won't are broken.

> Some updaters will find applications anywhere, other refuse.

And those that won't are broken.

But neither of these misbehaviors came to the Mac with OS X. I've been 
using Macs since 1985 and seeing rare apps that make assumptions about 
where they are for the whole 20 years. But they _are_ rare, both now and 
historically.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/23/2005 11:06:30 PM
In article <231020051821237457%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Davoud:
> > > Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
> > > Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> > > would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> > > sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> > > named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> > > file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> > > folder.
> 
>  Tom Stiller: 
> > Suppose you had several applications from the same vendor installed and 
> > suppose those applications shared a sizable fraction of the same code 
> > modules.  Where would you locate the shared modules so all the 
> > applications could find them and there wouldn't be redundant copies?
> 
> This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
> folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
> Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
> Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
> Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
> Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.

What about all the stuff in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/"?
> 
> I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
> Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
> present no great challenge to a programmer.
> 
> If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
> my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
> folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
> disks on my new Mac.

Does that mean that all my other Adobe applications get trashed too?

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 
                   7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
0
Tom
10/23/2005 11:10:48 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> There are some things that should be in certain locations, although Mac
> OS X even spreads fonts through about four different locations.  :-(

There shouldn't be a sad face there... that's a good thing!

/System/Library/Fonts is for fonts that are required for the system to 
run.  They are located in the System folder with all the other stuff that 
makes the Mac run, all grouped together.  Leave this folder alone.

/Library/Fonts is where you can add new fonts and they are accessible to 
all the user accounts on your Mac.

~/Library/Fonts is for when you want to hog a new font all to yourself and 
not let any other user accounts use it.  This is also the only place 
non-administrators can add fonts.  I never use this location because I 
like to share any new fonts with my wife and kids.

[Classic] System Folder/Fonts is for Classic apps, if you even have a 
Classic System Folder at all.

What's the problem here?

K.
0
sp
10/23/2005 11:27:27 PM
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:57:07 +0100, Jon Aalborg wrote
(in article <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>):

> what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?

I like to create subfolders for the various categories of Apps I have (text, 
sound, graphics, development, etc.) and detest the notion that I have to keep 
a single Application folder with dozens of programs in it. Mind you, I don't 
do this, and have had very few problems with applications that insist on 
being in /Applications. In fact, I keep my Comms apps in a totally separate 
folder with no ill effects :-)

Paolo

0
Paolo
10/23/2005 11:46:26 PM
On 2005-10-23, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>
> Jon Aalborg:
>> If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
>> scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
>> You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
>> user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
>> templates, etc.
>
> "Not possible" is pretty strong language. My scheme would have all
> users' preferences in the same folder. The app would say "Ah, Davoud
> has logged out and Jon has logged in. I will now load Jon's
> personalized pieces."

Yes, and that also has to work for "Ah, Jon has logged in but Davoud
is still logged in, oh and now so has Jeff, and now Pete, and now Davoud
has logged in again, and again (so now he has three separate ssh
connections all running bash)". OK, so I am talking about command line
utilities, but they have preferences too and the principle is the
same).

One feature of the Unix/Mac OS X "design" is that an ordinary user
(one without admin privilages) can tar their whole home directory
and pipe it out over a TCP connection (or whatever) to another
box run by a different admin where they have an ordinary account.
All their personal prefs are now potentially available on the new
box. It is so simple. There are *loads* of things to think about
once you decide to move a user's preferences out of his home directory.

For starters, what if her home directory is on an NFS server that
she never logs into? She just logs into NFS clients which mount
home directories from the home directory server. So now if you want
to store her preferences in a "system" directory? Well either you
have to have a separate set of preferences for her on all the
client machines (in which case, when she changed prefs on one
machine the change would not take effect on the other machines), or
you put the preferences on a "preferences server" (again served by
NFS). But then you are just duplicating unneccesarily with two
NFS served directories, one of users home directories and one of
users preference directories. You might as well have the preferences
actually in the home directory so that they are safely tied to the
user to whom they belong.

Mail spools were traditionally in
/var/mail/$user
Nowadays it is often preferable to deliver mail into the user's
home directory (eg /home/$user/Mail).

It is partly to do with quotas. You put quotas on home directories
but then a user discovers he can collect huge movie files and save
them in his preferences directory, which (since it is often not on the
same filesystem) is not limited by quota - so then you have to also
put user quotas on the system filesystem.

There are security issues too, which I won't bother going into.

It is all unneccesary complication which increases the scope for error.
Keep it simple, keep user data with the user - you know it makes
sense:-)

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
0
foo33 (1454)
10/24/2005 12:46:53 AM
In article <z%U6f.49017$S4.43903@edtnps84>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
(Kir�ly) wrote:

> In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > There are some things that should be in certain locations, although Mac
> > OS X even spreads fonts through about four different locations.  :-(
> 
> There shouldn't be a sad face there... that's a good thing!
> 
> /System/Library/Fonts is for fonts that are required for the system to 
> run.  They are located in the System folder with all the other stuff that 
> makes the Mac run, all grouped together.  Leave this folder alone.
> 
> /Library/Fonts is where you can add new fonts and they are accessible to 
> all the user accounts on your Mac.
> 
> ~/Library/Fonts is for when you want to hog a new font all to yourself and 
> not let any other user accounts use it.  This is also the only place 
> non-administrators can add fonts.  I never use this location because I 
> like to share any new fonts with my wife and kids.
> 
> [Classic] System Folder/Fonts is for Classic apps, if you even have a 
> Classic System Folder at all.
> 
> What's the problem here?

Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if
they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one
application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the
application package. Once they're there the user can forget about them,
at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.

Applications and user documents should be where the user wants them,
not in one big pile where the OS says so.
0
Anybody
10/24/2005 1:38:32 AM
TaliesinSoft wrote:


> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone not
> versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully
> intended) will move the application itself and will then be taken aback

And grossly misplaced.

> when the application no longer works.
> 
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than
> the resident one where the application is used.
> 
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.

And inaccurate. Unix (ca. 1970) bears little resemblance to any OS in
existence today unless you fire up the command line interface. In which
case you would find a lot in common between BSD*s (a superset that includes
Mac) and Linux.

Btw. what made you think that Mac's GUI choices have anything to do with
Unix (1970's or otherwise) ?

I use Linux exclusively, and in the short time I was exposed to an
officemate's Mac, I could find little in common between my favorite KDE and
Mac's GUI. 
0
Madhusudan
10/24/2005 1:51:57 AM
In article <241020051438327229%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if 
> they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one 
> application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the 
> application package. Once they're there the user can forget about 
> them, at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.

Let me chime in.

/system/library/fonts is for fonts that the users should not mess 
with--they are fonts that the OS and related items (e.g., the Finder) 
require.  They are accessible by *all* applications, and by all users.

/library/fonts is for all other fonts that are accessible by all users, 
with *all* applications; they can be installed or removed by any user 
with admin privileges.

~/library/fonts is for all fonts that *only one user* can access with 
*all* applications; they can be installed or removed only by that user 
(and maybe by root).

You are postulating something else entirely:  A font that *only one 
application* can access, and that is denied to all other applications.

I don't know why someone would want to limit a font to a specific 
application to the exclusion of all other applications; can you explain 
to me why there might be such a case?

I can see why certain fonts should not be messed with, and why certain 
fonts should be restricted to only one user.  Can you explain to me why 
this shouldn't be the case?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/24/2005 1:59:57 AM
In article <michelle-E9C540.18595723102005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <241020051438327229%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if 
> > they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one 
> > application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the 
> > application package. Once they're there the user can forget about 
> > them, at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.
> 
> Let me chime in.
> 
> /system/library/fonts is for fonts that the users should not mess 
> with--they are fonts that the OS and related items (e.g., the Finder) 
> require.  They are accessible by *all* applications, and by all users.
> 
> /library/fonts is for all other fonts that are accessible by all users, 
> with *all* applications; they can be installed or removed by any user 
> with admin privileges.
> 
> ~/library/fonts is for all fonts that *only one user* can access with 
> *all* applications; they can be installed or removed only by that user 
> (and maybe by root).
> 
> You are postulating something else entirely:  A font that *only one 
> application* can access, and that is denied to all other applications.
> 
> I don't know why someone would want to limit a font to a specific 
> application to the exclusion of all other applications; can you explain 
> to me why there might be such a case?
> 
> I can see why certain fonts should not be messed with, and why certain 
> fonts should be restricted to only one user.  Can you explain to me why 
> this shouldn't be the case?

Well, Michelle, one example of where this occurs is with Adobe
Illustrator. It creates a folder full of OpenType fonts as
/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Fonts. These fonts aren't accessible
except from CS (or CS2) applications as they aren't in the "normal"
font search path. Interestingly, kerning control and some other
higher-end typographic features work really well in Illustrator when
the fonts are where Illustrator places them, but not if you move them
into /Library/Fonts.

Also, note that you left out one source of fonts in your list (or two,
if you're running in an OS X Server environment): the Classic Fonts
folder (and /Network/Library/Fonts)

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
10/24/2005 2:41:23 AM
In article <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X 
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications 
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and 
> who knows where else. 

Perhaps if you check what Apple say about their decisions about where 
they put applications by default?

> What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious 
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the 
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no 
> longer works.

Unix as I saw it a decade ago did not have application folders, 
preferences folders, application folders, nor a library folder like the 
Apple one.  These all seem to be Apple ideas (and not bad ones at that).

Also, you are at liberty to put most applications, including these from 
Apple, in your own personal Applications folder in your non-system level 
account folder.  They work just fine.  That is how I run both iPhoto 5 
and iPhoto 4 (since iPhoto 5 is broken for photos from my brand of 
camera).

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application 
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one 
> where the application is used.

That seems to me to be exactly how it works right now.  Most 
applications are packages that live in the system Applications folder.  
Each account that uses the application may have something in their 
personal Library folder, and/or preferences.

Given current disk capacity, who cares that these are not cleaned out 
when you throw out an application?  Indeed, it can be very handy.  I let 
Apple's Migration assistant move my stuff from a Powerbook to an iMac.  
Naturally it didn't bring my applications over (although it did bring 
Dashboard), so I had to reinstall some applications.  They all started 
up as if they had always been installed, without ever risking a newer 
applications being overwritten by an older version.  Very convenient, 
for those applications I bothered to update.

> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend 
> or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring 
> order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think 
> of as order.

Perhaps if they were to use smart folders instead?

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com
0
Eric
10/24/2005 2:50:21 AM
Davoud:
> > This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
> > folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
> > Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
> > Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
> > Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
> > Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.

Tom Stiller: 
> What about all the stuff in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/"?

What's so hard about this? That stuff would be in the master folder to
which I referred -- the folder that contains the applications that use
the items in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/."

> > I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
> > Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
> > present no great challenge to a programmer.
> > 
> > If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
> > my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
> > folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
> > disks on my new Mac.
> 
> Does that mean that all my other Adobe applications get trashed too?

No, it means what it says: All of your Adobe Creative Suite 2
applications would be deleted. What other Adobe apps do you have?

(One may only have CS 2 installed on two computers. If one already has
it activated on two machines, it must be deactivated by Internet or
telephone on one of those machinese before one may install it on a
different machine.)

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
Davoud
10/24/2005 2:52:35 AM
Ian Gregory:
> One feature of the Unix/Mac OS X "design" is that an ordinary user
> (one without admin privilages) can tar their whole home directory
> and pipe it out over a TCP connection (or whatever) to another
> box run by a different admin...

Is this something that the great majority of /ordinary/ Mac users do
pretty often?

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
star (3126)
10/24/2005 2:55:45 AM
Matthew Russotto:
> The same things (whether justified or not) that prevent Adobe from
> putting all of Photoshop's stuff in the Photoshop package prevent them
> from putting it in a single folder under Applications.

I'm sure that is true. But I'm also sure that the "things" that prevent
that are reversible decisions. Such a practice may $ave programming
time, e.g. Valid reason, but not a technical requirement.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
0
Davoud
10/24/2005 2:58:05 AM
In article <0001HW.BF810DA400022A20F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:52:34 -0500, Andy Hewitt wrote
> (in article <1h4vsdl.1661jrb1baj83tN%hairy.biker@gmail.com>):
> 
> > PhotoShop is one, if you move the app it won't run, and updates won't
> > work either. Indeed, many apps won't update properly if you move them
> > from the Applications folder.
> 
> It seems that Adobe doesn't understand that one can have both administrative 
> and standard accounts. If you attempt to run one of the applications within 
> Adobe's Creative Suite 2 from a standard account things will fail until you 
> go in a fix the permissions in the associated application support files in 
> the administrator account.

Adobe appear to have made some peculiar decisions about installing and 
using some of their applications.

I would have thought the security problems inflicting many Windows users 
would encourage people moving to Macintosh to avoid using Administrative 
accounts for day to day purposes, and instead use Standard accounts.  
Having people like Adobe break this does not help any.

I realise that long time Mac users who haven't encountered security 
problems would perhaps find the distinction annoying, and the additional 
protection not worth the effort.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com
0
Eric
10/24/2005 3:03:32 AM
In article <0001HW.BF808A370017F0A0F0284550@news.supernews.com>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> Say I have a single administrator account and several standard (user) 
> accounts. It would seem reasonable that there be a package for that 
> application in the administrator account and one in each user account. The 
> administrator package would contain all of the parts of the application 
> needed by any user. The standard (user) packages would contain those things 
> such as settings and such that are unique to that account. Documents created 
> by an application would still normally be kept in the appropriate documents 
> folders. My grump is that it is far too easy for a non-UNIX savvy person to 
> totally muddle up an application.

How does the standard user account person manage to muddle up an 
application without giving an administration password?  I can see they 
can muddle up applications they have installed in their own 
~/Applications but they don't have permission to muddle up applications 
installed by an administrator.  One of the best possible reasons for 
running as a standard user is so that you don't stuff up things by 
accident.  With great power comes great responsibility, and all that 
stuff.  If the system suddenly pops up asking for an administration user 
and password, you have to ask yourself whether you should really be 
doing whatever you are trying to do.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com
0
Eric
10/24/2005 3:10:51 AM

Anybody wrote:
> What do you expect? It *is* Microsloth. They are always trying to do
> things their own way and ignoring any standards.  :-(

And then if you complain that Acme Widget doesn't work
with M$ Whatsit, they say it's because Acme is non-standard.

-- 
Wes Groleau
Genealogical Lookups:
http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml
0
Wes
10/24/2005 3:13:59 AM
In article <231020052252354008%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Davoud:
> > > This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
> > > folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
> > > Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
> > > Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
> > > Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
> > > Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.
> 
> Tom Stiller: 
> > What about all the stuff in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/"?
> 
> What's so hard about this? That stuff would be in the master folder to
> which I referred -- the folder that contains the applications that use
> the items in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/."
> 
> > > I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
> > > Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
> > > present no great challenge to a programmer.
> > > 
> > > If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
> > > my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
> > > folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
> > > disks on my new Mac.
> > 
> > Does that mean that all my other Adobe applications get trashed too?
> 
> No, it means what it says: All of your Adobe Creative Suite 2
> applications would be deleted. What other Adobe apps do you have?

I only have Reader and Photoshop Elements, but in my original comment, I 
didn't specify the vendor. I still think it's reasonable to have a 
folder of vendor specific modules in a known place (e.g. 
"/Library/Application Support") for use by any application the vendor 
might publish.
> 
> (One may only have CS 2 installed on two computers. If one already has
> it activated on two machines, it must be deactivated by Internet or
> telephone on one of those machinese before one may install it on a
> different machine.)
> 
> Davoud

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 
                   7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
0
Tom
10/24/2005 3:15:41 AM
Anybody wrote:
> Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if
> they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one
> application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the
> application package. Once they're there the user can forget about them,
> at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.

Hogwash. The /System/Library vs. /Library distinction allows files to be 
manages in a sane way, instead of a mysterious "This font suitcase is 
required by the operating system" protecting some fonts. ~/Library vs 
/Library allows users without admin rights to install and use fonts *at 
all.*

-- Steve
0
Steven
10/24/2005 3:59:23 AM
In article <XjY6f.10556$i31.2057@trnddc08>, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > What do you expect? It *is* Microsloth. They are always trying to do
> > things their own way and ignoring any standards.  :-(
> 
> And then if you complain that Acme Widget doesn't work
> with M$ Whatsit, they say it's because Acme is non-standard.

Plus if anyone tries to do the same thing Microsloth have been doing
for years, Microsloth complains bitterly about it being
"anti-competitive", etc.   :-\
0
Anybody
10/24/2005 4:07:35 AM
Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:

> Is this something that the great majority of /ordinary/ Mac users do
> pretty often?

No (although more than you'd think, I believe), but it is something the
OS as such has to be capable of. Ask any serious System Admin in a
university or large office. And those who design the OS need to reckon
with that kind of needs, too. As well as general scalability,
networking, etc.
-- 
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal: 
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
0
navn (114)
10/24/2005 6:01:06 AM
In article <231020051939200730%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > 
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> 
> Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> it. 

1) Open Applications folder.
2) Start typing the name of the application.
3) There is no step 3.  There's no step 3!

Not so hard, is it?

Nobody has 2000 applications.  I am a complete nerd and I only have 250
items in the Applications folder.  125 of which I could probably safely
delete (shareware trials and the like that I ended up using).

If you put applications in different folders all over your hard disk,
then you have to remember what folder you put them in.  If you just
leave them in /Applications, then you only have to remember which
folder is for which application.  Or rather let the Finder remember it
for you.

Or just get LaunchBar/Butler/QuickSilver and stop worrying about it
entirely.

> The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.

The OS doesn't enforce the use of these folders, however.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
0
Jerry
10/24/2005 7:18:11 AM
Anybody wrote:
> In article <uce-8E1F73.08043223102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> The problem is that Mac OS X is trying to be too fancy / comlicated for
> it's own good. Most computers are probably single-user so they don't
> need all the twiddly nonsense for multiple users, home folders, etc.

One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
machines, with single user operating systems.  Unix was multi-user from 
the start and so had a notion of restrictions and privileges built 
deeply into the OS.  Distinguishing what is the "user's" from what is 
the "system's" is a very important to security.  XP (I believe) and OS X 
which are multi-user do try to conceal much of that from the user, but 
there are very very good reasons why underlyingly these are multi-user 
systems.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/24/2005 5:55:33 PM
Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > 
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> 
> Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> it. 

Sure, but the 'games' or similar folds also belong in the 'Applications'
folder. You subgroup your apps into folders like games, text, databank,
graphics, budget, utilities, internet, etc dont you? No-one has the time
to sift through all that stuff in one folder.


RL
0
rlaughton
10/24/2005 7:43:51 PM
In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <uce-8E1F73.08043223102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that Mac OS X is trying to be too fancy / comlicated for
> > it's own good. Most computers are probably single-user so they don't
> > need all the twiddly nonsense for multiple users, home folders, etc.
> 
> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
> machines, with single user operating systems.  Unix was multi-user from 
> the start and so had a notion of restrictions and privileges built 
> deeply into the OS.  Distinguishing what is the "user's" from what is 
> the "system's" is a very important to security.  XP (I believe) and OS X 
> which are multi-user do try to conceal much of that from the user, but 
> there are very very good reasons why underlyingly these are multi-user 
> systems.

The reason, as always, is "money".

Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
only mentally).
0
Anybody
10/24/2005 7:56:13 PM
In article <1h4xfj7.1tm4jl9vow75sN%navn@mac.com.invalid>,
navn@mac.com.invalid (Jon Aalborg) wrote:

> Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> 
> > Is this something that the great majority of /ordinary/ Mac users do
> > pretty often?
> 
> No (although more than you'd think, I believe), but it is something the
> OS as such has to be capable of. Ask any serious System Admin in a
> university or large office. And those who design the OS need to reckon
> with that kind of needs, too. As well as general scalability,
> networking, etc.

Only for corporate users and education users. The average Joe Bloggs
off the street doesn't need any of that garbage ... most don't even
know about it, let alone use it. All it does is add a layer of
complication that isn't needed.
0
anybody5 (146)
10/24/2005 7:57:58 PM
On 2005/10/24 3:56 PM, "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
 
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.

They are not "bits of nonsense." Those design features are what makes a
robust secure OS. I *have* to use Windows at work, but I choose OS X for my
personal machine because of its UNXI heritage and resistance to viruses and
other malware.

> None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

Then they deserve to be wiped out by loosing their business critical data -
or pay the price in terms of higher risk and support costs.



0
Robert
10/24/2005 8:36:55 PM
Anybody wrote:
> In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:


>> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
>> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
>> machines, with single user operating systems.  [...]

> The reason, as always, is "money".
> 
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.  [...]

It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded, 
will change your view on this matter.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/24/2005 8:38:39 PM
In article <251020050856133272%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> The reason, as always, is "money".
> 
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
eventually became powerful enough.

> What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
> us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
> anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
> only mentally).

One needs an advanced OS in order to keep the programmers happy, which are
after all, those making the computers working. Mac OS 9- isn't programmer
firendly, quite simply -- try it!

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/24/2005 10:02:37 PM
In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically 
> grounded, will change your view on this matter.

Well, yeah; this is usenet after all. *sigh*

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/24/2005 10:06:58 PM
> The reason, as always, is "money".
> 
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

Are you kidding?  I have a family Mac at home that we use for e-mail, 
iPhoto, iMovie, word processing, web browsing, etc.  The multi-user 
environment means that my wife and kids and I all get our own completely 
customizable desktop, dock, application preferences, screen saver, 
browser bookmarks, iTunes library, e-mail account and folders, etc etc etc.  
When I'm done, my wife sits down, fast-user-switches into her account, 
and all her apps and preferences are exactly the way she left them.  I 
can give the kids their own accounts, and they can do absolutely anything 
they want on the computer and not mess up anything unless they learn the 
admin password.

Under single user OSes like Mac OS 9 and earlier, there was only one 
account that everyone had to share, with all users having to reset their 
preferences every time they sat down,  and with the kids able to trash 
all my apps and my backups.  OS X is a huge improvement in user 
friendliness and security. 

Yes, when running a multi-user Mac like this,  permissions issues do come up 
which cause headaches when we try to share files with each other.  But 
it's really a small price to pay for the huge improvement over the old 
single-user days.

K.
0
sp
10/24/2005 11:10:58 PM
In article <6Sd7f.30555$y_1.6672@edtnps89>, Kir�ly
<sp@m.sucks.email.invalid> wrote:

> Under single user OSes like Mac OS 9 and earlier, there was only one 
> account that everyone had to share, with all users having to reset their 
> preferences every time they sat down,  and with the kids able to trash 
> all my apps and my backups.

OS 9 supports multiple users.

-- 
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
0
Dave
10/24/2005 11:33:17 PM
In article <1h4yc21.15yawygobtyi7N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > > 
> > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> > 
> > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > it. 
> 
> Sure, but the 'games' or similar folds also belong in the 'Applications'
> folder. You subgroup your apps into folders like games, text, databank,
> graphics, budget, utilities, internet, etc dont you? No-one has the time
> to sift through all that stuff in one folder.

That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
to work and/or be updated.
0
Anybody
10/24/2005 11:43:09 PM
In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
> >> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
> >> machines, with single user operating systems.  [...]
> 
> > The reason, as always, is "money".
> > 
> > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.  [...]
> 
> It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded, 
> will change your view on this matter.

That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
"multi-user" or have any need to ever be.
0
Anybody
10/24/2005 11:47:59 PM
In article <haberg-2510050002360001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <251020050856133272%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
> <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > The reason, as always, is "money".
> > 
> > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> > of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> > interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.
> 
> The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
> eventually became powerful enough.

"Powerful enough" for what?!?!? To run UNIX - whoop-de-doo, most user
couldn't care less about UNIX / Mac OS / Windoze / etc., they just want
a computer that works and is easy to use.

Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
user base of small businesses, schools and home users.



> > What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
> > us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
> > anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
> > only mentally).
> 
> One needs an advanced OS in order to keep the programmers happy, which are
> after all, those making the computers working. Mac OS 9- isn't programmer
> firendly, quite simply -- try it!

Actually I've been programming Mac OS for years and "friendly" is a
matter of opinion. Those who know what they're doing can easily use it,
those who don't know what they're doing are often Windoze fools anyway
who usually just port badly made rubbish.
0
Anybody
10/24/2005 11:52:32 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> to work and/or be updated.

There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications folder to 
get to your apps.  If apps like to be there, let them be there.

Try this:  Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.  
Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you like.  
Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar, wherever you 
want for quick access.  Think of it as your own personal customizable 
/Applications folder.  Then forget that the real /Applications folder is 
even there.  You'll have exactly what you want.

K.
0
sp
10/24/2005 11:56:50 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system Dave Balderstone 
<dave@n_o_t_t_h_i_s.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> OS 9 supports multiple users.

It did?  Funny, I used OS 9 for a whole year and never knew that!

K.
0
sp
10/24/2005 11:59:21 PM
In <0001HW.BF815404000B8367F0284550@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft  
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:43:18 -0500, Robert Love wrote (in article 
> <20051023134318895-0500@news.airmail.net>): 
> 
>> Subject: Re: Why must OS X applications be splattered about? From: 
>> Robert  Love <rblove@airmail.net> Date: Today  1:43 PM Newsgroups: 
>> comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc, comp.sys.mac.system   In 
>> <0001HW.BF80810B0015CA61F0284550@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft  
>> wrote: 
>>> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications 
>>> in  OS X  have their parts splattered into several different places, 
>>> the  applications  folder itself, the preferences folder, the 
>>> application  support folder, and  who knows where else. What happens 
>>> is that someone  not versed in the glorious  UNIX underpinnings of 
>>> OS X ( and the satire  is fully intended) will move the  application 
>>> itself and will then be  taken aback when the application no  longer 
>>> works. 
[much deleted]

> I should have clarified that I'm aware that you shouldn't have to 
> place an  application in a standard place. My grump is the splattering 
> of applications  into many disjoint folders.

I guess I don't see how it could be otherwise.  First, its not "many".  
It is a few.

Let me point out one reason why I think it must be this way.  Lets say 
we have a set of related apps, say Stone Design's excellent suite of 
apps, or even MS Office.  These apps have a lot of repeated functions.  
It might be very disk consuming or time consuming to develop, test, 
download and install all that repeated functionality.  So an 
"applications support" or Library directory (folder) is used.  Bundles 
or libraries containing constantly used software bits live there.  Would 
you want every app that can display a jpeg to have that ability inside 
of it? No, that wouldn't be very efficient.  

All I can say is that I think NeXT and now Apple has done a superb job 
of simplifiying and hiding a lot of Unix's complexity from the users.  
And I'm glad.

If there specific questions I, and others who know more that me, will be 
happy to offer suggestions.
0
Robert
10/25/2005 12:00:46 AM
In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Anybody wrote:
> > > In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
> > >> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
> > >> machines, with single user operating systems.  [...]
> > 
> > > The reason, as always, is "money".
> > > 
> > > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.  [...]
> > 
> > It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded, 
> > will change your view on this matter.
> 
> That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
> may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
> need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.

Careful about the distinction between need and want, though. There are 
some individuals who really do _need_ a secure system like this even if 
they don't _want_ it. It's still they're machine and they can do 
anything they're really intent on doing, but it's the padlock on the 
cardboard box that makes them hesitate before shooting their own toes 
off.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 12:36:22 AM
On 2005-10-23 07:51:39 +0300, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> said:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in 
> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the 
> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application 
> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone 
> not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire 
> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be 
> taken aback when the application no longer works.
> 
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be 
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the 
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other 
> than the resident one where the application is used.
> 
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have 
> changed. What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe 
> shared by many users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate 
> today.
> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a 
> friend or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an 
> effort to bring order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to 
> what some persons think of as order.
> 
> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's 
> been a long, long day, somewhat of a grump.    :-)

Hi,

Just add a second account (regular), use it and you will see why those 
files are in different places. For  example, launch mail.

Its multiuser environment. Yes times are changed, we now have multiple 
users in a desktop machine! :)

Ilgaz

0
Ilgaz
10/25/2005 1:39:18 AM
Anybody wrote:
> In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

>> It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded, 
>> will change your view on this matter.

> That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
> may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
> need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.

Small business and individual users need systems that are reasonably 
secure.  Even if you don't think that the security of your machine 
matters, I do.  A compromised machine on the network is a real threat 
and does real damage to the network as a whole.

Separating what belongs to the system and what belongs to the user (even 
if the only user) is a requirement for security.

And there is a big (well, growing) business this matters to.  There is 
the business of various sorts of computer crime that uses legions of 
compromised machines.  It's not individual "hackers" testing their 
skills anymore.  It's organized crime, and that is big business.

You can decide to blame big business for why things can't be as simple 
as in the old days.  But it's the business of someone trying to co-opt 
your machine to do nasty things to other people.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 1:52:14 AM
Anybody wrote:
> In article <haberg-2510050002360001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
> haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

>> The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
>> eventually became powerful enough.

> "Powerful enough" for what?!?!? To run UNIX - whoop-de-doo, most user
> couldn't care less about UNIX / Mac OS / Windoze / etc., they just want
> a computer that works and is easy to use.

You are right about that.  The reasons for switching to Unix is not 
because it became possible (after all, millions of Linux and BSD users 
have been using Unix on PCs for a long time), but because there were 
deep and fundamental problems with OS 9, and it's failure to make 
certain distinctions and put up internal barricades so that a 
programming error in one program wouldn't bring the whole machine down.

Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular 
way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely 
multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It could have 
rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in a huge amount 
of people developing for Apple.

> Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
> wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
> all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
> user base of small businesses, schools and home users.

As I said before.  Security and stability.  If you are not on the net 
and if you are using only a couple of applications, then you don't need 
this.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 2:03:28 AM
In article <6xe7f.36711$yS6.24522@clgrps12>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
(Kir�ly) wrote:

> In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> > applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> > to work and/or be updated.
> 
> There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications folder to 
> get to your apps.  If apps like to be there, let them be there.
> 
> Try this:  Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.  
> Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you like.  
> Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar, wherever you 
> want for quick access.  Think of it as your own personal customizable 
> /Applications folder.  Then forget that the real /Applications folder is 
> even there.  You'll have exactly what you want.

Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
OS.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 3:24:49 AM
In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <haberg-2510050002360001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
> > haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> >> The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
> >> eventually became powerful enough.
> 
> > "Powerful enough" for what?!?!? To run UNIX - whoop-de-doo, most user
> > couldn't care less about UNIX / Mac OS / Windoze / etc., they just want
> > a computer that works and is easy to use.
> 
> You are right about that.  The reasons for switching to Unix is not 
> because it became possible (after all, millions of Linux and BSD users 
> have been using Unix on PCs for a long time), but because there were 
> deep and fundamental problems with OS 9, and it's failure to make 
> certain distinctions and put up internal barricades so that a 
> programming error in one program wouldn't bring the whole machine down.
> 
> Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular 
> way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely 
> multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It could have 
> rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in a huge amount 
> of people developing for Apple.
> 
> > Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
> > wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
> > all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
> > user base of small businesses, schools and home users.
> 
> As I said before.  Security and stability.  If you are not on the net 
> and if you are using only a couple of applications, then you don't need 
> this.

Even if you one the 'Net you don't need Mac OS X.

Mac OS "Classic" is still more secure than Windoze will ever be and as
long as fools were told to stay out of the System Folder they couldn't
really do any damage ... and it's just as easy for a fool who doesn't
know what they're doing to stuff up their computer under Mac OS X.
Believe me, I've had to re-install enough of them.

Ten years ago the Amiga had most of what Mac OS X has today, and yet it
still failed to bring in the corporate bigwigs because of their
"Microsoft only" mentality. Apple aren't going to make much headway now
either, but they will make lots of headaches for many of their core
users. Of course they couldn't care less since 1 extra corporate can
easily out pays 50-100 individuals.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 3:32:44 AM
Anybody wrote:
> Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
> wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
> all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
> user base of small businesses, schools and home users.

You might be right.  Then again, it just MIGHT have been
they were aware that people like me were getting ready
to switch to (shudder) Windows because Microsoft had
finally caught up to and PASSED Apple in robustness.

The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
(which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
of magnitude more stable than OS 9.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
0
Wes
10/25/2005 3:40:23 AM
Dave Balderstone wrote:

> OS 9 supports multiple users.

Don't say that unless you've actually tried it.
I tried it, and it stunk.

Apple's side of it wasn't bad, though there were apparent
bugs.  But MANY software vendors apparently didn't know
this feature existed, and their stuff would not work unless
I gave the kids write access into areas that I DEFINITELY
wanted to keep them out of.

And even when it worked, it couldn't stop a buggy
program from taking down the system.

When OS X first came out, I often said, "Either the
reliability is going to save Apple from oblivion,
or the changes in user interface are going to drive
away their here-to-fore loyal fans."

Fortunately, the former seems to have happened.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage.
    But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine,
    is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it.
0
Wes
10/25/2005 3:47:29 AM
In article <251020051624494888%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> OS.

That sentence is not logical.

You bought a Mac with an OS. The OS operates in a certain way.

Use it as designed.

You didn't buy a Magic Happy Gumdrop Computer with the Magic Happy
Gumdrop OS that Lets You Use It Any Way You Want!!!!

If that's what you want, design it, build it, and market it. Based on
the posts in this thread, you'll sell tens of them!

-- 
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
0
Dave
10/25/2005 3:47:38 AM
In article <lVh7f.14555$gF4.10019@trnddc07>, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
> > OS 9 supports multiple users.
> 
> Don't say that unless you've actually tried it.
> I tried it, and it stunk.

Tried it. Still running it. YMMV.

-- 
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
0
Dave
10/25/2005 4:05:05 AM
In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a 
> particular way, distinguished between user and system processes, was 
> genuinely multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It 
> could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in 
> a huge amount of people developing for Apple.

Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/25/2005 4:58:07 AM
In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it 
> may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals 
> need or want. 

Wrong; many small business and individuals need or want it.

> One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are "multi-user" or have 
> any need to ever be.

Believe it or not, the Macs you deal with do not constitute the entire 
Macintosh universe.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/25/2005 5:00:26 AM
In article <251020051243091369%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some 
> applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in 
> "Applications" to work and/or be updated.

I have yet to have even one application that needs to be in the 
Applications folder to work.  There are some (mostly from Apple) that 
need to be in the Applications folder to be updated (and two that need 
to be in a sub folder in the Applications folder to be updated)--but 
they are the exception, and I think, only if you use software update 
rather than a stand-alone updater to update them.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/25/2005 5:03:00 AM
In article <HOh7f.14542$gF4.12116@trnddc07>, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
> > wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
> > all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
> > user base of small businesses, schools and home users.
> 
> You might be right.  Then again, it just MIGHT have been
> they were aware that people like me were getting ready
> to switch to (shudder) Windows because Microsoft had
> finally caught up to and PASSED Apple in robustness.
> 
> The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> of magnitude more stable than OS 9.

There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).

Ignoring alpha / beta shareware, the ONLY applications that cause my
Mac OS 9 computers to crash are written by Microsoft or ar one of the
thankfully few products by lazy companies that use Microsoft libraries
to speed up the porting of the software (mostly Adobe). If I don't use
a Microsoft application the Macs do not crash.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 5:12:36 AM
In article <michelle-E92A3D.21580724102005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a 
> > particular way, distinguished between user and system processes, was 
> > genuinely multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It 
> > could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in 
> > a huge amount of people developing for Apple.
> 
> Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
> because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.

Apple was looking for a "new OS" because they wanted to TRY to pull in
the corporate money. Like pretty much everyone else on this planet they
got greedy and just "have to" expand. They couldn't just be happy
selling to those of us who want a computer that actually works nice and
simply.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 5:16:29 AM
In article <michelle-38D1A0.22002624102005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it 
> > may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals 
> > need or want. 
> 
> Wrong; many small business and individuals need or want it.

Rubbish. Most don't even know any that fancy gobble-de-gook is even
there, let alone use it (apart from the obvious bits that default to
being "on").



> > One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are "multi-user" or have 
> > any need to ever be.
> 
> Believe it or not, the Macs you deal with do not constitute the entire 
> Macintosh universe.

I never said they were the "entire Macintosh universe" and that was
only one example, but it is a large number of "average" users and NONE
even remotely need Mac OS X and it's over-complicated "features" (other
than the usual being forced to upgrade to run the newer applications
they do need).
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 5:19:36 AM
In article <HOh7f.14542$gF4.12116@trnddc07>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> You might be right.  Then again, it just MIGHT have been
> they were aware that people like me were getting ready
> to switch to (shudder) Windows because Microsoft had
> finally caught up to and PASSED Apple in robustness.

Pre Jobs redux, Apple tried desperately with Copland and failed to bring 
an OS together. Apple direction has proven to work poorly in a non 
Jobsian Apple Universe.

> The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> of magnitude more stable than OS 9.

And Linus created Linux. And Steve resurrected NEXT as OSX. And there 
was light for the rest of us. And we shall go forth and try to be many 
and spread the word. Verily!

leo

-- 
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
0
Leonard
10/25/2005 5:33:06 AM
You, Sir, are a troll, and you act asd though coupling lack of knowledge 
with the refusal to learn and change one's opinion was a positive trait.

You don't accept that there are many Mac-owners, who share their 
computer with others living in the same household.

You don't accept that security is an issue - even though there is an 
example of what happens if an OS is too much of a single-user-system 
(Windows): Malware installs itself, brings the machine down to a crawl, 
misuses it for criminal purposes, spies on you, steals money from your 
online bank account etc.

You don't accept that stability is an issue with the OS you imagine, 
bacause applications need to be "kept apart" during runtime.

You don't accept that your requirements represent a small minority and 
that apple cannot reasonably be expected to write a seperate operating 
system for each group of customers and has to resort to writing one that 
fits most.

You, Sir, are a troll. Please go away.

David.
0
David
10/25/2005 7:26:42 AM
In article <251020051816294132%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-E92A3D.21580724102005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
> >  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a 
> > > particular way, distinguished between user and system processes, was 
> > > genuinely multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It 
> > > could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in 
> > > a huge amount of people developing for Apple.
> > 
> > Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
> > because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.
> 
> Apple was looking for a "new OS" because they wanted to TRY to pull in
> the corporate money.

No, Apple was looking for a new OS because they were steadily losing 
their existing installed base over real and perceived shortcomings with 
the existing OS and had failed in multiple attempts to create from 
scratch something which offered what a growing chunk of their users were 
(for good or ill) demanding.

> Like pretty much everyone else on this planet they
> got greedy and just "have to" expand.

That should read: "Like every other publicly-traded corporation in the 
United States they are required to exercise fiduciary responsibility 
with the primary goal of increasing shareholder value."

> They couldn't just be happy
> selling to those of us who want a computer that actually works nice and
> simply.

Well, technically, true. They weren't allowed to "just be happy selling 
to those of us who want a computer that actually works nice and simply." 
Perceived corporate greed on Apple's part has nothing to do with it. 
Happily, they succeeded in delivering a product that's much more 
buzzword compliant and that still "works nice and simply." Doesn't work 
exactly the same, but it's still nice and simple and, interestingly, 
appears to actually be increasing the adoption of the Mac by individuals.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 10:58:27 AM
In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Anybody wrote:
> > > In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
> > >> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
> > >> machines, with single user operating systems.  [...]
> > 
> > > The reason, as always, is "money".
> > > 
> > > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.  [...]
> > 
> > It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded, 
> > will change your view on this matter.
> 
> That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
> may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
> need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.

Careful about the distinction between need and want, though. There are 
some individuals who really do _need_ a secure system like this even if 
they don't _want_ it. It's still their machine and they can do 
anything they're really intent on doing, but it's the padlock on the 
cardboard box that makes them hesitate before shooting their own toes 
off.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 10:59:39 AM
In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.

Another example: ALL of the Macs I deal with are set up with multiple 
accounts and need to be.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 11:03:22 AM
In article <251020051624494888%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <6xe7f.36711$yS6.24522@clgrps12>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
> (Kir�ly) wrote:
> 
> > In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> > > applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> > > to work and/or be updated.
> > 
> > There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications folder to 
> > get to your apps.  If apps like to be there, let them be there.
> > 
> > Try this:  Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.  
> > Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you like.  
> > Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar, wherever you 
> > want for quick access.  Think of it as your own personal customizable 
> > /Applications folder.  Then forget that the real /Applications folder is 
> > even there.  You'll have exactly what you want.
> 
> Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> OS.

So don't.  Do whatever you damn well please; nobody's stopping you.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 
                   7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
0
Tom
10/25/2005 11:26:22 AM
In article <251020051252325363%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> > The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
> > eventually became powerful enough.
> 
> "Powerful enough" for what?!?!? 

Getting enough hard disk space, enough RAM, and getting fast enough, as
the UNIX OS looks at every machine instruction, making sure it is correct.
This one last should ideally have a CPU that supports it.

> > One needs an advanced OS in order to keep the programmers happy, which are
> > after all, those making the computers working. Mac OS 9- isn't programmer
> > firendly, quite simply -- try it!
> 
> Actually I've been programming Mac OS for years and "friendly" is a
> matter of opinion. Those who know what they're doing can easily use it,
> those who don't know what they're doing are often Windoze fools anyway
> who usually just port badly made rubbish.

If you do some research software, you would normally want to do it under
UNIX, except for certain specialty things. UNIX has everything in terms of
distributed programming; the Internet is mostly run by UNIX computers.
Since Mac OS X runs UNIX, some computer science depratments make sure
their students get a PowerBook, which is sufficient to learn all. Before
that, the deprtmnmet had to invets hundred of thousands of dollars in
computer parks, which the students had to share. And so on. Mac OS using
UNIX is great programming leap forward.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/25/2005 11:28:55 AM
In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>, jeffrey+news@goldmark.org
wrote:

>  The reasons for switching to Unix is not 
> because it became possible (after all, millions of Linux and BSD users 
> have been using Unix on PCs for a long time), 

In order to run UNIX effectively, one needs a hard dtive of a few GB's. I
recall in the early 1990'ies when we spculated over when UNIX would be
used on these personal computers.

> but because there were 
> deep and fundamental problems with OS 9, and it's failure to make 
> certain distinctions and put up internal barricades so that a 
> programming error in one program wouldn't bring the whole machine down.

This a reason switching away from Mac OS 9-. It is a one-process OS
dveleoped into a few process OS, which shortcomings in the filesystem etc.
UNIX has multiprocessing and high number of files built in,as well looking
at every machine instuction making it is secure. One can add that alos
automates memro management, and prevents programs from bombing the whole
computer.

> Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular 
> way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely 
> multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It could have 
> rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in a huge amount 
> of people developing for Apple.

Right. The wiz's program for UNIX and now they can use a Mac. It's a lift
for the platform.

> As I said before.  Security and stability.  If you are not on the net 
> and if you are using only a couple of applications, then you don't need 
> this.

And being on the Internet, being secure there under stable operation, is
one of the Mac's strong sides.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/25/2005 11:37:18 AM
In article <251020051812360103%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).

Mac OS 9- is highly unstable, because programs share the same memory
space, thus can corrupt each other. Under UNIX this is not the case, which
is one reason it is so stable.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/25/2005 11:39:48 AM
In article <uce-B0D7D3.06582725102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Gregory
Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > Apple was looking for a "new OS" because they wanted to TRY to pull in
> > the corporate money.
> 
> No, Apple was looking for a new OS because they were steadily losing 
> their existing installed base over real and perceived shortcomings with 
> the existing OS and had failed in multiple attempts to create from 
> scratch something which offered what a growing chunk of their users were 
> (for good or ill) demanding.

One problem with Mac OS 9- was that it always was difficult to develop for
it. Thus, it took long time for software to become ported to Mac OS 9-.
With Mac X, this has been changed, as the essential software is developed
for UNIX, and usually is quite easy to get running under Mac OS X BSD --
the stuff I have tried compiles directly.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/25/2005 11:43:40 AM
Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <HOh7f.14542$gF4.12116@trnddc07>, Wes Groleau
> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> 
> There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).
> 
> Ignoring alpha / beta shareware, the ONLY applications that cause my
> Mac OS 9 computers to crash are written by Microsoft or ar one of the
> thankfully few products by lazy companies that use Microsoft libraries
> to speed up the porting of the software (mostly Adobe). If I don't use
> a Microsoft application the Macs do not crash.

   I usually agree (silently) with what Wes Groleau writes here, but
this time I agree with what you say above. :-) Because of bad
experiences in the late eighties, my Macs have since then been M$-free
zones, and I've never (as in NEVER) had any problems with instability.

   On the other hand: Having been a Unix user since the late seventies,
I always wanted the power of Unix in combination with the user
friendliness of the Mac. So far, OS X is by far the best marriage
between these two paradigms I've seen.  

-- 
http://www.flexusergroup.com/
0
bskb
10/25/2005 3:21:37 PM
In article <haberg-2510051343420001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <uce-B0D7D3.06582725102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Gregory
> Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Apple was looking for a "new OS" because they wanted to TRY to pull in
> > > the corporate money.
> > 
> > No, Apple was looking for a new OS because they were steadily losing 
> > their existing installed base over real and perceived shortcomings with 
> > the existing OS and had failed in multiple attempts to create from 
> > scratch something which offered what a growing chunk of their users were 
> > (for good or ill) demanding.
> 
> One problem with Mac OS 9- was that it always was difficult to develop for
> it. Thus, it took long time for software to become ported to Mac OS 9-.
> With Mac X, this has been changed, as the essential software is developed
> for UNIX, and usually is quite easy to get running under Mac OS X BSD --
> the stuff I have tried compiles directly.

I would disagree with the first sentence here. Mac OS pre-X was not 
particularly more difficult to develop for than anything else in general 
use. Maybe early on, as the first event-driven system most desktop 
programmers came into contact with, but not in comparison to, to name an 
example, Windows.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 5:05:36 PM
In article <uce-532F19.13053625102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> I would disagree with the first sentence here. Mac OS pre-X was not 
> particularly more difficult to develop for than anything else in general 
> use. Maybe early on, as the first event-driven system most desktop 
> programmers came into contact with, but not in comparison to, to name an 
> example, Windows.

In absolute terms, perhaps not. But Windows had dozens of good 
frameworks, hundreds of websites with examples, and very good 
development tools. Mac OS had almost nothing.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/25/2005 5:32:03 PM
Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <6xe7f.36711$yS6.24522@clgrps12>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
> (Kir�ly) wrote:
> 
> > In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> > > applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> > > to work and/or be updated.
> > 
> > There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications folder to
> > get to your apps.  If apps like to be there, let them be there.
> > 
> > Try this:  Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.
> > Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you like.
> > Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar, wherever you
> > want for quick access.  Think of it as your own personal customizable
> > /Applications folder.  Then forget that the real /Applications folder is
> > even there.  You'll have exactly what you want.
> 
> Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> OS.

Good point. I think you're discussing with individuals that have either
forgotten or had no experience (UNIX and MSDOS crowd) with how
uncomplicated and user-friendly the old Mac OS was. It accepted whoever
was running the Mac as the boss/root/administrator. You could do
everything, including severely crash the Mac. No eye candy either.

 RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 6:46:27 PM
In article <1h4zwop.skdtbj12zlh32N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <6xe7f.36711$yS6.24522@clgrps12>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
> > (Kir�ly) wrote:
> > 
> > > In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> > > > applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> > > > to work and/or be updated.
> > > 
> > > There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications folder to
> > > get to your apps.  If apps like to be there, let them be there.
> > > 
> > > Try this:  Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.
> > > Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you like.
> > > Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar, wherever you
> > > want for quick access.  Think of it as your own personal customizable
> > > /Applications folder.  Then forget that the real /Applications folder is
> > > even there.  You'll have exactly what you want.
> > 
> > Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
> > I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> > OS.
> 
> Good point. I think you're discussing with individuals that have either
> forgotten or had no experience (UNIX and MSDOS crowd) with how
> uncomplicated and user-friendly the old Mac OS was. It accepted whoever
> was running the Mac as the boss/root/administrator. You could do
> everything, including severely crash the Mac. No eye candy either.

Activate the root account and set it to automatically login and you'll 
have the same capability.  Good luck.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 
                   7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
0
Tom
10/25/2005 7:14:14 PM
Wes Groleau wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> 
>> OS 9 supports multiple users.
> 
> Don't say that unless you've actually tried it.
> I tried it, and it stunk.

Was it real multi-user support or just "profiles"?

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 7:31:33 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:
> Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

>> Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
>> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
>> OS.

> Good point. I think you're discussing with individuals that have either
> forgotten or had no experience (UNIX and MSDOS crowd) with how
> uncomplicated and user-friendly the old Mac OS was. It accepted whoever
> was running the Mac as the boss/root/administrator.

Yup.  That is exactly my point.  Such a system is a security and 
reliability nightmare.  But if Anybody wants that, be my guest.  Just 
keep it off the public network.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 7:34:41 PM
In article <uce-532F19.13053625102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Gregory
Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > One problem with Mac OS 9- was that it always was difficult to develop for
> > it. Thus, it took long time for software to become ported to Mac OS 9-.
> > With Mac X, this has been changed, as the essential software is developed
> > for UNIX, and usually is quite easy to get running under Mac OS X BSD --
> > the stuff I have tried compiles directly.
> 
> I would disagree with the first sentence here. Mac OS pre-X was not 
> particularly more difficult to develop for than anything else in general 
> use. Maybe early on, as the first event-driven system most desktop 
> programmers came into contact with, but not in comparison to, to name an 
> example, Windows.

In comparison to UNIX: porting to Mac OS 9 (like the Hugs I did) takes
quite some effort, whereas under Mac OS X, you just compile it. A better
word is that programming under Mac OS 9- is extremely time consuming, but
particluarly difficult.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/25/2005 7:37:29 PM
Robert L. Haar <rlhaar@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2005/10/24 3:56 PM, "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>  
> > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.
> 
> They are not "bits of nonsense." Those design features are what makes a
> robust secure OS. I *have* to use Windows at work, but I choose OS X for my
> personal machine because of its UNXI heritage and resistance to viruses and
> other malware.
Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
(even without a UNXI heritage :)

> > None
> > of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> > interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.
> 
> Then they deserve to be wiped out by loosing their business critical data -
> or pay the price in terms of higher risk and support costs.
Thats a joke, right? With the old Mac OS there were practically no
support costs because the OS was so user-friendly! 
My ex runs a midsize business (a path lab) which they used to run on
Filemaker databases and Word. I used to keep an eye on the DBs once a
year and in the early years help with setting up the new ones for the
following year. After a year or two they soon learned to to do that
themselves. All went well for about 10 years. Two years ago they were
forced by the national insurance to move to Windows and now require the
service of a data tech costing thousands of $/year to basically do what
I did. No-one in the lab has a clue how the system works and have to
call the tech everytime it crashes or malfunctions.

RL   
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:50 PM
Kir�ly <sp@m.sucks.email.invalid> wrote:

> 
> Under single user OSes like Mac OS 9 and earlier, there was only one 
> account that everyone had to share, with all users having to reset their
> preferences every time they sat down,  and with the kids able to trash
> all my apps and my backups.  OS X is a huge improvement in user 
> friendliness and security. 

Just in security, because its multi-user orientated.
For the single user it became a pain in the butt.

RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:50 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> 
> One needs an advanced OS in order to keep the programmers happy, which are
> after all, those making the computers working. Mac OS 9- isn't programmer
> firendly, quite simply -- try it!
Oh well, thats being honest!
OS X is programmer-friendly, not user-friendly...


RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:50 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular
> way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely
> multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.
Who said so? Not the users.

> It could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in a
> huge amount of people developing for Apple.
Thats true.


RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:51 PM
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a 
> > particular way, distinguished between user and system processes, was
> > genuinely multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It 
> > could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in
> > a huge amount of people developing for Apple.
> 
> Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
> because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.

Ah yes, the Steve Factor, definitely played a big role. He so wanted
'his' system to finally succeed. Because elegant as it (apparently) was,
NeXT was a flop. The Mac would by now have been just as big a flop were
it not for its huge user base that had to be screwed (well lets rather
say hammered with hype) into submitting to this 'progress'..

RL
 
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:51 PM
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> 
> The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
before the jump to OS X is another story..


RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:51 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <251020051812360103%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
> <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).
> 
> Mac OS 9- is highly unstable, because programs share the same memory
> space, thus can corrupt each other. Under UNIX this is not the case, which
> is one reason it is so stable.

BS, and its not going to become true no matter how often you say it.
OS 8.6.1 was more stable and faster than OS 9, that I'll admit.


RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:51 PM
David Lennier <David.Lennier@GMX.net> wrote:

> To me, this discussion has shown that some people are quite resistant to
> learning. In pre-OS X, you had to tell the system in advance, how much
> memory an application would need. Now, how is that more intuitive than
> OS X? 
A whole lot more!  Now you cannot increase memory even if the sw keeps
crashing because of a lack of it. Some things humans can do
'intuitively' better than computers..

RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:51 PM
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> 
> It was always present. The difference is probably that in the past you
> probably labelled anyone who thought Mac OS 7-9 was fundamentally broken
> a troll.
> 
> Mac OS 7-9 was definitely broken.
Only in the eyes of the so-called experts, not the users..

RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 8:07:52 PM
In article <uce-B0D7D3.06582725102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <251020051816294132%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <michelle-E92A3D.21580724102005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> > Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
> > >  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a 
> > > > particular way, distinguished between user and system processes, was 
> > > > genuinely multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It 
> > > > could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in 
> > > > a huge amount of people developing for Apple.
> > > 
> > > Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
> > > because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.
> > 
> > Apple was looking for a "new OS" because they wanted to TRY to pull in
> > the corporate money.
> 
> No, Apple was looking for a new OS because they were steadily losing 
> their existing installed base over real and perceived shortcomings with 
> the existing OS and had failed in multiple attempts to create from 
> scratch something which offered what a growing chunk of their users were 
> (for good or ill) demanding.

Note the VERY important word there: "perceived".

There were very few actual shortcomings for the average user and most
of the supposed shortcomings were purely in the "must-have-Windows"
mentality of the corporate world.

As I said, Mac OS X was made to pull in those corporates, most of whom
will never change anyway. Average users (not the pile of uber-geeks
around here) do NOT need, want or even in many case know about most of
the over-complicated rubbish in Mac OS X.




> > Like pretty much everyone else on this planet they
> > got greedy and just "have to" expand.
> 
> That should read: "Like every other publicly-traded corporation in the 
> United States they are required to exercise fiduciary responsibility 
> with the primary goal of increasing shareholder value."

Yep, as I said: greed. 

Or as I should have more prescisely said: money-grubbing greed.  :-(




> > They couldn't just be happy
> > selling to those of us who want a computer that actually works nice and
> > simply.
> 
> Well, technically, true. They weren't allowed to "just be happy selling 
> to those of us who want a computer that actually works nice and simply." 
> Perceived corporate greed on Apple's part has nothing to do with it. 
> Happily, they succeeded in delivering a product that's much more 
> buzzword compliant and that still "works nice and simply." Doesn't work 
> exactly the same, but it's still nice and simple and, interestingly, 
> appears to actually be increasing the adoption of the Mac by individuals.

It's unlikely that the small increase in individual Mac buyers is
because of Mac OS X, it's mostly because of the iPod ... and partly
because of the dwindling "respect" for Microsoft - finally!

The original Mac OS ("Classic") was known from most surveys as being
THE easiest OS to use. People stuck with Windows because they are
thick.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 8:13:14 PM
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) writes:

> Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular
> > way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely
> > multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.

> Who said so? Not the users.

Every user who had to reboot the whole machine just because one
program died.

MacOS was dying sickeningly before OS X came out.


-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --    http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
0
BreadWithSpam
10/25/2005 8:22:59 PM
In article <1h50bvk.12qmw3kub2yadN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:


> > Mac OS 9- is highly unstable, because programs share the same memory
> > space, thus can corrupt each other. Under UNIX this is not the case, which
> > is one reason it is so stable.
> 
> BS, and its not going to become true no matter how often you say it.

Please explain. So you are going to use the Mac OS 9- memory model to make
the OS more stable... :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/25/2005 8:30:43 PM
In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
<rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> before the jump to OS X is another story..
> 

Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant application
would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
10/25/2005 8:31:28 PM
Anybody wrote:

> In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

>> As I said before.  Security and stability.  If you are not on the net 
>> and if you are using only a couple of applications, then you don't need 
>> this.
> 
> Even if you [on] the 'Net you don't need Mac OS X.
> 
> Mac OS "Classic" is still more secure than Windoze will ever be

It's nice to believe that, and along some dimensions ("active content") 
that's kind of true.  But on the whole that's simply false.  I think 
that it was win2k that was the first truly multi-user MS operating 
system and better memory protection.

> and as
> long as fools were told to stay out of the System Folder they couldn't
> really do any damage ...

But they could run programs that did things in the systems folder 
without the users knowledge.  Now for a program to do the equivalent it 
would need the user to enter an admin password.  OS 9, like MS-Windows, 
was exceedingly vulnerable to trojans or non-malicious programming errors.

> and it's just as easy for a fool who doesn't
> know what they're doing to stuff up their computer under Mac OS X.

I wonder.

> Believe me, I've had to re-install enough of them.

That's too bad.

I have no desire to have the last word on this discussion, so I'm happy 
to quote you below without comment.

> Ten years ago the Amiga had most of what Mac OS X has today, and yet it
> still failed to bring in the corporate bigwigs because of their
> "Microsoft only" mentality. Apple aren't going to make much headway now
> either, but they will make lots of headaches for many of their core
> users. Of course they couldn't care less since 1 extra corporate can
> easily out pays 50-100 individuals.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 8:38:59 PM
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
>> It 
>> could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in 
>> a huge amount of people developing for Apple.
> 
> Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
> because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.

I know.  But none-the-less that was a predictable side-effect.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 8:41:22 PM
Anybody wrote:

> There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).
> 
> Ignoring alpha / beta shareware, the ONLY applications that cause my
> Mac OS 9 computers to crash are written by Microsoft  [...]

The fact that an application could cause your computer to crash is the 
problem.  Now it would be hard to write a non-privileged application 
that would cause a crash (except by trying to consume all of a 
resource).  Before it would happen often and by accident.  Now it is 
fairly rare.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/25/2005 9:01:23 PM
On 2005-10-25, Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> David Lennier <David.Lennier@GMX.net> wrote:
>
>> To me, this discussion has shown that some people are quite resistant to
>> learning. In pre-OS X, you had to tell the system in advance, how much
>> memory an application would need. Now, how is that more intuitive than
>> OS X? 
> A whole lot more!  Now you cannot increase memory even if the sw keeps
> crashing because of a lack of it. Some things humans can do
> 'intuitively' better than computers..

Certainly, for *some things* such as knowing why the baby is crying
etc, but humans make woefully inadequate Memory Management Systems.

You *can* increase memory in Mac OS X, in exactly the same way you did
it in earlier Mac systems, ie power off the box, open the lid, and
wang some more SIMMS or DIMMS or whatever in it. The difference between
the two systems is that Mac OS X allocates memory to processes as
needed, making far more efficient use of available physical memory
than was possible in 9.x or earlier, whilst simultaneously relieving
the poor human operator of the tedious task of doing memory management
by hand (why not just dispense with the computer altogether and get
an abacus if you are so keen on doing things manually?).

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
0
foo33 (1454)
10/25/2005 9:27:15 PM
Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <1h4zwop.skdtbj12zlh32N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <6xe7f.36711$yS6.24522@clgrps12>, sp@m.sucks.email.invalid
> > > (Kir�ly) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because
> > > > > some applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in
> > > > > "Applications" to work and/or be updated.
> > > > 
> > > > There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications
> > > > folder to get to your apps.  If apps like to be there, let them be
> > > > there.
> > > > 
> > > > Try this:  Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.
> > > > Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you
> > > > like. Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar,
> > > > wherever you want for quick access.  Think of it as your own
> > > > personal customizable /Applications folder.  Then forget that the
> > > > real /Applications folder is even there.  You'll have exactly what
> > > > you want.
> > > 
> > > Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have
> > > to. I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around
> > > the
> > > OS.
> > 
> > Good point. I think you're discussing with individuals that have either
> > forgotten or had no experience (UNIX and MSDOS crowd) with how
> > uncomplicated and user-friendly the old Mac OS was. It accepted whoever
> > was running the Mac as the boss/root/administrator. You could do
> > everything, including severely crash the Mac. No eye candy either.
> 
> Activate the root account and set it to automatically login and you'll
> have the same capability.  Good luck.
Wouldnt dream of doing it now, the OS has become too complicated to
manage... and if things crash you cant just pop in the rescue-CD and fix
it.  Our days of innocence are over <sob>.

RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 9:32:38 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> > Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
> >> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> >> OS.
> 
> > Good point. I think you're discussing with individuals that have either
> > forgotten or had no experience (UNIX and MSDOS crowd) with how
> > uncomplicated and user-friendly the old Mac OS was. It accepted whoever
> > was running the Mac as the boss/root/administrator.
> 
> Yup.  That is exactly my point.  Such a system is a security and 
> reliability nightmare.  But if Anybody wants that, be my guest.  Just
> keep it off the public network.
> 
Why not? It was easily crashed but just as easily revived, without
'expert' help. Security risk my hat, the old OS had less viruses than
the UNIX world. 

RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 9:32:38 PM
sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
> <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
> > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> 
> Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
> stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
> Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
> even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant application
> would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
> longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.

This so-called rock-solid OS gets a 'kernel panic' 1-2 times/month on my
G4.  This is nothing other than the good old OS crash, making it
marginally more stable than OS 8.6.1 on my PPC 8100.
The main advantage now is ease of use in the multiuser environment. 
Which, as of today I no longer need..  :-/

RL
0
rlaughton
10/25/2005 10:09:37 PM
"Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:1h50cak.etge6t8ogplcN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > It was always present. The difference is probably that in the past you
> > probably labelled anyone who thought Mac OS 7-9 was fundamentally broken
> > a troll.
> >
> > Mac OS 7-9 was definitely broken.
> Only in the eyes of the so-called experts, not the users..
>

Not in the eyes of users who only ran one app at a time.

Greg



0
G
10/25/2005 10:32:00 PM
"Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:1h50hny.ecpzmd66vepxN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
> > <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > > > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > > > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> > > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> >
> > Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
> > stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
> > Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
> > even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant application
> > would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
> > longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.
>
> This so-called rock-solid OS gets a 'kernel panic' 1-2 times/month on my
> G4.

Sounds like a hardware problem.  I haven't had a kernel panic on my G4 since
2003.

Greg



0
G
10/25/2005 10:34:20 PM
In article <251020051243091369%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <1h4yc21.15yawygobtyi7N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > > > 
> > > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> > > 
> > > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > > it. 
> > 
> > Sure, but the 'games' or similar folds also belong in the 'Applications'
> > folder. You subgroup your apps into folders like games, text, databank,
> > graphics, budget, utilities, internet, etc dont you? No-one has the time
> > to sift through all that stuff in one folder.
> 
> That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> to work and/or be updated.

This is false.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/25/2005 10:38:56 PM
In article <1h50dpk.10cyxe5j4fjltN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Ray Laughton wrote:
> > > Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >> Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
> > >> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> > >> OS.
> > 
> > > Good point. I think you're discussing with individuals that have either
> > > forgotten or had no experience (UNIX and MSDOS crowd) with how
> > > uncomplicated and user-friendly the old Mac OS was. It accepted whoever
> > > was running the Mac as the boss/root/administrator.
> > 
> > Yup.  That is exactly my point.  Such a system is a security and 
> > reliability nightmare.  But if Anybody wants that, be my guest.  Just
> > keep it off the public network.
> > 
> Why not? It was easily crashed but just as easily revived, without
> 'expert' help. Security risk my hat, the old OS had less viruses than
> the UNIX world. 

But more than OSX.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/25/2005 10:40:26 PM
In article <1h50dk6.1lk7rjl1e077f9N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> > Activate the root account and set it to automatically login and you'll
> > have the same capability.  Good luck.
>
> Wouldnt dream of doing it now, the OS has become too complicated to
> manage...

You're just not able to keep up.

> and if things crash you cant just pop in the rescue-CD and fix
> it.

You can do that now just as much as you could then.

> Our days of innocence are over <sob>.

Or syou would want to claim.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/25/2005 10:41:31 PM
In article <1h50hny.ecpzmd66vepxN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
<rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:

> sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
> > <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > > > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > > > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> > > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> > 
> > Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
> > stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
> > Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
> > even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant application
> > would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
> > longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.
> 
> This so-called rock-solid OS gets a 'kernel panic' 1-2 times/month on my
> G4.  This is nothing other than the good old OS crash, making it
> marginally more stable than OS 8.6.1 on my PPC 8100.
> The main advantage now is ease of use in the multiuser environment. 
> Which, as of today I no longer need..  :-/
> 

Well, I have a dual 2GHz G5, a G4 iMac, and a TiBook in regular use and
have not experienced a kernel panic on any of them. The only kernel
panic I've experienced since the advent of OS X was on a G4/400 that
had bad 3rd-party RAM -- I replaced the RAM and that never recurred.

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
10/25/2005 10:49:12 PM
In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Anybody wrote:
> > > In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > >> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security 
> > >> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user" 
> > >> machines, with single user operating systems.  [...]
> > 
> > > The reason, as always, is "money".
> > > 
> > > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.  [...]
> > 
> > It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded, 
> > will change your view on this matter.
> 
> That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
> may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
> need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.

So don't set up another user on it, Einstein.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/25/2005 10:50:53 PM
In article <sdfisher-9F854C.10322125102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <uce-532F19.13053625102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > I would disagree with the first sentence here. Mac OS pre-X was not 
> > particularly more difficult to develop for than anything else in general 
> > use. Maybe early on, as the first event-driven system most desktop 
> > programmers came into contact with, but not in comparison to, to name an 
> > example, Windows.
> 
> In absolute terms, perhaps not. But Windows had dozens of good 
> frameworks, hundreds of websites with examples, and very good 
> development tools. Mac OS had almost nothing.

Um. Disagree. Windows had several frameworks that had enough support to 
be worth using in a commercial environment, and the degree of "goodness" 
of them is highly debatable. I generally found the dev tools available 
for Mac OS to be far preferable to those for Windows. And while I'll 
grant that there was much more 3rd-party documentation available for 
Windows developers, I'll also assert without hesitation that it was more 
necessary because the first-party documentation was far worse.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 11:21:25 PM
In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Robert L. Haar <rlhaar@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 2005/10/24 3:56 PM, "Anybody" <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.
> > 
> > They are not "bits of nonsense." Those design features are what makes a
> > robust secure OS. I *have* to use Windows at work, but I choose OS X for my
> > personal machine because of its UNXI heritage and resistance to viruses and
> > other malware.
> Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> (even without a UNXI heritage :)

No. Simply untrue. Unless you consider a few dozen to be a smaller 
number than zero.

> > Then they deserve to be wiped out by loosing their business critical data -
> > or pay the price in terms of higher risk and support costs.
>
> Thats a joke, right? With the old Mac OS there were practically no
> support costs because the OS was so user-friendly!

That's a joke, right? With the old Mac OS it was almost impossible to 
keep people from screwing up the system to the point where it was no 
longer bootable.
 
> My ex runs a midsize business (a path lab) which they used to run on
> Filemaker databases and Word. I used to keep an eye on the DBs once a
> year and in the early years help with setting up the new ones for the
> following year. After a year or two they soon learned to to do that
> themselves. All went well for about 10 years. Two years ago they were
> forced by the national insurance to move to Windows and now require the
> service of a data tech costing thousands of $/year to basically do what
> I did. No-one in the lab has a clue how the system works and have to
> call the tech everytime it crashes or malfunctions.

And what has that experience to do with OS X?

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 11:25:27 PM
In article <1h50b8d.1a38o1pmyszejN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular
> > way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely
> > multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.
> Who said so? Not the users.

Actually, many users said precisely that. I won't comment on whether I 
agree with them, but it had become quite the fashion for mainstream and, 
frankly, ignorant users to start demanding from Apple fundamental 
technological changes with no clue what the overall effect would be on 
their use.

People called for protected memory. They called for preemptive task 
scheduling. They called for "prettier" user interfaces. We got 
everything the loud people were asking for, with both the benefits and 
costs of those changes.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 11:28:16 PM
In article <1h50c4n.1j02lauzh31krN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> David Lennier <David.Lennier@GMX.net> wrote:
> 
> > To me, this discussion has shown that some people are quite resistant to
> > learning. In pre-OS X, you had to tell the system in advance, how much
> > memory an application would need. Now, how is that more intuitive than
> > OS X? 
> A whole lot more!  Now you cannot increase memory even if the sw keeps
> crashing because of a lack of it. Some things humans can do
> 'intuitively' better than computers..

If you've got a process running out of memory, something's almost 
certainly wrong on your machine. OS X processes get as much memory as 
they ask for, up to 4GB. The limit is higher for non-GUI apps on a G5.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 11:33:48 PM
In article <261020050913144818%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-B0D7D3.06582725102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <251020051816294132%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> >  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <michelle-E92A3D.21580724102005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
> > > Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <11lr4jhjbf19db5@news.supernews.com>,
> > > >  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a 
> > > > > particular way, distinguished between user and system processes, was 
> > > > > genuinely multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.  It 
> > > > > could have rolled its own.  But by basing it on Unix, that brought in 
> > > > > a huge amount of people developing for Apple.
> > > > 
> > > > Apple didn't base it on Unix for that reason; they based it on Unix 
> > > > because they bough NeXT, which happened to be based on Unix.
> > > 
> > > Apple was looking for a "new OS" because they wanted to TRY to pull in
> > > the corporate money.
> > 
> > No, Apple was looking for a new OS because they were steadily losing 
> > their existing installed base over real and perceived shortcomings with 
> > the existing OS and had failed in multiple attempts to create from 
> > scratch something which offered what a growing chunk of their users were 
> > (for good or ill) demanding.
> 
> Note the VERY important word there: "perceived".

You're right. That is a very important word. Because user expectations 
are critical to manage in the delivery of a product or service. One of 
the most frustrating things in business is to lose customers, or whole 
segments, because of problems that don't actually exist in any 
meaningful sense for those users.

> There were very few actual shortcomings for the average user and most
> of the supposed shortcomings were purely in the "must-have-Windows"
> mentality of the corporate world.
> 
> As I said, Mac OS X was made to pull in those corporates,

You did say that. You were wrong then and remain so. Mac OS X was made 
to stop the steady hemorrhaging of the user base.

> > > Like pretty much everyone else on this planet they
> > > got greedy and just "have to" expand.
> > 
> > That should read: "Like every other publicly-traded corporation in the 
> > United States they are required to exercise fiduciary responsibility 
> > with the primary goal of increasing shareholder value."
> 
> Yep, as I said: greed.

Nope. Read carefully. What you said is not correct. Remember this part?

| Well, technically, true. They weren't allowed to "just be happy
| selling to those of us who want a computer that actually works nice
| and simply." Perceived corporate greed on Apple's part has nothing
| to do with it.



> > Happily, they succeeded in delivering a product that's much more 
> > buzzword compliant and that still "works nice and simply." Doesn't work 
> > exactly the same, but it's still nice and simple and, interestingly, 
> > appears to actually be increasing the adoption of the Mac by individuals.
> 
> It's unlikely that the small increase in individual Mac buyers is
> because of Mac OS X, it's mostly because of the iPod ... and partly
> because of the dwindling "respect" for Microsoft - finally!

You might be right. Except that it started before the introduction of 
the iPod, and in many cases buyers have explicitly attributed their new 
interest in the Mac to OS X. So I guess you're not right.

> The original Mac OS ("Classic") was known from most surveys as being
> THE easiest OS to use. People stuck with Windows because they are
> thick.

I agree on both counts. But they're not really salient points.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/25/2005 11:40:49 PM
In article <haberg-2510052137300001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <uce-532F19.13053625102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Gregory
> Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > > One problem with Mac OS 9- was that it always was difficult to develop for
> > > it. Thus, it took long time for software to become ported to Mac OS 9-.
> > > With Mac X, this has been changed, as the essential software is developed
> > > for UNIX, and usually is quite easy to get running under Mac OS X BSD --
> > > the stuff I have tried compiles directly.
> > 
> > I would disagree with the first sentence here. Mac OS pre-X was not 
> > particularly more difficult to develop for than anything else in general 
> > use. Maybe early on, as the first event-driven system most desktop 
> > programmers came into contact with, but not in comparison to, to name an 
> > example, Windows.
> 
> In comparison to UNIX: porting to Mac OS 9 (like the Hugs I did) takes
> quite some effort, whereas under Mac OS X, you just compile it. A better
> word is that programming under Mac OS 9- is extremely time consuming, but
> particluarly difficult.

That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish. 

Real programmers who wanting to make proper Mac applications have no
real troubles at all.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 11:42:23 PM
In article <1h50b8d.1a38o1pmyszejN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular
> > way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely
> > multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.
> 
> Who said so? Not the users.

Corporates, as I keep saying. Apple was simply trying to chase bigger
bucks, and as usual it was at the expense of the "little guy".
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 11:43:54 PM
In article <yobbr1dny70.fsf@panix2.panix.com>,
BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) writes:
> 
> > Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular
> > > way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely
> > > multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on.
> 
> > Who said so? Not the users.
> 
> Every user who had to reboot the whole machine just because one
> program died.
> 
> MacOS was dying sickeningly before OS X came out.

Bollocks. Mac OS "Classic" is still very much alive now about five
years after Mac OS X was released.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 11:44:52 PM
In article <11lt798lcg8el37@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> 
> > There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).
> > 
> > Ignoring alpha / beta shareware, the ONLY applications that cause my
> > Mac OS 9 computers to crash are written by Microsoft  [...]
> 
> The fact that an application could cause your computer to crash is the 
> problem.  Now it would be hard to write a non-privileged application 
> that would cause a crash (except by trying to consume all of a 
> resource).  Before it would happen often and by accident.  Now it is 
> fairly rare.

Not only have I had to reinstall Mac OS X because novice users bugger
it up, but I have also had Mac OS X 10.4 crash the entire computer a
number of times / Macs. This so-called "uncrashable OS" is rubbish. It
can be crashed and the "dreaded beachball" does still appear.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 11:47:50 PM
In article <mr-5BE011.00385626102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <251020051243091369%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1h4yc21.15yawygobtyi7N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > 
> > > Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > > > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%navn@mac.com.invalid>): 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications? 
> > > > 
> > > > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > > > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > > > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > > > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > > > it. 
> > > 
> > > Sure, but the 'games' or similar folds also belong in the 'Applications'
> > > folder. You subgroup your apps into folders like games, text, databank,
> > > graphics, budget, utilities, internet, etc dont you? No-one has the time
> > > to sift through all that stuff in one folder.
> > 
> > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> > applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> > to work and/or be updated.
> 
> This is false.

No it's not. There ARE applications that don't like being moved and
have been since Mac OS 9 or possibly earlier.
0
Anybody
10/25/2005 11:50:16 PM
In article <uce-E1079B.19252725102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> That's a joke, right? With the old Mac OS it was almost impossible to 
> keep people from screwing up the system to the point where it was no 
> longer bootable.

And how many times did those of us supporting it hear "Nothing" as the
answer to "What have you added, deleted or moved?"

:-\

-- 
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
0
Dave
10/26/2005 12:17:33 AM
Ray Laughton wrote:

> Security risk my hat, the old OS had less viruses than
> the UNIX world.

That is true (if we treat the word "virus" loosely).  And, indeed, most 
of the actual Unix compromises can be substantially attributed to the 
fact that Unix systems were tricky to maintain and keep up to date will 
all patches.  This is one of the areas where I am extremely impressed 
with Apple.  They've created a Unix system which is easy enough to 
maintain and operate that a user doesn't need to know Unix to safely use 
the machine.  Some GNU/Linux systems have been making substantial 
progress in this area, but nothing approaching the outstanding job Apple 
have done.

But pre-X Mac OSes got off easy.  With their process and memory 
management they were time-bombs for malware.  Had the online user base 
grown it would have been a nightmare.

Sure there are things that MS did that made their systems particularly 
vulnerable, but in terms of OS architecture it was the "single user OS" 
  (in terms of memory management, process management, and file 
permissions) that was the single biggest problem for pre-X Macs and 
pre-NT5 Windows.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/26/2005 12:51:52 AM
Anybody wrote:
> In article <11lt798lcg8el37@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

>> Now it would be hard to write a non-privileged application 
>> that would cause a crash (except by trying to consume all of a 
>> resource).  Before it would happen often and by accident.  Now it is 
>> fairly rare.
> 
> Not only have I had to reinstall Mac OS X because novice users bugger
> it up, but I have also had Mac OS X 10.4 crash the entire computer a
> number of times / Macs. This so-called "uncrashable OS" is rubbish. It
> can be crashed and the "dreaded beachball" does still appear.

Well maybe the old saying is true.  "Sure Unix is user friendly; it's 
just picky about who its friends are."

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/26/2005 1:23:28 AM
"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:11ltkp9gq7k38d6@news.supernews.com...
>
> But pre-X Mac OSes got off easy.  With their process and memory
> management they were time-bombs for malware.  Had the online user base
> grown it would have been a nightmare.
>

Exactly, but since it didn't happen we have all these ignoramuses spouting
off how wonderful OS 9 and insecure single-user systems are.

Greg



0
G
10/26/2005 2:00:49 AM

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> It's nice to believe that, and along some dimensions ("active content") 
> that's kind of true.  But on the whole that's simply false.  I think 
> that it was win2k that was the first truly multi-user MS operating 
> system and better memory protection.

Close.  Windows NT

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
0
Wes
10/26/2005 2:32:55 AM
Bjarne Bäckström wrote:
> experiences in the late eighties, my Macs have since then been M$-free
> zones, and I've never (as in NEVER) had any problems with instability.

When I was using System 7.5 at work (and Amiga at home)
the Mac crashed several times a day.  And always when
Microsoft Word was running.  :-)  It was that, and an
occasional use of Windows 95 that made me take nearly
the same attitude toward Redmond.  Yes, Mac was much
more stable than Windows 95/98.  But then M$ came out
with NT and 2000, which in spite of all their flaws,
did not crash as often as my OS 9.  For Apple to not
end up like the Amiga, they HAD to get a better OS
architecture.

By selecting open-source Unix for that architecture,
they got to a reasonable level of maturity in half the
time it took Microsoft to do it by the start-from-scratch
method.

Plus they won over more than a few people who tolerated
the awkward side of Unix-like systems because they wanted
its power and reliability (or because it wasn't Microsoft).

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
0
Wes
10/26/2005 2:52:09 AM
In article <11ltcj8qfsltpb3@corp.supernews.com>,
G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>"Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:1h50cak.etge6t8ogplcN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
>> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It was always present. The difference is probably that in the past you
>> > probably labelled anyone who thought Mac OS 7-9 was fundamentally broken
>> > a troll.
>> >
>> > Mac OS 7-9 was definitely broken.
>> Only in the eyes of the so-called experts, not the users..
>>
>
>Not in the eyes of users who only ran one app at a time.

They're still happily running System 3.0.1 on their "Fat Mac".
Without any steenking "Switcher", mind you.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.
0
russotto
10/26/2005 2:55:35 AM
Ray Laughton wrote:
> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>>(which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
>>of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> 
> But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> before the jump to OS X is another story..

Based on my hundreds of hours on System 7.5, 8.0-8.1,
and OS 9, I believe you are incorrect about Mac development.

I _KNOW_ you are incorrect about Windows NT.  Windows NT
crashed as often as the early OS X, which was far less
than any prior Mac OS.  Windows 2000 only crashed a few
times in the five years I was forced to use it at work.
That makes it slightly more reliable than the first OS X,
slightly less reliable than the current OS X, and way more
reliable than any prior Mac OS.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
0
Wes
10/26/2005 2:59:29 AM
Michelle Steiner wrote:

> I have yet to have even one application that needs to be in the 
> Applications folder to work.  There are some (mostly from Apple) that 

I tried to share an address book back when I had only six Gig.
It wasn't the App that I couldn't move, it was the actual data.
ANY of the following would crash Address Book:

Making the datafile a soft-link to a common file.
Making the datafile an alias to a common file.
Making the datafile read-only.

That was in 10.1 -- maybe it's better now.

> need to be in the Applications folder to be updated (and two that need 

M$ Office also has this problem.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html
0
Wes
10/26/2005 3:09:29 AM
Wes Groleau wrote:

>> I think that it was win2k that was the first truly multi-user MS 
>> operating system and better memory protection.
> 
> Close.  Windows NT

Thanks.

If memory serves, NT4 was barely more usable than 3.11.  It was NT5 when 
the real improvements came out.

I never really worked with those machines, but I did have to interact 
with them and their users.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/26/2005 4:20:31 AM
In article <11lu10fl5lb5d30@news.supernews.com>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> If memory serves, NT4 was barely more usable than 3.11.  It was NT5 when 
> the real improvements came out.

Close again. NT4.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 4:34:25 AM
In article <tbC7f.4991$Yn4.1164@trnddc03>, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Bjarne Bäckström wrote:
> > experiences in the late eighties, my Macs have since then been M$-free
> > zones, and I've never (as in NEVER) had any problems with instability.
> 
> When I was using System 7.5 at work (and Amiga at home)
> the Mac crashed several times a day.  And always when
> Microsoft Word was running.  :-)  It was that, and an
> occasional use of Windows 95 that made me take nearly
> the same attitude toward Redmond.  Yes, Mac was much
> more stable than Windows 95/98.  But then M$ came out
> with NT and 2000, which in spite of all their flaws,
> did not crash as often as my OS 9.  For Apple to not
> end up like the Amiga, they HAD to get a better OS
> architecture.

Even *IF* you assume that is true, what did Apple decided to do?? 

They recreated basically the OS that the Amiga had 10 years earlier
with it's multi-tasking, etc. Yet the Amiga still died, partly because
Commodore management couldn't manage anything and partly because the
world was already stuck in Microsoft hell.

Mac OS X is aimed purely at the corporate sector. It is not needed,
wanted or even known about outside the "uber geek" sector of Joe
Public. Hell, most people have enough problems using one application,
let alone using multiple ones.
0
Anybody
10/26/2005 4:39:29 AM
In article <uce-78AFAC.19212525102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> Um. Disagree. Windows had several frameworks that had enough support to 
> be worth using in a commercial environment, and the degree of "goodness" 
> of them is highly debatable. I generally found the dev tools available 
> for Mac OS to be far preferable to those for Windows. And while I'll 
> grant that there was much more 3rd-party documentation available for 
> Windows developers, I'll also assert without hesitation that it was more 
> necessary because the first-party documentation was far worse.

Sorry, but as a cross-platform developer I stand by that opinion. 
Codewarrior in the late 90s is the very worst C/C++ development tool 
I've ever used. It compiled slow, crashed constantly, and frequently 
crashed and lost breakpoints in the middle of debugging. It was 
incapable of importing/exporting project settings in any reasonable 
form, and couldn't even open multiple projects at once to compare 
settings. If you found a bug, you were screwed; if you were very lucky, 
in a year you could pay hundreds of dollars to get a fix, but it would 
be broken somewhere else. "Oops, sorry, we forgot to test that."

The only reason it caught on at all is that it was better than 
Symantec's compiler and MPW, which were even worse. What else was there? 
RealBASIC? Prograph? Hypercard clones?

Compare Windows: Visual C++, Visual Basic, C++ Builder and Delphi. 
That's just off the top of my head. Even the worst of which is a more 
capable IDE than Codewarrior. The technical information was a lot more 
available, too. As a Mac developer forced to develop some applications 
on Windows, I was usually able to find out how to do things faster on 
Windows than on a platform I had years of experience with.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 4:43:10 AM
In article <1h50c4n.1j02lauzh31krN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> A whole lot more!  Now you cannot increase memory even if the sw keeps
> crashing because of a lack of it. Some things humans can do
> 'intuitively' better than computers..

No, and you never have to. Each application is given up to 4 gigabytes 
of memory as it requests it. Do you know anything at all about Mac OS X? 
Because defending the old heap partitioning over it is a sure sign that 
you don't.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 4:44:35 AM
In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> (even without a UNXI heritage :)

This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the 
old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 4:49:13 AM
In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
> they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
> resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish. 
> 
> Real programmers who wanting to make proper Mac applications have no
> real troubles at all.

This is funny. I've yet to see a single decent way of building a 
cross-platform application. Do you know one?

I'd love to use the "lazy-ass" way for some of my apps. They're not 
interesting enough to be worth a completely different code base on each 
platform. I haven't yet been able to talk the owners of one of them into 
carbonizing or otherwise porting to Mac OS X, and if I could somehow 
port the Windows version I'm sure our Mac OS Xusers would appreciate 
that over Classic... (the Windows version is just a port of the original 
Mac version, with minimal interface changes. I happen to like the Mac 
interface.)

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 4:51:30 AM
On 2005-10-26, Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> Mac OS X is aimed purely at the corporate sector. It is not needed,
> wanted or even known about outside the "uber geek" sector of Joe
> Public.

You mean like iPods?

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
0
foo33 (1454)
10/26/2005 5:30:54 AM
"Jeffrey Goldberg" <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:11lu10fl5lb5d30@news.supernews.com...
> Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> >> I think that it was win2k that was the first truly multi-user MS
> >> operating system and better memory protection.
> >
> > Close.  Windows NT
>
> Thanks.
>
> If memory serves, NT4 was barely more usable than 3.11.  It was NT5 when
> the real improvements came out.

Actually NT 3.51 was more stable than NT 4 and Windows 2000.  With NT 4.0
Microsoft decided to move some of the GUI features into the kernel in the
interest of speed rather than stability.  NT 3.1 was worthless.

Greg



0
G
10/26/2005 6:12:44 AM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > Thats a joke, right? With the old Mac OS there were practically no
> > support costs because the OS was so user-friendly!
> 
> That's a joke, right? With the old Mac OS it was almost impossible to
> keep people from screwing up the system to the point where it was no 
> longer bootable.
>  
> > My ex runs a midsize business (a path lab) which they used to run on
> > Filemaker databases and Word. I used to keep an eye on the DBs once a
> > year and in the early years help with setting up the new ones for the
> > following year. After a year or two they soon learned to to do that
> > themselves. All went well for about 10 years. Two years ago they were
> > forced by the national insurance to move to Windows and now require the
> > service of a data tech costing thousands of $/year to basically do what
> > I did. No-one in the lab has a clue how the system works and have to
> > call the tech everytime it crashes or malfunctions.
> 
> And what has that experience to do with OS X?
Nothing, but it does have to do with the user-friendliness of pre-OS X
systems, which we were discussing. The user-unfriendliness of Windows
was just a bonus..
Come to think of it, there is a connection. OS X was already available,
but the techs and vendors were not able to set up a working system with
OS X + Virtual PC + proprietary national health software..

RL

0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:35:25 AM
G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> "Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:1h50cak.etge6t8ogplcN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> > Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It was always present. The difference is probably that in the past you
> > > probably labelled anyone who thought Mac OS 7-9 was fundamentally broken
> > > a troll.
> > >
> > > Mac OS 7-9 was definitely broken.
> > Only in the eyes of the so-called experts, not the users..
> >
> 
> Not in the eyes of users who only ran one app at a time.

Not true. I always had 2-3 apps running. In those days the limiting
factor was screen size but I had enough real estate and RAM and the
stuff ran. So what if it was not 'true' pre-emptive multitasking, it
worked!
Do you recall the heated debates after OS 10 arrived? 
My God we were ready to die defending our GUI <g>. 
Now that we've all (except for a few hillbillies?) moved on, these
retrospective discussions are much more relaxed.. 
I wonder, if given the choice to either stick with one's present OS or
go back to OS8/9 with guaranteed support from Apple and sw writers, how
many would actually go back (assuming the hardware was not yet
sold/garaged/trashed)?

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:35:25 AM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <1h50bvk.12qmw3kub2yadN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Mac OS 9- is highly unstable, because programs share the same memory
> > > space, thus can corrupt each other. Under UNIX this is not the case, which
> > > is one reason it is so stable.
> > 
> > BS, and its not going to become true no matter how often you say it.
> 
> Please explain. So you are going to use the Mac OS 9- memory model to make
> the OS more stable... :-)
Despite memory sharing my stability issues were no worse than they are
now. I allocated my sw enough memory of course.
My only gripe with OS 8 was the frozen cursor, IIRC it was gone by 8.6.1

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:35:25 AM
G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> "Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:1h50hny.ecpzmd66vepxN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> > sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
> > > <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > > > > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > > > > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > > > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> > > > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> > >
> > > Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
> > > stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
> > > Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
> > > even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant application
> > > would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
> > > longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.
> >
> > This so-called rock-solid OS gets a 'kernel panic' 1-2 times/month on my
> > G4.
> 
> Sounds like a hardware problem.  I haven't had a kernel panic on my G4 since
> 2003.
Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:35:26 AM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <251020051247598863%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <11lqhihjcehv4e7@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Anybody wrote:
> > > > In article <11lq80rmc5lkgbb@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > > > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security
> > > >> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user"
> > > >> machines, with single user operating systems.  [...]
> > > 
> > > > The reason, as always, is "money".
> > > > 
> > > > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > > > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.  [...]
> > > 
> > > It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded,
> > > will change your view on this matter.
> > 
> > That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
> > may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
> > need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> > "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.
> 
> So don't set up another user on it, Einstein.
Speaking of which, do you know how to properly remove a user from the
system? (meaning the name no longer appears as a choice in multi-user
mode) I couldn't, so the other day I went in at root level and simply
threw the folders away. No crashes er, I mean kernel panics.... so I'm
hoping it'll work.

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:35:26 AM
In article <sdfisher-4C6C6F.21445225102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Each application is given up to 4 gigabytes 
> of memory as it requests it. 

It should be: each program (UNIX process) is given up to 4 GB per memory
region. The process accesses several different memory regions, for
example, data code, program data and stack, which are kept separate.
"Application" is an Apple concept, which may make use of more than one
process.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/26/2005 10:06:03 AM
In article <1h50o2y.1rdl2dney2pnsN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> > > > Mac OS 9- is highly unstable, because programs share the same memory
> > > > space, thus can corrupt each other. Under UNIX this is not the
case, which
> > > > is one reason it is so stable.
> > > 
> > > BS, and its not going to become true no matter how often you say it.
> > 
> > Please explain. So you are going to use the Mac OS 9- memory model to make
> > the OS more stable... :-)
> Despite memory sharing my stability issues were no worse than they are
> now. I allocated my sw enough memory of course.
> My only gripe with OS 8 was the frozen cursor, IIRC it was gone by 8.6.1

This is simply wrong, because Mac OS 9- was frequently corrupted by
programs writing into each others memory region. If orogram bombs under
Mac OS 9-, one has restart the whole computer. If that has to be done
under Mac OS X, that is likely to happen because Applce has not yet
removed all Mac OS 9- style code.

The please stick to facts.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/26/2005 10:08:53 AM
In article <1h50oid.1vmrl0cga4mbN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

8< ... snip

> Speaking of which, do you know how to properly remove a user from the
> system? (meaning the name no longer appears as a choice in multi-user
> mode)

System Preferences/Accounts
Select the username
Click the - at the bottom left under Login Options

m-
0
michael
10/26/2005 10:22:26 AM
In article <haberg-2610051206040001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> It should be: each program (UNIX process) is given up to 4 GB per memory
> region. The process accesses several different memory regions, for
> example, data code, program data and stack, which are kept separate.
> "Application" is an Apple concept, which may make use of more than one
> process.

May, yes. But usually not.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 10:32:28 AM
In article <1h50o8i.mret3lbilp5bN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
> Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?

If your symptoms increase over the course of the day I would definitely 
suspect the hardware. Probably the memory. Mac OS X computers should be 
able to run 24x7 -- my Powerbook isn't run this way, but my parents' 
iMac G3 is. It never crashes.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 10:37:14 AM
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> 
> This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the
> old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.

1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
viruses on my old Macs (since 1984). 
2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 10:42:19 AM
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <1h50c4n.1j02lauzh31krN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > A whole lot more!  Now you cannot increase memory even if the sw keeps
> > crashing because of a lack of it. Some things humans can do
> > 'intuitively' better than computers..
> 
> No, and you never have to. Each application is given up to 4 gigabytes
> of memory as it requests it. Do you know anything at all about Mac OS X?
> Because defending the old heap partitioning over it is a sure sign that
> you don't.
I know what I've experienced, since 10.1  
Not enough for a 'developer' maybe, but enough for me, the user.

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 10:42:19 AM
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >>(which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> >>of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > 
> > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> 
> Based on my hundreds of hours on System 7.5, 8.0-8.1,
> and OS 9, I believe you are incorrect about Mac development.
> 
> I _KNOW_ you are incorrect about Windows NT.  Windows NT
> crashed as often as the early OS X, which was far less
> than any prior Mac OS.  Windows 2000 only crashed a few
> times in the five years I was forced to use it at work.
> That makes it slightly more reliable than the first OS X,
> slightly less reliable than the current OS X, and way more
> reliable than any prior Mac OS.
I was going to admit I don't know much about Win NT but I just realise
thats the &%&!/ߧ�! network we have at work. And it crashes, at LEAST
once a week someone needs a restart in my area of work. Extrapolate that
up to 30,000 users and I'd guess theres a crash happening every 10
minutes somewhere on that intranet. Often put down to poor input or
network problems, but the fact remains it crashes. And the network is
often glacially slow. In other words, its a typical Wintel POS. Crashes
more often than my OS X too -ok the network is smaller but still..

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 10:42:19 AM
Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <11lt798lcg8el37@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> >> Now it would be hard to write a non-privileged application 
> >> that would cause a crash (except by trying to consume all of a 
> >> resource).  Before it would happen often and by accident.  Now it is
> >> fairly rare.
> > 
> > Not only have I had to reinstall Mac OS X because novice users bugger
> > it up, but I have also had Mac OS X 10.4 crash the entire computer a
> > number of times / Macs. This so-called "uncrashable OS" is rubbish. It
> > can be crashed and the "dreaded beachball" does still appear.
> 
> Well maybe the old saying is true.  "Sure Unix is user friendly; it's
> just picky about who its friends are."
> 
> Sorry I can't be more helpful.

LOL!

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 10:42:20 AM
In article <sdfisher-D80590.21493025102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> 
> This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the 
> old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.

Well I wouldn't say dozens. Twenty or thirty perhaps. And all taken care 
of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For all 
practical purposes, it was virus-free.

-- tim
0
Tim
10/26/2005 11:00:12 AM
In article <261020051739291099%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <tbC7f.4991$Yn4.1164@trnddc03>, Wes Groleau
> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Bjarne Bäckström wrote:
> > > experiences in the late eighties, my Macs have since then been M$-free
> > > zones, and I've never (as in NEVER) had any problems with instability.
> > 
> > When I was using System 7.5 at work (and Amiga at home)
> > the Mac crashed several times a day.  And always when
> > Microsoft Word was running.  :-)  It was that, and an
> > occasional use of Windows 95 that made me take nearly
> > the same attitude toward Redmond.  Yes, Mac was much
> > more stable than Windows 95/98.  But then M$ came out
> > with NT and 2000, which in spite of all their flaws,
> > did not crash as often as my OS 9.  For Apple to not
> > end up like the Amiga, they HAD to get a better OS
> > architecture.
> 
> Even *IF* you assume that is true, what did Apple decide to do?? 
> 
> They recreated basically the OS that the Amiga had 10 years earlier
> with it's multi-tasking, etc.

Actually, what Apple delivered with OS X was not "basically the OS that 
the Amiga had" by a long shot. One critical difference is that the Amiga 
did not have memory protection. And your sense of time is off by years...

> Yet the Amiga still died, partly because Commodore management couldn't
> manage anything and partly because the world was already stuck in
> Microsoft hell.

.... which has led you to this incorrect assertion. The failure of the 
Amiga was complete a failure of Commodore to market their way out of a 
paper bag. The Amiga was introduced in 1985. Over the next 5 years the 
Mac made steady inroads into the market. The Amiga started with a big 
splash and then slowly withered away.

> Mac OS X is aimed purely at the corporate sector.

Continuing to repeat this doesn't make it more true.

> It is not needed, wanted or even known about outside the "uber geek"
> sector of Joe Public.

This is outright false.

> Hell, most people have enough problems using one application,
> let alone using multiple ones.

This is undoubtedly projecting.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 11:45:06 AM
In article <1h50o8i.mret3lbilp5bN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> > "Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:1h50hny.ecpzmd66vepxN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> > > sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray Laughton
> > > > <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > > > > > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > > > > > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > > > > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac OS
> > > > > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> > > >
> > > > Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
> > > > stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
> > > > Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
> > > > even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant application
> > > > would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
> > > > longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.
> > >
> > > This so-called rock-solid OS gets a 'kernel panic' 1-2 times/month on my
> > > G4.
> > 
> > Sounds like a hardware problem.  I haven't had a kernel panic on my G4 since
> > 2003.
> Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
> Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?

It's unlikely uptime is the issue. My machines only reboot when a system 
upgrade requires it, and only shut down when I know they won't be used 
for more than 24 hours. Which means the machine I'm typing on right now 
has been powered off once in the last 16 months and rebooted 
approximately monthly. The lack of third-party components isn't really 
indicative of anything. Stock parts can be bad or go bad. We had to have 
the stock DIMM replaced in my mother's eMac because it failed a month 
after purchase, for example.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 11:48:44 AM
In article <1h50o2y.1rdl2dney2pnsN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1h50bvk.12qmw3kub2yadN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > Mac OS 9- is highly unstable, because programs share the same memory
> > > > space, thus can corrupt each other. Under UNIX this is not the case, 
> > > > which
> > > > is one reason it is so stable.
> > > 
> > > BS, and its not going to become true no matter how often you say it.
> > 
> > Please explain. So you are going to use the Mac OS 9- memory model to make
> > the OS more stable... :-)
> Despite memory sharing my stability issues were no worse than they are
> now. I allocated my sw enough memory of course.

Memory allocation was probably the single weakest part of the pre-X Mac 
OS. Worse than memory protection, worse than process scheduling.

We were still using Handles - and having to be aware of them - years 
after the last machine lacking an MMU was officially desupported.

Partitions were complete voodoo. How do you feel if I point out to you 
that apps written with a memory management scheme that Apple suggested 
were actually harmed by increasing their partition?

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 11:56:37 AM
In article <tim.streater-CEEA5E.12001226102005@individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <sdfisher-D80590.21493025102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> >  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> > 
> > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the 
> > old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> 
> Well I wouldn't say dozens. Twenty or thirty perhaps.

[Boggle] You'll acknowledge 30 (which is, in reality, _slightly_ low) 
but wouldn't say "dozens?"

> And all taken care 
> of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For all 
> practical purposes, it was virus-free.

But the claim made was that "The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in 
fact more so [than OS X]." That's simply untrue.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 11:58:48 AM
In article <1h51f0q.d6038k1sbjrh8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> >  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> > 
> > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the
> > old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> 
> 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
> viruses on my old Macs (since 1984).

And if you never saw them they never existed. Got it.

> 2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.

Maybe. Probably. But the first pre-X virus had already hit by this 
(relative) time. So in what coordinate system, please, is the old OS 
more virus-free than the current one?

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 12:00:10 PM
In article <261020051247502823%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <11lt798lcg8el37@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
> > Anybody wrote:
> > 
> > > There's nothing "unstable" about Mac OS 9 (or 8 for that matter).
> > > 
> > > Ignoring alpha / beta shareware, the ONLY applications that cause my
> > > Mac OS 9 computers to crash are written by Microsoft  [...]
> > 
> > The fact that an application could cause your computer to crash is the 
> > problem.  Now it would be hard to write a non-privileged application 
> > that would cause a crash (except by trying to consume all of a 
> > resource).  Before it would happen often and by accident.  Now it is 
> > fairly rare.
> 
> Not only have I had to reinstall Mac OS X because novice users bugger
> it up, but I have also had Mac OS X 10.4 crash the entire computer a
> number of times / Macs. This so-called "uncrashable OS" is rubbish. It
> can be crashed and the "dreaded beachball" does still appear.

The "dreaded beachball" has nothing inherently to do with crashing. It 
appears because the application whose UI is under the cursor hasn't 
pulled an event off its queue "recently enough" (which is, in human 
terms, a fairly short time).

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 12:01:36 PM
In article <1h50mzr.1wxz3h7omk6vN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> > And what has that experience to do with OS X?
> Nothing, but it does have to do with the user-friendliness of pre-OS X
> systems, which we were discussing.

Did anyone argue with the assertion that pre-X Mac OS was user friendly? 
If so, I didn't see it. I _did_ see people complaining that OS X is less 
user-friendly than pre-X, but this post has nothing to do with that 
false statement.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 12:03:08 PM
In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
> they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
> resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish.

Um. Nothing about OS X has made the porting of Windows apps to the Mac 
easier, and no technical change has made it more common.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 12:08:08 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
>>> I think that it was win2k that was the first truly multi-user MS 
>>> operating system and better memory protection.
>>
>>
>> Close.  Windows NT
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> If memory serves, NT4 was barely more usable than 3.11.  It was NT5 when 
> the real improvements came out.

As I recall, NT 3.5 didn't cut the candle and the first version 
acceptable was 3.51. It had the Windows 3.11 GUI, so maybe you are 
thinking of that.

NT 4.0 was IMHO the first version that had the real improvements, and 
it's no coincidence that 4.0 was the first version of NT to be widely 
accepted.

> I never really worked with those machines, but I did have to interact 
> with them and their users.
> 
> -j
0
Paul
10/26/2005 12:09:22 PM
In article <sdfisher-37B189.21432725102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <uce-78AFAC.19212525102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > Um. Disagree. Windows had several frameworks that had enough support to 
> > be worth using in a commercial environment, and the degree of "goodness" 
> > of them is highly debatable. I generally found the dev tools available 
> > for Mac OS to be far preferable to those for Windows. And while I'll 
> > grant that there was much more 3rd-party documentation available for 
> > Windows developers, I'll also assert without hesitation that it was more 
> > necessary because the first-party documentation was far worse.
> 
> Sorry, but as a cross-platform developer I stand by that opinion.

And as a cross-platform developer, I stand by mine. But the key word 
there is opinion, and as long as we're in subjective areas there's no 
guarantee or need of agreement. I don't know what qualifies as a "good" 
framework or a "good" development tool for you.
 
> Codewarrior in the late 90s is the very worst C/C++ development tool 
> I've ever used. It compiled slow, crashed constantly, and frequently 
> crashed and lost breakpoints in the middle of debugging. ...
> 
> The only reason it caught on at all is that it was better than 
> Symantec's compiler and MPW, which were even worse. What else was there? 
> RealBASIC? Prograph? Hypercard clones?

See I never really had a problem with CodeWarrior. I particularly did 
not find that it "crashed constantly, and frequently crashed and lost 
breakpoints in the middle of debugging." I also did a fair amount of 
Smalltalk at the time. There were, in fact, dozens of development 
environments available for the Mac, covering pretty much any language 
you're likely to name.

> Compare Windows: Visual C++, Visual Basic, C++ Builder and Delphi.

The first three of which I found and continue to find unusable. Delphi 
I've been using without complaint since 1.0.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 12:19:58 PM
In article <sdfisher-CA60D6.03324526102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > > Each application is given up to 4 gigabytes 
> > > of memory as it requests it. 
> 
> > It should be: each program (UNIX process) is given up to 4 GB per memory
> > region. The process accesses several different memory regions, for
> > example, data code, program data and stack, which are kept separate.
> > "Application" is an Apple concept, which may make use of more than one
> > process.
> 
> May, yes. But usually not.

Of course not. The main point is that many still go around thinking that
the processes under Mac OS X has all stuff in a single memory block, as
was the case in Mac OS 9-. But UNIX is mor advanced than that. Stack and
data space cannot collide, and can be extended arbitrarily independently,
below this 4 GB limit, as long as there is hard disk space available. This
makes programming under Mac OS X much easier, since one does not have to
sprinkle the code with stack and data overflow checks, which in its turn
makes programs a lot more secure: they cannot bomb because of this
particular problem.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/26/2005 12:24:42 PM
In article <uce-6A7968.07563726102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Gregory
Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> Memory allocation was probably the single weakest part of the pre-X Mac 
> OS. Worse than memory protection, worse than process scheduling.
> 
> We were still using Handles - and having to be aware of them - years 
> after the last machine lacking an MMU was officially desupported.

My guess is that Mac OS 9- had many single weakest parts :-), and the
problem was that to avoid all the pitfalls was put on the programmer to
follow such tricky rules. I recall tough some programmers writing fully
correct code and it still didn't work, especially in software using
Internet communications. That should pretty much be gone now, as UNIX is
built up from scratch to be able to handle it. Apple has some non-UNIX
code still though, which still causes problems, I think. Later versions of
Mac OS X should then successivley become more stable.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/26/2005 12:32:20 PM
In article <uce-385D4A.07584826102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <tim.streater-CEEA5E.12001226102005@individual.net>,
>  Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > In article <sdfisher-D80590.21493025102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> >  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > >  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > > > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> > > 
> > > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the 
> > > old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> > 
> > Well I wouldn't say dozens. Twenty or thirty perhaps.
> 
> [Boggle] You'll acknowledge 30 (which is, in reality, _slightly_ low) 
> but wouldn't say "dozens?"

Are you a lawyer or something?

> > And all taken care 
> > of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For all 
> > practical purposes, it was virus-free.
> 
> But the claim made was that "The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in 
> fact more so [than OS X]." That's simply untrue.

Well, I really don't give a monkey's whether or not this is true in some 
"accurate to one part in 100 billion" sense. It's simply not relevant. 
Even the program I mentioned above (I remember now it was called 
Disinfectant) eventually ceased to be updated for new viruses because no 
more were coming along.

As I said, for all practical purposes, it was virus-free. That's all 
that matters.

-- tim
0
Tim
10/26/2005 12:40:34 PM
In article <tim.streater-B4EB69.13403426102005@individual.net>, Tim
Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <uce-385D4A.07584826102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <tim.streater-CEEA5E.12001226102005@individual.net>,
> >  Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <sdfisher-D80590.21493025102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> > >  Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > 
<snip>
> > > And all taken care 
> > > of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For all 
> > > practical purposes, it was virus-free.
> > 
> > But the claim made was that "The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in 
> > fact more so [than OS X]." That's simply untrue.
> 
> Well, I really don't give a monkey's whether or not this is true in some 
> "accurate to one part in 100 billion" sense. It's simply not relevant. 
> Even the program I mentioned above (I remember now it was called 
> Disinfectant) eventually ceased to be updated for new viruses because no 
> more were coming along.
> 
> As I said, for all practical purposes, it was virus-free. That's all 
> that matters.
> 

John Norstad (yeah, the same guy who wrote Newswatcher) ceased
development on Disinfectant because of a lack of time to devote to the
effort while good alternatives existed commercially, especially to
combat such things as the AutoStart worm and the proliferation of MS
Office-related viruses
<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=04876>.

BTW, John stayed active for a while after that in the Mac
virus-fighting committee.

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
10/26/2005 12:54:35 PM
In article <uce-9270C7.08080826102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> 
> > That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
> > they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
> > resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish.
> 
> Um. Nothing about OS X has made the porting of Windows apps to the Mac 
> easier, and no technical change has made it more common.

No, porting Windows stuff didn't become easier, but porting Unix stuff
became worlds easier. This has paid off in the multimedia areas
probably more than any other, since many of the popular free tools on
both Windows and Mac have their genesis in the land of unix :)

It used to be that porting a unix tool to Windows was a lot easier than
porting it to Mac -- the reverse is now true.

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
10/26/2005 12:57:40 PM
Anybody wrote:
> In article <tbC7f.4991$Yn4.1164@trnddc03>, Wes Groleau
> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Bjarne Bäckström wrote:
>>
>>>experiences in the late eighties, my Macs have since then been M$-free
>>>zones, and I've never (as in NEVER) had any problems with instability.
>>
>>When I was using System 7.5 at work (and Amiga at home)
>>the Mac crashed several times a day.  And always when
>>Microsoft Word was running.  :-)  It was that, and an
>>occasional use of Windows 95 that made me take nearly
>>the same attitude toward Redmond.  Yes, Mac was much
>>more stable than Windows 95/98.  But then M$ came out
>>with NT and 2000, which in spite of all their flaws,
>>did not crash as often as my OS 9.  For Apple to not
>>end up like the Amiga, they HAD to get a better OS
>>architecture.
> 
> 
> Even *IF* you assume that is true, what did Apple decided to do?? 
> 
> They recreated basically the OS that the Amiga had 10 years earlier
> with it's multi-tasking, etc. Yet the Amiga still died, partly because
> Commodore management couldn't manage anything and partly because the
> world was already stuck in Microsoft hell.
> 
> Mac OS X is aimed purely at the corporate sector. 

Simply untrue. There are loads of folks who buy it for home use, and in 
my experience, an incresing number of whom are looking for a credible 
alternative to the constant antivirus and security problems of Windows.

> It is not needed,
> wanted or even known about outside the "uber geek" sector of Joe
> Public. Hell, most people have enough problems using one application,
> let alone using multiple ones.

Speak for yourself.

I suppose you'd rather that seatbelts weren't fitted in cars because 
sometimes they get trapped in the doors.
0
Paul
10/26/2005 12:58:11 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:

<snip for brevity>

> I was going to admit I don't know much about Win NT but I just realise
> thats the &%&!/ߧ�! network we have at work. And it crashes, at LEAST
> once a week someone needs a restart in my area of work. 

Over the years I used to have NT 4.0 at home, I had only one crash 
(BSOD) that I recall, and that was down to installing a bad driver.

Networking is a different kettle of fish, as NT seems to be very poor at 
recovering from network outages (does it even try?). At home, never a 
problem, since it was on _my_ LAN.

At work however, I've seen the same scenario you describe.

> Extrapolate that
> up to 30,000 users and I'd guess theres a crash happening every 10
> minutes somewhere on that intranet. Often put down to poor input or
> network problems, but the fact remains it crashes. And the network is
> often glacially slow. In other words, its a typical Wintel POS. Crashes
> more often than my OS X too -ok the network is smaller but still..
> 

I recall Steve Balmer claiming that by upgrading to XP, the average 
employee could save something like an hour a week due to its improved 
reliability. When you take 30,000 users and cost that out properly 
(including the cost per employee of benefits, buildings, capital 
equipment etc), it's a staggering sum!
0
Paul
10/26/2005 1:23:26 PM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1h50mzr.1wxz3h7omk6vN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > > And what has that experience to do with OS X?
> > Nothing, but it does have to do with the user-friendliness of pre-OS X
> > systems, which we were discussing.
> 
> Did anyone argue with the assertion that pre-X Mac OS was user friendly?
> If so, I didn't see it. I _did_ see people complaining that OS X is less
> user-friendly than pre-X, but this post has nothing to do with that 
> false statement.
Ok, the user-friendliness AND the stability of the old Mac OS.
These non-computer types in the lab kept the OS going for years without
real help. You might say FM and Word (and the occasional game) dont
challenge an OS enough. I say those DBs got VERY big, and the data was
critical.. Sure there were no kids around and no-one deliberately messed
with the OS. 

ray
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 1:43:58 PM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <1h51f0q.d6038k1sbjrh8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > >  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > > > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> > > 
> > > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the
> > > old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
Maybe there are but they're harmless so you dont notice them.. :-/

> > 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
> > viruses on my old Macs (since 1984).
> 
> And if you never saw them they never existed. Got it.
Not what I said or meant. But even if my OS was infected it was not
noticable, everything worked. Ergo: who cares if no damage is done?

> > 2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.
> 
> Maybe. Probably. But the first pre-X virus had already hit by this 
> (relative) time. So in what coordinate system, please, is the old OS 
> more virus-free than the current one?
We'll do the comparison when we get to OS XX, ok?
The ugly foundation on which our pretty OS now rests will
be ripped open by the virii and exposed for what it is: 
DinosaurWare from the 70's...  :-/

ray
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 1:43:58 PM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > > 
> > > Sounds like a hardware problem.  I haven't had a kernel panic on my G4
> > > since 2003.
> > Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
> > Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?
> 
> It's unlikely uptime is the issue. My machines only reboot when a system
> upgrade requires it, and only shut down when I know they won't be used for
> more than 24 hours. Which means the machine I'm typing on right now has
> been powered off once in the last 16 months and rebooted approximately
> monthly. The lack of third-party components isn't really indicative of
> anything. Stock parts can be bad or go bad. We had to have the stock DIMM
> replaced in my mother's eMac because it failed a month after purchase, for
> example.

My G4 runs nonstop (apart from sleep mode mornings) until I'm away for 3
or more days, or until the next kernel panic. One hardware issue in the
beginning (I thought) was that it couldnt keep the date, starting about
3-4 months after purchase, which is far too soon. Got another PRAM
battery or whatever that small expensive lithium cell on the motherboard
is called, but it didnt go away. So I had to set up the machine to get
its time via the internet. Seems to be better now, even without the
internet time server.. ? 

ray
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 1:43:59 PM
Paul Sture <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> 
> <snip for brevity>
> 
> > I was going to admit I don't know much about Win NT but I just realise
> > thats the &%&!/ߧ�! network we have at work. And it crashes, at LEAST
> > once a week someone needs a restart in my area of work. 
> 
> Over the years I used to have NT 4.0 at home, I had only one crash 
> (BSOD) that I recall, and that was down to installing a bad driver.
> 
> Networking is a different kettle of fish, as NT seems to be very poor at
> recovering from network outages (does it even try?). At home, never a
> problem, since it was on _my_ LAN.
> 
> At work however, I've seen the same scenario you describe.
> 
> > Extrapolate that
> > up to 30,000 users and I'd guess theres a crash happening every 10
> > minutes somewhere on that intranet. Often put down to poor input or
> > network problems, but the fact remains it crashes. And the network is
> > often glacially slow. In other words, its a typical Wintel POS. Crashes
> > more often than my OS X too -ok the network is smaller but still..
> > 
> 
> I recall Steve Balmer claiming that by upgrading to XP, the average 
> employee could save something like an hour a week due to its improved
> reliability. When you take 30,000 users and cost that out properly 
> (including the cost per employee of benefits, buildings, capital 
> equipment etc), it's a staggering sum!
Correcting things like the poor paper-handling etc could save another 10
million/year I'm sure. Nurses, MDs and other med staff are just not
interested in learning the intracacies of the Wintel environment, it has
to be simple and it has to be fast. As an old tree-hugger the
environmental cost also hurts me.

ray
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 2:07:04 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:

> My G4 runs nonstop (apart from sleep mode mornings) until I'm away for 3
> or more days, or until the next kernel panic. One hardware issue in the
> beginning (I thought) was that it couldnt keep the date, starting about
> 3-4 months after purchase, which is far too soon.

So your machine had a hardware-problem...

> Got another PRAM
> battery or whatever that small expensive lithium cell on the motherboard
> is called, but it didnt go away.

....that hasn't been solved so far...

> So I had to set up the machine to get
> its time via the internet. Seems to be better now, even without the
> internet time server.. ? 

....but you tried to cure the symptoms.

How come you're so sure it's not the hardware that crashes your machine? 
You *know* that the hardware had a problem that wasn't fixed entirely. 
But it seems you also know that you don't like OS X, so it must be OS 
X's fault.

David

PS: Yes, OS X can crash, e.g. if faulty CD-R's are in my powerbooks 
burner and I force them out, for example by switching the external 
burner off and on again to force the lock on the tray to be released. 
Doing stuff like this with bad CD-R's back and forth led to my last 
crash (10.4).

OK, I *know* I shouldn't do things like switch the external drive off to 
jank the CD out that the OS is trying to read or burn. But I also know 
that the OS shouldn't crash if I do.

Anyway, OS X is more stable than WinXP, more stable than Win2000 even. 
At least here where I sit. I can't judge Linux, though. Or Minix. Or 
Solaris.
0
David
10/26/2005 2:20:39 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:
> Paul Sture <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ray Laughton wrote:
>>
>><snip for brevity>
>>
>>>I was going to admit I don't know much about Win NT but I just realise
>>>thats the &%&!/ߧ�! network we have at work. And it crashes, at LEAST
>>>once a week someone needs a restart in my area of work. 
>>
>>Over the years I used to have NT 4.0 at home, I had only one crash 
>>(BSOD) that I recall, and that was down to installing a bad driver.
>>
>>Networking is a different kettle of fish, as NT seems to be very poor at
>>recovering from network outages (does it even try?). At home, never a
>>problem, since it was on _my_ LAN.
>>
>>At work however, I've seen the same scenario you describe.
>>
>>
>>>Extrapolate that
>>>up to 30,000 users and I'd guess theres a crash happening every 10
>>>minutes somewhere on that intranet. Often put down to poor input or
>>>network problems, but the fact remains it crashes. And the network is
>>>often glacially slow. In other words, its a typical Wintel POS. Crashes
>>>more often than my OS X too -ok the network is smaller but still..
>>>
>>
>>I recall Steve Balmer claiming that by upgrading to XP, the average 
>>employee could save something like an hour a week due to its improved
>>reliability. When you take 30,000 users and cost that out properly 
>>(including the cost per employee of benefits, buildings, capital 
>>equipment etc), it's a staggering sum!
> 
 >
> Correcting things like the poor paper-handling etc could save another 10
> million/year I'm sure. Nurses, MDs and other med staff are just not
> interested in learning the intracacies of the Wintel environment, it has
> to be simple and it has to be fast.

Agreed. A few years ago we got a fleet of brand new printers, which had 
"teething problems", and were particularly prone to paper problems. The 
answer was to ban anyone except the printer supplier's maintenance team 
from trying to sort these out. A printer problem hotline was 
established, and it worked well.

> As an old tree-hugger the
> environmental cost also hurts me.
> 

Fortunately we have a good recycling policy here in this country, and 
the system to cope with it.
0
Paul
10/26/2005 3:28:08 PM
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> writes:

> In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
>  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
>> That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
>> they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
>> resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish. 
>> 
>> Real programmers who wanting to make proper Mac applications have no
>> real troubles at all.
>
> This is funny. I've yet to see a single decent way of building a 
> cross-platform application. Do you know one?

Tcl/Tk is great for that. Portable between MS Windows, X11 on Unix/Linux
and OS X. If you can get away without writing parts in C (depends on
your app), you even don't need to recompile.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 
0
Jochem
10/26/2005 4:36:08 PM
"Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:1h50o8i.mret3lbilp5bN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > "Ray Laughton" <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > news:1h50hny.ecpzmd66vepxN%rlaughton@invalid.com...
> > > sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1h50bre.1ckk5m171pssjN%rlaughton@invalid.com>, Ray
Laughton
> > > > <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
> > > > > > (which is what it was).  But Windows NT, was an order
> > > > > > of magnitude more stable than OS 9.
> > > > > But not more stable than OS 8.6.1, but the downgrading of the Mac
OS
> > > > > before the jump to OS X is another story..
> > > >
> > > > Your experience is definitely contrary to mine. OS 9 was far more
> > > > stable for me than any version of OS 8, including 8.6.1. However,
> > > > Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar have all been rock-solid for me, whereas
> > > > even OS 9 required the occasional reboot because an errant
application
> > > > would take down the whole machine. The fact that a "crashy" app no
> > > > longer destabilizes the Mac is a HUGE advance, at least IMO.
> > >
> > > This so-called rock-solid OS gets a 'kernel panic' 1-2 times/month on
my
> > > G4.
> >
> > Sounds like a hardware problem.  I haven't had a kernel panic on my G4
since
> > 2003.
> Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in.
> Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?
>

Only if you have more than 24 hours a day.

Greg


0
G
10/26/2005 4:51:57 PM
In article <haberg-2610051424450001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> Of course not. The main point is that many still go around thinking that
> the processes under Mac OS X has all stuff in a single memory block, as
> was the case in Mac OS 9-. But UNIX is mor advanced than that. Stack and
> data space cannot collide, and can be extended arbitrarily independently,
> below this 4 GB limit, as long as there is hard disk space available. This
> makes programming under Mac OS X much easier, since one does not have to
> sprinkle the code with stack and data overflow checks, which in its turn
> makes programs a lot more secure: they cannot bomb because of this
> particular problem.

Ah, I've got you know. Yes, definitely a point worth making.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 5:39:14 PM
In article <uce-E75668.08195826102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> And as a cross-platform developer, I stand by mine. But the key word 
> there is opinion, and as long as we're in subjective areas there's no 
> guarantee or need of agreement. I don't know what qualifies as a "good" 
> framework or a "good" development tool for you.

Granted. I just felt I should back up my opinion a little, since I left 
it there bald in the first post.

> The first three of which I found and continue to find unusable. Delphi 
> I've been using without complaint since 1.0.

Well, at least we agree with of the four is the best. I wish we had 
something like Delphi on the Mac. :)

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 5:41:13 PM
In article <tim.streater-CEEA5E.12001226102005@individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> Well I wouldn't say dozens. Twenty or thirty perhaps. And all taken care 
> of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For all 
> practical purposes, it was virus-free.

Well, I think it was between 40 and 50. Which is dozens, but I guess 
that does sound a little alarmist. :) And you're probably thinking of 
Disinfectant?

A lot of those viruses disappeared when Apple changed the way the 
Desktop file worked in System 7.0. But not all of them. Anyway, the 
claim was that Mac OS was more virus-free than Mac OS X. Since Mac OS 
had somewhere around 45 viruses and Mac OS X has 0, that's a false 
claim. But I'll grant you that post System 7.0 Macs were relatively 
untroubled by viruses.

I'm still impressed with the way Apple changed the Desktop file. 
Granted, it was a stupid choice to begin with, but they certainly came 
through on the fix.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 5:50:27 PM
In article <tim.streater-B4EB69.13403426102005@individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> Even the program I mentioned above (I remember now it was called 
> Disinfectant) eventually ceased to be updated for new viruses because no 
> more were coming along.

That's not the reason Disinfectant was retired.

http://www.mactech.com/news/?p=1001025

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 5:53:35 PM
In article <1h51f0q.d6038k1sbjrh8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
> viruses on my old Macs (since 1984). 

That doesn't mean the platform was "more virus free" than Mac OS X.

> 2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.

The Mac was released in 1984, and by 1987 nVir was everywhere. Mac OS X 
was released in 2000; it's now 2005. 

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 5:58:15 PM
In article <uce-3436DA.08013626102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> The "dreaded beachball" has nothing inherently to do with crashing. It 
> appears because the application whose UI is under the cursor hasn't 
> pulled an event off its queue "recently enough" (which is, in human 
> terms, a fairly short time).

While you've described it perfectly, the beachball can be certain types 
of hardware faults -- I'm thinking of very slow swapping, but there 
could be more.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 6:00:15 PM
In article <tim.streater-CEEA5E.12001226102005@individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for 
> > the old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> 
> Well I wouldn't say dozens. Twenty or thirty perhaps. And all taken 
> care of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For 
> all practical purposes, it was virus-free.

the majority of them were hypercard viruses.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/26/2005 6:50:16 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:

> Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
> Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?

My G4 Digital Audio runs constantly.  The last time I saw a kernal panic 
was summer 2004.

Is it possible that you have a cooling problem?  I've had other 
equipment that couldn't stand the heat I subjected it to.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/26/2005 6:53:36 PM
In article <michelle-BF1ABB.11501626102005@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> the majority of them were hypercard viruses.

By far the ones I ran into the most were the desktop viruses like WDEF.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/26/2005 7:01:24 PM
Ray Laughton wrote:

> But even if my OS was infected it was not
> noticable, everything worked. Ergo: who cares if no damage is done?

If that statement were calculated to send me into a fit, it couldn't 
have been crafted more effectively.

For the past several years (and for the foreseeable future), machine 
compromises are used to attack other things on the network.  Parts of 
the spam fighting infrastructure is constantly under attack from legions 
of compromised machines.  Medium sized businesses on the net are subject 
to extortion "Pay up, or we'll turn 20,000 of the machines under our 
control against your site."

Suppose you leave a car outside unlocked at night.  And every night some 
criminals use your car to commit some other crime (like rob me).  This 
goes on night after night.  Would your view be that "well, if they 
didn't use too much gasoline and no noticeable wear and everything 
worked. well who cares?"

Look, the malware writers aren't just doing it to prove a point any 
more.  They've been hired by organized crime.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/26/2005 7:17:37 PM
In article <1h50oid.1vmrl0cga4mbN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> > > That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
> > > may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
> > > need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
> > > "multi-user" or have any need to ever be.
> > 
> > So don't set up another user on it, Einstein.
>
> Speaking of which, do you know how to properly remove a user from the
> system? (meaning the name no longer appears as a choice in multi-user
> mode) I couldn't, so the other day I went in at root level and simply
> threw the folders away. No crashes er, I mean kernel panics.... so I'm
> hoping it'll work.

Yeah, one would expect to find something in System Preferences for user 
accounts... Something called - Accounts - for example..

Oh wau - holy macaroni, Batman! It's *RIGHT THERE*! :)





-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/26/2005 7:46:43 PM
In article <261020051250161617%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
 Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> > > > Sure, but the 'games' or similar folds also belong in the 'Applications'
> > > > folder. You subgroup your apps into folders like games, text, databank,
> > > > graphics, budget, utilities, internet, etc dont you? No-one has the time
> > > > to sift through all that stuff in one folder.
> > > 
> > > That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> > > applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> > > to work and/or be updated.
> > 
> > This is false.
> 
> No it's not.

Yes, it is.

> There ARE applications that don't like being moved and
> have been since Mac OS 9 or possibly earlier.

Name these applications. I am expecting an exhaustive list of applications.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/26/2005 7:47:34 PM
A few days ago I posted the original posting in this thread. That initial 
posting was my grumping about the fact that the components of an application 
are installed in a variety of different places, making, as I saw it, an 
aspect that made maintenance awkward. Since then there have been quite a few 
postings made in this thread, some agreeing with my grump and others 
disagreeing. In addition it has been suggested that I don't configure and/or 
use my Mac in a correct manner. I've also been dubbed a troll. 

In retrospect I feel that my grump was perhaps not well expressed and thus 
not always understood as I meant it to be. I think that it might be helpful 
for me to elaborate how I am set up, hoping that such an elaboration will act 
as a clarification.

My Mac is a 1.67�GHz 17" PowerBook with 2�GB of RAM and a 100�MB internal 
hard drive. In addition there are three external firewire hard drives, one 
160�GB and two 500�GB.

My Mac has a single administrator account and a number of standard (user) 
accounts. Each of the standard accounts has a "focus" on a particular aspect 
of use, one for my personal work, one for my games, and one for each of a 
number of clients.

Those applications that are likely to be needed by all of the users are 
located in the Applications folder of the administrative account and those 
applications that are of concern to just a single standard account are 
located in the Applications folder of that relevant account.

The major applications installed in the administrator account include the 
Adobe Creative Suite 2, Microsoft Office 2004, FileMaker Pro 8 Advanced, and 
Virtual PC. The major applications installed in the standard accounts include 
realBasic 2005 and Dyalog APL 10. 

I consider myself an almost paranoid backer-upper, using SuperDuper! each 
night to create two bootable clones of my internal drive, a clone being made 
onto each of two different external drives, the 160 GB drive and the 
currently attached 500 GB drive. The two 500 GB drives are each divided into 
seven partitions, one partition for each day of the week, and each partition 
being the target of a backup on the associated day of the week.  Each week 
the 500 GB drives are swapped, the result being that I can restore any file 
to the state it was in on any of the 14 most recent days.

My grump was in reaction to the problems that have occurred to me and to 
friends and acquaintances in response to moving applications and not moving 
some (often not obvious) part, and in reaction to applications that will run 
correctly under the administrative account but not on the standard accounts 
unless one does a bunch of fiddling with permissions.












-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/26/2005 8:08:35 PM
In article <mr-4BA914.21473426102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > There ARE applications that don't like being moved...

> Name these applications. 

I think LilyPond has to be in /Applications, or else the UNIX stuff won't
work. Try it.

> I am expecting an exhaustive list of applications.

Why exhaustive. One is enough for existence.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/26/2005 8:16:07 PM
TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> writes:

> My grump was in reaction to the problems that have occurred to me and to 
> friends and acquaintances in response to moving applications and not moving 
> some (often not obvious) part, and in reaction to applications that will run 
> correctly under the administrative account but not on the standard accounts 
> unless one does a bunch of fiddling with permissions.

The best thing to do is to install applications in /Applications only
and then just put aliases anywhere where you need them. Backup is easy
then and handling aliases is easy anyway.

With regard to the mess some apps create: Yes, that's true. But the main
reason for that is just that Apple has failed to include some decent
package management with their OS. A decent package management would use
a dedicated tool to install/manage/uninstall applications which exactly
knows about any single file that comes with the app and is able to move
or uninstall the application with no bad effects. But since this would
also mean that you'd better not move any file of an app by hand
(since the installer then would get seriously out of touch with reality)
people would surely complain about that "stupidness", too.

Anyway. Just don't move apps, use aliases instead and you'll be fine.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 
0
Jochem
10/26/2005 8:38:03 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> 
> > But even if my OS was infected it was not
> > noticable, everything worked. Ergo: who cares if no damage is done?
> 
> If that statement were calculated to send me into a fit, it couldn't 
> have been crafted more effectively.
> 
> For the past several years (and for the foreseeable future), machine 
> compromises are used to attack other things on the network.  Parts of
> the spam fighting infrastructure is constantly under attack from legions
> of compromised machines.  Medium sized businesses on the net are subject
> to extortion "Pay up, or we'll turn 20,000 of the machines under our 
> control against your site."
> 
> Suppose you leave a car outside unlocked at night.  And every night some
> criminals use your car to commit some other crime (like rob me).  This
> goes on night after night.  Would your view be that "well, if they 
> didn't use too much gasoline and no noticeable wear and everything 
> worked. well who cares?"
> 
> Look, the malware writers aren't just doing it to prove a point any 
> more.  They've been hired by organized crime.
This is overdramatizing the situation with pre-OS X Macs. It never
happened!

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:32:41 PM
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <1h51f0q.d6038k1sbjrh8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
>  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
> > viruses on my old Macs (since 1984). 
> 
> That doesn't mean the platform was "more virus free" than Mac OS X.
> 
> > 2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.
> 
> The Mac was released in 1984, and by 1987 nVir was everywhere. Mac OS X
> was released in 2000; it's now 2005. 
Hard to believe, and if it was I never noticed it using standard stuff
like Disinfectant and Norton for protection. And nVir did me no harm.

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:32:41 PM
Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Ray Laughton wrote:
> 
> > Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
> > Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?
> 
> My G4 Digital Audio runs constantly.  The last time I saw a kernal panic
> was summer 2004.
> 
> Is it possible that you have a cooling problem?  I've had other 
> equipment that couldn't stand the heat I subjected it to.
> 
Doubt it, very cool appartment. But the kernel panics are more common in
summer.. Anyway, seeing this is one of the noisiest Macs around, a real
windtunnel, cooling should hardly be a problem..

RL
0
rlaughton
10/26/2005 9:32:42 PM
In article <tim.streater-B4EB69.13403426102005@individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> > > Well I wouldn't say dozens. Twenty or thirty perhaps.
> > 
> > [Boggle] You'll acknowledge 30 (which is, in reality, _slightly_ low) 
> > but wouldn't say "dozens?"
> 
> Are you a lawyer or something?

Something. Specifically someone who's learned how exceedingly important 
it is to make sure that the words you use mean what you mean. This is 
especially true when communication is through a medium that's not 
face-to-face.

> 
> > > And all taken care 
> > > of by one program whose name I forget now (freeware anyway). For all 
> > > practical purposes, it was virus-free.
> > 
> > But the claim made was that "The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in 
> > fact more so [than OS X]." That's simply untrue.
> 
> Well, I really don't give a monkey's whether or not this is true in some 
> "accurate to one part in 100 billion" sense.

Um. I'm not sure what one part in 100 billion would apply to here. We're 
talking about whether, in the specific sense, a small positive number is 
less than zero and, in a more abstract sense, about vulnerability.

> It's simply not relevant.

It's relevant, IMO, when someone's using a factually incorrect argument 
to make a recommendation against (or for, for that matter) a solution. 
Especially when that argument is going to be archived for decades.

 
> As I said, for all practical purposes, it was virus-free. That's all 
> that matters.

You missed MacAddict binding an infected CD into an issue? What matters 
is that malicious software is far more difficult to write and deploy for 
OS X than it ever was for pre-X Mac OS.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 9:38:13 PM
In article <1h51or7.xuqi2dj4kgu8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1h51f0q.d6038k1sbjrh8N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> >  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > 
> > > Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1h509yc.19jycoy2r5aogN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > > >  rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Oh, hogwash. The old Mac OS was just as virus-free, in fact more so..
> > > > > (even without a UNXI heritage :)
> > > > 
> > > > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses for the
> > > > old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> Maybe there are but they're harmless so you dont notice them.. :-/

Harmless somehow includes intentional file destruction and, much more 
commonly, system instability that leads to unintentional data loss?

> > > 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
> > > viruses on my old Macs (since 1984).
> > 
> > And if you never saw them they never existed. Got it.
> Not what I said or meant.

Then what did you mean by responding to the statement that there were 
dozens of viruses by indicating that you never saw one? What is the 
relevance?

> But even if my OS was infected it was not
> noticable, everything worked. Ergo: who cares if no damage is done?

If no damage is done, noone cares. No damage done was not the typical 
result of a viral or TH infection on a Mac. It's sort of not the point, 
except for that Merry Christmas thing.


> > > 2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.
> > 
> > Maybe. Probably. But the first pre-X virus had already hit by this 
> > (relative) time. So in what coordinate system, please, is the old OS 
> > more virus-free than the current one?
> We'll do the comparison when we get to OS XX, ok?

Why would that be okay? By your argument we should have as much OS X 
malware by now as we did "classic" malware by 1990. Hasn't happened.


> The ugly foundation on which our pretty OS now rests will
> be ripped open by the virii and exposed for what it is: 
> DinosaurWare from the 70's...  :-/

Which unlike pre-X Mac OS was designed for security from the beginning 
and has had an extended period of time to "build up its immunity" as it 
were.

> 
> ray

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/26/2005 9:43:48 PM
On 2005-10-26, Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
>> Ray Laughton wrote:
>> 
>> > Doubt it, not much third party stuff built in. 
>> > Maybe my set-up runs more hours/day?
>> 
>> My G4 Digital Audio runs constantly.  The last time I saw a kernal panic
>> was summer 2004.
>> 
>> Is it possible that you have a cooling problem?  I've had other 
>> equipment that couldn't stand the heat I subjected it to.
>> 
> Doubt it, very cool appartment. But the kernel panics are more common in
> summer.. Anyway, seeing this is one of the noisiest Macs around, a real
> windtunnel, cooling should hardly be a problem..

Has it always been that noisy?  I've noticed that sometimes noisy fans
are a sign that the fans themselves are starting to fail.

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Dragonmaster
10/26/2005 9:47:36 PM
In comp.sys.mac.system TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> Those applications that are likely to be needed by all of the users are 
> located in the Applications folder of the administrative account and those 
> applications that are of concern to just a single standard account are 
> located in the Applications folder of that relevant account.
> 
> The major applications installed in the administrator account include the 
> Adobe Creative Suite 2, Microsoft Office 2004, FileMaker Pro 8 Advanced, and 
> Virtual PC. The major applications installed in the standard accounts include 
> realBasic 2005 and Dyalog APL 10. 

There are problems with hiding apps within user accounts; one big one 
because it makes troubleshooting a misbehaving app much more difficult.  
Suppose App.app is located in A's home folder, and is there only for A to 
use.  If App.app starts to crash or won't launch, it is not available to 
any other user accounts for testing.

I am assuming you are putting apps in user accounts because you want to 
allow certain accounts access to certain apps and similarily prohibit 
access to those apps for other accounts.  If that is so, consider just 
storing all apps in /Applications and use the System Preferences ->  
Accounts -> Parental Controls function to do this.  That's why it is there.
If you want, you can make a folder with aliases to the needed apps for 
each account and put that in each user's dock or desktop or wherever; 
that way you have an uncluttered place from where to locate and launch 
the apps for each account.
K.

0
sp
10/26/2005 9:48:23 PM
In article <sdfisher-8E95F1.12014226102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
Steven Fisher  <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
>In article <michelle-BF1ABB.11501626102005@news.west.cox.net>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> the majority of them were hypercard viruses.
>
>By far the ones I ran into the most were the desktop viruses like WDEF.

Those, INIT-based viruses, and (the ugliest) segment loader based
viruses.  IIRC, nVir infected both via INIT and segment loader.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.
0
russotto
10/27/2005 2:00:48 AM
Ray Laughton wrote:

> This is overdramatizing the situation with pre-OS X Macs. It never
> happened!

I was commenting on the "well, I've got nothing to hide, so I don't have 
to care about security" or "all *my* important stuff is secure, so I 
don't worry about keeping my system secure."

That remarkably common attitude among home users (of any system) is a 
bad thing.

You are correct that pre-X OSes were less subject to attack.  But this 
had nothing to do with the OS architecture, which was just asking for 
trouble.  It had (almost) everything to do with how common such systems 
were on the net.

-j
0
Jeffrey
10/27/2005 2:03:35 AM
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> I've also been dubbed a troll. 

I think I was one of those dubbing you so. I har read the thread up 
until that point and found all those posts defending OS 9- with 
arguments that were proven to be wrong and refused to accept this. Like, 
OS 9- had fewer virii than OS X (which cannot be true, no positive 
number is smaller than 0!). Maybe I misattributed some of these posts to 
you. If that was the case (I'll not re-read all your posts at this point 
in time), I apologise. However, if the points I made apply to your posts 
as well, consider being considered a troll. ;-)
0
David
10/27/2005 6:55:43 AM
In article <haberg-2610052216060001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > There ARE applications that don't like being moved...
> >
> > Name these applications. 
> 
> I think LilyPond has to be in /Applications

It doesn't. Lilypond really isn't a good example of a general Mac application 
either.

> > I am expecting an exhaustive list of applications.
> 
> Why exhaustive. One is enough for existence.

But not enough for there to be a problem. Note the thread title that implies 
that this is the rule, not the exception - which of course is false.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/27/2005 2:03:08 PM
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:55:43 -0500, David Lennier wrote
(in article <djptli$4hd$1@news.sap-ag.de>):

> TaliesinSoft wrote:
>> I've also been dubbed a troll. 
> 
> I think I was one of those dubbing you so. I har read the thread up 
> until that point and found all those posts defending OS 9- with 
> arguments that were proven to be wrong and refused to accept this. Like, 
> OS 9- had fewer virii than OS X (which cannot be true, no positive 
> number is smaller than 0!). Maybe I misattributed some of these posts to 
> you. If that was the case (I'll not re-read all your posts at this point 
> in time), I apologise. However, if the points I made apply to your posts 
> as well, consider being considered a troll. ;-)

David,

My initial posting which started this thread and all of my subsequent 
postings were in regard to OS X. The thread does indeed include quite a few 
postings which compare System 9 and OS X, but I neither introduced System 9 
into the thread nor did I ever even participate in that branch of the thread. 
Hopefully I'm now free from trolldom.

Jim

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

0
TaliesinSoft
10/27/2005 2:32:00 PM
In article <mr-8F8CF1.16030827102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > > There ARE applications that don't like being moved...
> > >
> > > Name these applications. 
> > 
> > I think LilyPond has to be in /Applications
> 
> It doesn't. 

Well, try
  /usr/local/bin/lilypond --version
and then try moving Lilypond, and try it again.

You can easily increase Lilypond movability by writing a more inteelligent
Python script, but again, this was not the question.

> Lilypond really isn't a good example of a general Mac application 
> either.

So your definition of a "general Mac application" one that admist being
moved? So your statement that there are no general Mac application that
cannot be moved becomes a definition?

> > > I am expecting an exhaustive list of applications.
> > 
> > Why exhaustive. One is enough for existence.
> 
> But not enough for there to be a problem. Note the thread title that implies 
> that this is the rule, not the exception - which of course is false.

The Mac OS X Applications just run ordinary UNIX processes, and as for
UNIX processes being movable in the filesystem, it depends how the
developer of that program decides to do it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/27/2005 4:25:56 PM
In article <haberg-2710051825590001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > > > There ARE applications that don't like being moved...
> > > >
> > > > Name these applications. 
> > > 
> > > I think LilyPond has to be in /Applications
> > 
> > It doesn't. 
> 
> Well, try
>   /usr/local/bin/lilypond --version
> and then try moving Lilypond, and try it again.

lilypond.sh is a wrapper that launches python with a hard coded $INSTALLDIR.
This is a shell script, not an application. The application LilyPond can be 
moved to anywhere and still be used.

It resides in the .dmg and is not automatically installed to /usr/local/bin, by 
the way. Any user wanting to use this shellscript should modify it to his 
envorinment, since such a user would be savvy enough to do so.

> You can easily increase Lilypond movability by writing a more inteelligent
> Python script, but again, this was not the question.

It's a shell script that invokes python, it's not a python script.

> > Lilypond really isn't a good example of a general Mac application 
> > either.
> 
> So your definition of a "general Mac application" one that admist being
> moved?

Of course not. A Mac application is a application that is based on the 
guidelines provided by Apple. No one has claimed that it's impossible to write 
a $INSTALLDIR sensitive app on Mac, but rather that it by far is the norm, or 
even common. Or heck - barely heard of.

> So your statement that there are no general Mac application that
> cannot be moved becomes a definition?

Obviously not. It's a fabrication on your part.

> > > > I am expecting an exhaustive list of applications.
> > > 
> > > Why exhaustive. One is enough for existence.
> > 
> > But not enough for there to be a problem. Note the thread title that 
> > implies 
> > that this is the rule, not the exception - which of course is false.
> 
> The Mac OS X Applications just run ordinary UNIX processes, and as for
> UNIX processes being movable in the filesystem, it depends how the
> developer of that program decides to do it.

And fact is that "OS X applications" can be moved around, save some really 
obscure and hard-to-find cases (of which none have been reported here yet).

And you're making a mistake if you somehow try to apply the myriad of 
implementation variants of general unix application to "general OSX 
applications" which would be something coded and compiled by Xcode, which does 
much of the standards stuff for free.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/27/2005 6:01:13 PM
In article <mr-146725.20011327102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > Well, try
> >   /usr/local/bin/lilypond --version
> > and then try moving Lilypond, and try it again.
> 
> lilypond.sh is a wrapper that launches python with a hard coded $INSTALLDIR.

I told you so.

> This is a shell script, not an application. The application LilyPond can be 
> moved to anywhere and still be used.

Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible for an
application to do so?

> A Mac application is a application that is based on the 
> guidelines provided by Apple. 

So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable, every
application is or else it isn't an application - a definition again.

> > The Mac OS X Applications just run ordinary UNIX processes, and as for
> > UNIX processes being movable in the filesystem, it depends how the
> > developer of that program decides to do it.
> 
> And fact is that "OS X applications" can be moved around, save some really 
> obscure and hard-to-find cases (of which none have been reported here yet).
> 
> And you're making a mistake if you somehow try to apply the myriad of 
> implementation variants of general unix application to "general OSX 
> applications" which would be something coded and compiled by Xcode,
which does 
> much of the standards stuff for free.

There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the formar
runs some of the latter.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/27/2005 7:04:22 PM
In article <mr-146725.20011327102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> lilypond.sh is a wrapper that launches python with a hard coded $INSTALLDIR.
> This is a shell script, not an application.

Some applications just run a shell script.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/27/2005 7:36:19 PM
In article <haberg-2710052104260001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > Well, try
> > >   /usr/local/bin/lilypond --version
> > > and then try moving Lilypond, and try it again.
> > 
> > lilypond.sh is a wrapper that launches python with a hard coded $INSTALLDIR.
> 
> I told you so.

Actually, you told me that LilyPond couldn't be moved, which was false. 

> > This is a shell script, not an application. The application LilyPond can be 
> > moved to anywhere and still be used.
> 
> Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
> filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible for an
> application to do so?

If you have to ask, then I've not reached you with the point.

> > A Mac application is a application that is based on the 
> > guidelines provided by Apple. 
> 
> So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable, every
> application is or else it isn't an application - a definition again.

As long as your sentence contains an "if", it's not applicable to the 
discussion at hand. 

> > > The Mac OS X Applications just run ordinary UNIX processes, and as for
> > > UNIX processes being movable in the filesystem, it depends how the
> > > developer of that program decides to do it.
> > 
> > And fact is that "OS X applications" can be moved around, save some really 
> > obscure and hard-to-find cases (of which none have been reported here yet).
> > 
> > And you're making a mistake if you somehow try to apply the myriad of 
> > implementation variants of general unix application to "general OSX 
> > applications" which would be something coded and compiled by Xcode,
> > which does 
> > much of the standards stuff for free.
> 
> There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the formar
> runs some of the latter.

I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much 
departed from the discussion. Have a nice day.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/27/2005 7:37:46 PM
In article <haberg-2710052136200001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > lilypond.sh is a wrapper that launches python with a hard coded $INSTALLDIR.
> > This is a shell script, not an application.
> 
> Some applications just run a shell script.

And you would still call them applications?
I bet you'd be pretty alone with that definition.

Even so - are these applications-that-only-run-a-shell-script unmovable? If 
not, why are they relevant to the thread?

I'm actually still waiting for someone to name an application that can not be 
moved from /Applications.

IN the early years of OSX, System Preferences was such an application. That has 
changed though. As of 10.4, Dictionary.app had to reside in /Applications for 
the on-mouse-over-definitions to work in other applications, but is not a 
requirement for the application itself to function properly.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/27/2005 7:40:23 PM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-5601F0.21374627102005@individual.net...
> In article <haberg-2710052104260001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> >
> > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the
formar
> > runs some of the latter.
>
> I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much
> departed from the discussion. Have a nice day.
>

It's not the first time that Sr. Aberg has moved to Semantic Country.

Greg



0
G
10/27/2005 7:47:32 PM
In article <mr-5601F0.21374627102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> Actually, you told me that LilyPond couldn't be moved, which was false.

I said the UNIX stuff wouldn't work if was moved, I recall.
 
> > Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
> > filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible for an
> > application to do so?
> 
> If you have to ask, then I've not reached you with the point.

Clearly not.

> > > A Mac application is a application that is based on the 
> > > guidelines provided by Apple. 
> > 
> > So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable, every
> > application is or else it isn't an application - a definition again.
> 
> As long as your sentence contains an "if", it's not applicable to the 
> discussion at hand.

It was an attempt to understand your claims.

> > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the formar
> > runs some of the latter.
> 
> I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much 
> departed from the discussion. 

I try to inform about the technical language in use.

>Have a nice day.

Goodbye.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/27/2005 9:30:56 PM
In article <mr-B0F5FE.21402327102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <haberg-2710052136200001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > > lilypond.sh is a wrapper that launches python with a hard coded
$INSTALLDIR.
> > > This is a shell script, not an application.
> > 
> > Some applications just run a shell script.
> 
> And you would still call them applications?

They are launched like an application, but only have a shell script to
run. The idea is giving people not used running from a console a GUI.

> I bet you'd be pretty alone with that definition.

No, it's you that's alone. :-)

> Even so - are these applications-that-only-run-a-shell-script unmovable? 

It then clearly depends on the shell script, just as with any other UNIX
program. BTW, you can program under Mac OS 9- so that an Application is
not movable, if you so want. Just put in some code, requiring an absloute
path in the filesystem.

> I'm actually still waiting for someone to name an application that can not be 
> moved from /Applications.

LilyPond cannot be moved, without hacking, if you want to run it from the
Terminal.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/27/2005 9:35:49 PM
In article <11m2bmmlbl0ivde@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> > > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the
> formar
> > > runs some of the latter.
> >
> > I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much
> > departed from the discussion. Have a nice day.
> >
> 
> It's not the first time that Sr. Aberg has moved to Semantic Country.

As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
will not know what you are speaking about.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/27/2005 9:39:46 PM
In article <m23bmock1z.fsf@marvin.revier.com>,
 Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net> wrote:

> Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> writes:
> 
> > In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> >  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
> >> they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
> >> resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish. 
> >> 
> >> Real programmers who wanting to make proper Mac applications have no
> >> real troubles at all.
> >
> > This is funny. I've yet to see a single decent way of building a 
> > cross-platform application. Do you know one?
> 
> Tcl/Tk is great for that. Portable between MS Windows, X11 on Unix/Linux
> and OS X.

Yeah, but you can always _tell_. An app should look and act like a 
native app on any platform for which it's deployed. I'm only aware of 
one cross-platform framework that came anywhere close to achieving that, 
and it was very large in both footprint and budget.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/27/2005 9:40:44 PM
In article <261020050557400252%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
 sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <uce-9270C7.08080826102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> >  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
> > > they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
> > > resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish.
> > 
> > Um. Nothing about OS X has made the porting of Windows apps to the Mac 
> > easier, and no technical change has made it more common.
> 
> No, porting Windows stuff didn't become easier,

Which is what the person to whom I was responding had claimed.

> It used to be that porting a unix tool to Windows was a lot easier than
> porting it to Mac -- the reverse is now true.

I wonder if you could expand on that. Aside from the awkwardness of 
dealing with command-line arguments, I'm not sure how or why that would 
be true. And I've coded for all three of the platforms mentioned in that 
statement.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/27/2005 9:42:55 PM
In article <mr-B0F5FE.21402327102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> I'm actually still waiting for someone to name an application that can not be 
> moved from /Applications.

adobe version cue (part of adobe creative suite cs2) definitely did not
like being moved.  however, the rest of cs2 (and earlier versions) do
not have a problem being elsewhere. 

there was also some game i downloaded once whose name i do not recall
that when run, put up an alert that said 'this app must be in
/applications to run.'  at that point i decided a more appropriate
location was the trash.  

i seem to recall watson had some problems when moved, but i don't
recall exactly what they were.  it is sort of moot now since it is no
longer supported.

quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their original
location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for the system
updates to properly find and update the app.  so while the app itself
will still work when moved, it will not get updated if it is not where
the updater expects.  the net effect is, those apps need to stay in
their original location. 

garageband is fussy about the location of the jampacks.  

the apple developer tools must be installed on the boot drive.  the
developer folder is roughly 1.5gig, and it would be nice to be able to
put it on a second drive, particularly with a powerbook or ibook that
has limited internal disk space.  

firefox explicitly says it cannot be run off the .dmg.  although it may
not need to be in /applications, it can't be run from 'anywhere.'
0
nospam
10/27/2005 10:10:36 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2710052339450001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <11m2bmmlbl0ivde@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something
that
> > > > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the
latter
> > > > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the
> > formar
> > > > runs some of the latter.
> > >
> > > I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty
much
> > > departed from the discussion. Have a nice day.
> > >
> >
> > It's not the first time that Sr. Aberg has moved to Semantic Country.
>
> As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> will not know what you are speaking about.
>

I'm sure our dozens of UNIX Application Developers here know what an
application is.

Greg



0
G
10/27/2005 10:33:55 PM
In article <sdfisher-37B189.21432725102005@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> 
> Codewarrior in the late 90s is the very worst C/C++ development tool 
> I've ever used. It compiled slow, crashed constantly, and frequently 
[...]
> Compare Windows: Visual C++, Visual Basic, C++ Builder and Delphi. 
> That's just off the top of my head. Even the worst of which is a more 
> capable IDE than Codewarrior. The technical information was a lot more 
> available, too. As a Mac developer forced to develop some applications 
> on Windows, I was usually able to find out how to do things faster on 
> Windows than on a platform I had years of experience with.

I find this difference in experience rather amusing - I brought in 
CodeWarrior (for windows) during the time when the company I was with 
was using Borland C++, because I found CW less crashy and more usable.

Of course, this was right around when Borland was launching C++ Builder, 
and had no interest in fixing up Borland C++.  I spent half a day trying 
to file a crasher bug.

Scott

-- 
Scott Ellsworth
scott@alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
0
Scott
10/27/2005 11:06:15 PM
In article <uce-52EFDE.17425527102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <261020050557400252%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
>  sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-9270C7.08080826102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <261020051242233094%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> > >  Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > That's the problem. Lazy-ass "programmers" who simply want to "port"
> > > > they Windows applications to the Mac just for some quick-n-easy cash,
> > > > resulting in un-Mac-like rubbish.
> > > 
> > > Um. Nothing about OS X has made the porting of Windows apps to the Mac 
> > > easier, and no technical change has made it more common.
> > 
> > No, porting Windows stuff didn't become easier,
> 
> Which is what the person to whom I was responding had claimed.
> 
> > It used to be that porting a unix tool to Windows was a lot easier than
> > porting it to Mac -- the reverse is now true.
> 
> I wonder if you could expand on that. Aside from the awkwardness of 
> dealing with command-line arguments, I'm not sure how or why that would 
> be true. And I've coded for all three of the platforms mentioned in that 
> statement.

AppleScript Studio in Xcode makes putting a GUI for the commandline
args, etc, almost trivial. You don't have to modify the code of the
tool at all (assuming it is compiled for Darwin), just invoke it from
the UI in your AppleScript Studio frontend. The most common method is
to have a "panel" that includes checkboxes, radio-buttons, and text
boxes for the switches and their arguments, "browse" buttons attached
to text boxes so that you can either type file arguments or use a File
dialog to specify them, and a "do it" button. Optionally, you let the
user see the output in a text window (or in terminal).

Just as an example, I threw a frontend together for the par2
commandline tool before MacPAR Deluxe was updated to create par2 sets.
It took about an hour and I didn't have to touch the par2cmdline
source.

-- 
Spenser
0
sbt
10/27/2005 11:06:55 PM
In article <271020051510366207%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their original
> location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for the system
> updates to properly find and update the app.  so while the app itself
> will still work when moved, it will not get updated if it is not where
> the updater expects.  the net effect is, those apps need to stay in
> their original location. 

Are you sure? I thought this had been fixed in 10.2. I must admit, I 
leave the applications where Apple installs them, but this is so other 
users won't get confused rather than out of any update-fear.

> the apple developer tools must be installed on the boot drive.  the
> developer folder is roughly 1.5gig, and it would be nice to be able to
> put it on a second drive, particularly with a powerbook or ibook that
> has limited internal disk space.  

Isn't there a workaround one sentence later in the release notes?

> firefox explicitly says it cannot be run off the .dmg.  although it may
> not need to be in /applications, it can't be run from 'anywhere.'

Yeah, but this one is Firefox's bug, related to them attempting to 
create a virtual cross-platform machine but having to reboot it part way 
through startup. This and other stupid compromises are why I won't run 
Firefox.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/27/2005 11:08:03 PM
In article <scott-2F904C.16061527102005@news.west.cox.net>,
 Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

> I find this difference in experience rather amusing - I brought in 
> CodeWarrior (for windows) during the time when the company I was with 
> was using Borland C++, because I found CW less crashy and more usable.

I've never used Borland C++. It would surprise me if it was any good at 
all, since the whole product was little more than an afterthought.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/27/2005 11:13:41 PM
In article <sdfisher-9240A1.16080127102005@localhost>, Steven Fisher
<sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <271020051510366207%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their original
> > location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for the system
> > updates to properly find and update the app.  so while the app itself
> > will still work when moved, it will not get updated if it is not where
> > the updater expects.  the net effect is, those apps need to stay in
> > their original location. 
> 
> Are you sure? I thought this had been fixed in 10.2. I must admit, I 
> leave the applications where Apple installs them, but this is so other 
> users won't get confused rather than out of any update-fear.

i don't think it has been fixed.  i recently updated a non-apple app
and it installed a fresh copy in /applications, despite the original
being in a subfolder.  

> > the apple developer tools must be installed on the boot drive.  the
> > developer folder is roughly 1.5gig, and it would be nice to be able to
> > put it on a second drive, particularly with a powerbook or ibook that
> > has limited internal disk space.  
> 
> Isn't there a workaround one sentence later in the release notes?

interesting.  the file 'About Xcode Tools.pdf' has this to say:

   NOTE: Xcode Tools MUST be installed on the same hard drive partition 
   from which you booted Mac OS X. The Installer prevents installation 
   on any other partition. 

and a little later:

   If you have a small amount of disk space on your boot volume, you
   can set up a symbolic link for any part of the /Developer 
   hierarchy. The installer will respect the symbolic link and install
   the files correctly. For more information on symbolic links, see 
   "man ln". 

these two statements conflict each other.  nevertheless, it is a
welcomed workaround.  it would be ideal if the installer offered the
choice of target volumes and took care of whatever needed to be done
rather than make the user do it.
0
nospam
10/27/2005 11:38:02 PM
In article <271020051606556437%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
 sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <uce-52EFDE.17425527102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > > It used to be that porting a unix tool to Windows was a lot easier than
> > > porting it to Mac -- the reverse is now true.
> > 
> > I wonder if you could expand on that. Aside from the awkwardness of 
> > dealing with command-line arguments, I'm not sure how or why that would 
> > be true. And I've coded for all three of the platforms mentioned in that 
> > statement.
> 
> AppleScript Studio in Xcode makes putting a GUI for the commandline
> args, etc, almost trivial. You don't have to modify the code of the
> tool at all (assuming it is compiled for Darwin), just invoke it from
> the UI in your AppleScript Studio frontend.

I suppose. I'll grant that has gotten easiER; I'm just having trouble 
with the implication that it was ever meaningfully difficult.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/27/2005 11:49:52 PM
In article <sdfisher-9240A1.16080127102005@localhost>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their 
> > original location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for 
> > the system updates to properly find and update the app.  so while 
> > the app itself will still work when moved, it will not get updated 
> > if it is not where the updater expects.  the net effect is, those 
> > apps need to stay in their original location. 
> 
> Are you sure? I thought this had been fixed in 10.2. I must admit, I 
> leave the applications where Apple installs them, but this is so 
> other users won't get confused rather than out of any update-fear.

Well, if you move Pages or Keynote 2 out of the iWork folder and into 
the Applications folder, Software Update won't find them, and therefore 
won't update them.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.
0
Michelle
10/27/2005 11:51:52 PM
nospam wrote:
> the apple developer tools must be installed on the boot drive.  the
> developer folder is roughly 1.5gig, and it would be nice to be able to
> put it on a second drive, particularly with a powerbook or ibook that
> has limited internal disk space.

I have /Developer on the boot drive of one iMac, NFS mounted
on the other.  I am not aware of it not working.  An earlier
version, I actually had on a FreeBSD disk NFS mounted, with
/Developer being an alias to it.  That also worked MOSTLY but
it had an occasional problem.

Microsoft Office Update does not work unless it and Office are in 
/Applications

-- 
Wes Groleau

Truth often suffers more from the heat of its defenders
than from the arguments of its opposers.
                        -- William Penn
0
Wes
10/28/2005 4:01:59 AM
In article <11m2lelq1sic4f1@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> > UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> > will not know what you are speaking about.
> >
> 
> I'm sure our dozens of UNIX Application Developers here know what an
> application is.

So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 11:03:41 AM
In article <haberg-2810051303410001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <11m2lelq1sic4f1@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> > > As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> > > UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> > > will not know what you are speaking about.
> > >
> > 
> > I'm sure our dozens of UNIX Application Developers here know what an
> > application is.
> 
> So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.

FWIW, I always thought of an application as a distributed body of code 
and its attendant resources while a process is an instance of that code 
loaded into memory and executing.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/28/2005 11:55:07 AM
In article <uce-E3FE1A.07550728102005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Gregory
Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > > I'm sure our dozens of UNIX Application Developers here know what an
> > > application is.
> > 
> > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> 
> FWIW, I always thought of an application as a distributed body of code 
> and its attendant resources while a process is an instance of that code 
> loaded into memory and executing.

Something like that. Mac OS X has a formal definition of this. But UNIX,
the OS, does not have any such concept, even though you clearly can bundle
a set of files and call them whatever you like.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 1:10:48 PM
In article <haberg-2710052330550001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > Actually, you told me that LilyPond couldn't be moved, which was false.
> 
> I said the UNIX stuff wouldn't work if was moved, I recall.

Exactly - the application will work just fine.

> > > Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
> > > filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible for an
> > > application to do so?
> > 
> > If you have to ask, then I've not reached you with the point.
> 
> Clearly not.

Do you think there is any chance you might understand it?

> > > > A Mac application is a application that is based on the 
> > > > guidelines provided by Apple. 
> > > 
> > > So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable, every
> > > application is or else it isn't an application - a definition again.
> > 
> > As long as your sentence contains an "if", it's not applicable to the 
> > discussion at hand.
> 
> It was an attempt to understand your claims.

Then it was a failed attempt.

> > > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> > > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the formar
> > > runs some of the latter.
> > 
> > I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much 
> > departed from the discussion. 
> 
> I try to inform about the technical language in use.

Your attempt failed, since it didn't even make any sense.





-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/28/2005 1:59:38 PM
In article <271020051510366207%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> I'm actually still waiting for someone to name an application that
>> can not be moved from /Applications.
> 
> adobe version cue (part of adobe creative suite cs2) definitely did not
> like being moved.  however, the rest of cs2 (and earlier versions) do
> not have a problem being elsewhere. 

Hmm, I've moved Version Cue to /Applications/Graphics/ and it works like a 
charm...

> there was also some game i downloaded once whose name i do not recall
> that when run, put up an alert that said 'this app must be in
> /applications to run.'  at that point i decided a more appropriate
> location was the trash.  

Indeed - and badly ported games doesn't make prime examples of how 
"applications can't be moved in OSX".

> i seem to recall watson had some problems when moved, but i don't
> recall exactly what they were.  it is sort of moot now since it is no
> longer supported.

I don't have it wo I can't try it out. Wasn't the developers name Karelia or 
something? From what I remember, he was a decent programmer and a OSX lover, so 
I have a hard time imagining Watson departing from the guidelines.

> quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their original
> location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for the system
> updates to properly find and update the app.

This is correct, and unfortunate. But it doesn't constitute a case where an 
application can't be moved to operate as designed.

> so while the app itself
> will still work when moved, it will not get updated if it is not where
> the updater expects.  the net effect is, those apps need to stay in
> their original location. 

Or need to be moved to /Applications prior to running software update.

> garageband is fussy about the location of the jampacks.  

True, support files need to be in specific places. The application itself does 
not.

> the apple developer tools must be installed on the boot drive.

Naturally, since it ties in with the BSD subsystem.

> the developer folder is roughly 1.5gig, and it would be nice to be
> able to put it on a second drive, particularly with a powerbook or
> ibook that has limited internal disk space.

No argue there.

> firefox explicitly says it cannot be run off the .dmg.  although it may
> not need to be in /applications, it can't be run from 'anywhere.'

Yeah, bad design. Firefox needs to edit things within its own bundle when run - 
presumably. There is no reason why an app need to do this. In any case, Firefox 
can be moved to any place but a locked disk, which is beyond the scope of this 
thread.



-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/28/2005 2:04:43 PM
In article <271020051638020958%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > Isn't there a workaround one sentence later in the release notes?
> 
> interesting.  the file 'About Xcode Tools.pdf' has this to say:
> 
>    NOTE: Xcode Tools MUST be installed on the same hard drive partition 
>    from which you booted Mac OS X. The Installer prevents installation 
>    on any other partition. 
> 
> and a little later:
> 
>    If you have a small amount of disk space on your boot volume, you
>    can set up a symbolic link for any part of the /Developer 
>    hierarchy. The installer will respect the symbolic link and install
>    the files correctly. For more information on symbolic links, see 
>    "man ln". 
> 
> these two statements conflict each other. 

Actually, they don't. The items installed in /Developer aren't location 
sensetive, but the BSD tools (such as gcc) are. They are installed into 
/usr/bin, not /Developer.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/28/2005 2:07:13 PM
In article <haberg-2710052335480001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > Some applications just run a shell script.
> > 
> > And you would still call them applications?
> 
> They are launched like an application, but only have a shell script to
> run. The idea is giving people not used running from a console a GUI.

They are called GUI wrappers, not applications.

> > I bet you'd be pretty alone with that definition.
> 
> No, it's you that's alone. :-)

Obviously not.

> > Even so - are these applications-that-only-run-a-shell-script unmovable? 
> 
> It then clearly depends on the shell script

A yes or no answer will suffice, not a "depends". Unless the answer is "Yes, 
you can't move them", then it's totally irrelevant. 

> just as with any other UNIX
> program. BTW, you can program under Mac OS 9- so that an Application is
> not movable, if you so want. Just put in some code, requiring an absloute
> path in the filesystem.

We've already establisheed that there is no built in function in OSX that slaps 
a developer in the face if he hard codes paths into his app. We are discussing 
whether this is the norm, widespread, common, uncommon, rare or even unheard 
of. So far, no one has mentioned an application that can not be moved from the 
place it was installed.

> > I'm actually still waiting for someone to name an application that can not 
> > be 
> > moved from /Applications.
> 
> LilyPond cannot be moved, without hacking, if you want to run it from the
> Terminal.

LilyPond, the application, can very much be moved. I've told you this before.



-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/28/2005 2:10:35 PM
In article <haberg-2710052339450001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <11m2bmmlbl0ivde@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> > > > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > > > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the
> > formar
> > > > runs some of the latter.
> > >
> > > I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much
> > > departed from the discussion. Have a nice day.
> > >
> > 
> > It's not the first time that Sr. Aberg has moved to Semantic Country.
> 
> As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> will not know what you are speaking about.

You're the only oone who would have problems knowing what people would be 
speaking about, it seems.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/28/2005 2:11:09 PM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> > > > > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses
> > > > > for the old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> > Maybe there are but they're harmless so you dont notice them.. :-/
> 
> Harmless somehow includes intentional file destruction and, much more
> commonly, system instability that leads to unintentional data loss?
It didnt happen to me or any Mac users I know. 
You shouldnt believe everything you read in MacWorld, MacAddict or
MacUser, they are paid by the software producers to push products by
writing these scare stories..

> > > > 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
> > > > viruses on my old Macs (since 1984).
> > > 
> > > And if you never saw them they never existed. Got it.
> > Not what I said or meant.
> 
> Then what did you mean by responding to the statement that there were
> dozens of viruses by indicating that you never saw one? What is the 
> relevance?
Huh? For me, it VERY relevant when I say I had no trouble with them!
If they were present, my set-up didnt detect or malfunction because of
them... with one exception. Disinfectant set off an alarm on a Mac at
work in the early 90s -and removed the virus. Thats ONCE in 20 years of
Macs!

> > But even if my OS was infected it was not
> > noticable, everything worked. Ergo: who cares if no damage is done?
> 
> If no damage is done, noone cares. No damage done was not the typical
> result of a viral or TH infection on a Mac. It's sort of not the point,
> except for that Merry Christmas thing.
Oh come on now, the vast majority were harmless.
Serious hackers avoided the Mac because Macs were rare and were not used
in security systems.

> > > > 2. OS X has not been around that long. The virii will come.
> > > 
> > > Maybe. Probably. But the first pre-X virus had already hit by this
> > > (relative) time. So in what coordinate system, please, is the old OS
> > > more virus-free than the current one?
> > We'll do the comparison when we get to OS XX, ok?
> 
> Why would that be okay? By your argument we should have as much OS X 
> malware by now as we did "classic" malware by 1990. Hasn't happened.
By your argument maybe. Mine says by the time the new OS has been
through 9-10 major versions (like the old) the virii should have
arrived.

ray
0
rlaughton
10/28/2005 2:16:04 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <11m2lelq1sic4f1@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
>>>UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
>>>will not know what you are speaking about.
>>>
>>
>>I'm sure our dozens of UNIX Application Developers here know what an
>>application is.
> 
> 
> So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> 

Someone had better tell Sun, IBM, Apple, and a host of other folks:

Sun: "Porting UNIX Applications to the Solaris Operating Environment"
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/portingUNIXapps.html

IBM: "Porting UNIX Applications to OpenEdition for VM/ESA"
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg245458.html


Apple: "Introduction to Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X"
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html

"Developing Cross-Platform Unix Applications with Mac OS X"
http://developer.apple.com/unix/crossplatform.html
0
Paul
10/28/2005 2:23:31 PM
In article <mr-EA6002.15593828102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > > Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
> > > > filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible for an
> > > > application to do so?
> > > 
> > > If you have to ask, then I've not reached you with the point.
> > 
> > Clearly not.
> 
> Do you think there is any chance you might understand it?

Not if you do not explain it.

> > > > > A Mac application is a application that is based on the 
> > > > > guidelines provided by Apple. 
> > > > 
> > > > So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable, every
> > > > application is or else it isn't an application - a definition again.
> > > 
> > > As long as your sentence contains an "if", it's not applicable to the 
> > > discussion at hand.
> > 
> > It was an attempt to understand your claims.
> 
> Then it was a failed attempt.

It is better you explain than continue with this kind of comments.

> > > > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> > > > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > > > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that
the formar
> > > > runs some of the latter.
> > > 
> > > I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty much 
> > > departed from the discussion. 
> > 
> > I try to inform about the technical language in use.
> 
> Your attempt failed, since it didn't even make any sense.

The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
described it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 3:50:10 PM
In article <mr-205326.16110928102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> > UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> > will not know what you are speaking about.
> 
> You're the only oone who would have problems knowing what people would be 
> speaking about, it seems.

It is better you stick to expressing your own opinions, rather claiming
what others might think.

Somehow you do not seem to understand what is obvious.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 3:52:37 PM
In article <mr-0BE80E.16071328102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > these two statements conflict each other. 
> 
> Actually, they don't. The items installed in /Developer aren't location 
> sensetive, but the BSD tools (such as gcc) are. They are installed into 
> /usr/bin, not /Developer.

if the developer tools MUST (their emphasis) be installed on the boot
drive, then there can't be a way to put it elsewhere.  yet they
describe a way to put the developer tools elsewhere.  so either the
tools MUST be on the boot drive, or they can be relocated elsewhere. 
one can't have it both ways.
0
nospam
10/28/2005 3:52:57 PM
In article <3seqj4Fnmc4uU1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:

> > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> 
> Someone had better tell Sun, IBM, Apple, and a host of other folks:
> 
> Sun: "Porting UNIX Applications to the Solaris Operating Environment"
> http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/portingUNIXapps.html
> 
> IBM: "Porting UNIX Applications to OpenEdition for VM/ESA"
> http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg245458.html
> 
> 
> Apple: "Introduction to Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X"
>
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html
> 
> "Developing Cross-Platform Unix Applications with Mac OS X"
> http://developer.apple.com/unix/crossplatform.html

Those are not application in the formal UNIX technical lingo, but an
informal use of the word "application". Mac OS X has a formal definition
fo what an application is, namely a specific way to bundle files to that
the GUI can use it.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 3:55:02 PM
In article <mr-1A8AFC.16044328102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > adobe version cue (part of adobe creative suite cs2) definitely did not
> > like being moved.  however, the rest of cs2 (and earlier versions) do
> > not have a problem being elsewhere. 
> 
> Hmm, I've moved Version Cue to /Applications/Graphics/ and it works like a 
> charm...

i moved it and it gave me a number of errors, and it recreated portions
of the contents of the version cue folder in /applications, despite the
rest of it being elsewhere.  i moved it back to /applications and the
errors went away and it worked fine.  this is with cs2. 

> > there was also some game i downloaded once whose name i do not recall
> > that when run, put up an alert that said 'this app must be in
> > /applications to run.'  at that point i decided a more appropriate
> > location was the trash.  
> 
> Indeed - and badly ported games doesn't make prime examples of how 
> "applications can't be moved in OSX".

so now the application has to meet some quality standard?  there *are*
applications that don't like being outside of /applications.  it may
not be a high profile app, but they do exist. 

> > quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their original
> > location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for the system
> > updates to properly find and update the app.
> 
> This is correct, and unfortunate. But it doesn't constitute a case where an 
> application can't be moved to operate as designed.

yes the app works fine - until there is an update. the net effect at
the end of the day is that these apps can't be moved unless one wants
additional hassles.  

> > so while the app itself
> > will still work when moved, it will not get updated if it is not where
> > the updater expects.  the net effect is, those apps need to stay in
> > their original location. 
> 
> Or need to be moved to /Applications prior to running software update.

in other words, it needs to be in /applications unless wants to shuffle
things around before and after every update.
0
nospam
10/28/2005 4:07:17 PM
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-1A8AFC.16044328102005@individual.net...
> In article <271020051510366207%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I'm actually still waiting for someone to name an application that
> >> can not be moved from /Applications.
> >
> > adobe version cue (part of adobe creative suite cs2) definitely did not
> > like being moved.  however, the rest of cs2 (and earlier versions) do
> > not have a problem being elsewhere.
>
> Hmm, I've moved Version Cue to /Applications/Graphics/ and it works like a
> charm...
>

I install all Apple applications in /Applications.  I install all 3rd-party
apps elsewhere, at the moment in /Volumes/Space/Applications.  So far all my
3rd-party apps work just fine.

Greg


0
G
10/28/2005 4:41:11 PM
"Paul Sture" <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote in message
news:3seqj4Fnmc4uU1@individual.net...
> Hans Aberg wrote:
> > In article <11m2lelq1sic4f1@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> > <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> >>>UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> >>>will not know what you are speaking about.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I'm sure our dozens of UNIX Application Developers here know what an
> >>application is.
> >
> >
> > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> >
>
> Someone had better tell Sun, IBM, Apple, and a host of other folks:
>
> Sun: "Porting UNIX Applications to the Solaris Operating Environment"
> http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/portingUNIXapps.html
>
> IBM: "Porting UNIX Applications to OpenEdition for VM/ESA"
> http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg245458.html
>
>
> Apple: "Introduction to Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X"
>
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html
>
> "Developing Cross-Platform Unix Applications with Mac OS X"
> http://developer.apple.com/unix/crossplatform.html

Why bother?  In the face of overwhelming usage in real-life Sr. Aberg will
continue to insist there is no such thing as an UNIX application.  I have
yet to find any RFC or similar document even remotely suggesting that one
will be crucified for saying UNIX application.

Greg


0
G
10/28/2005 4:45:00 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2810051750130001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <mr-EA6002.15593828102005@individual.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
> > > > > filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible
for an
> > > > > application to do so?
> > > >
> > > > If you have to ask, then I've not reached you with the point.
> > >
> > > Clearly not.
> >
> > Do you think there is any chance you might understand it?
>
> Not if you do not explain it.
>
> > > > > > A Mac application is a application that is based on the
> > > > > > guidelines provided by Apple.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable,
every
> > > > > application is or else it isn't an application - a definition
again.
> > > >
> > > > As long as your sentence contains an "if", it's not applicable to
the
> > > > discussion at hand.
> > >
> > > It was an attempt to understand your claims.
> >
> > Then it was a failed attempt.
>
> It is better you explain than continue with this kind of comments.
>
> > > > > There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is
something that
> > > > > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the
latter
> > > > > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that
> the formar
> > > > > runs some of the latter.
> > > >
> > > > I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty
much
> > > > departed from the discussion.
> > >
> > > I try to inform about the technical language in use.
> >
> > Your attempt failed, since it didn't even make any sense.
>
> The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
> described it.

Citation?

Greg


0
G
10/28/2005 4:50:17 PM
In article <11m4lcmsq30upe5@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Why bother?  In the face of overwhelming usage in real-life Sr. Aberg will
> continue to insist there is no such thing as an UNIX application.  

Why don't you track it down at <http://www.unix.org/>?

> I have
> yet to find any RFC or similar document even remotely suggesting that one
> will be crucified for saying UNIX application.

You are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want. But it does
not mean that it is a part of the UNIX standard.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 4:54:39 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2810051755060001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <3seqj4Fnmc4uU1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
> <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:
>
> > > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> >
> > Someone had better tell Sun, IBM, Apple, and a host of other folks:
> >
> > Sun: "Porting UNIX Applications to the Solaris Operating Environment"
> > http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/portingUNIXapps.html
> >
> > IBM: "Porting UNIX Applications to OpenEdition for VM/ESA"
> > http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg245458.html
> >
> >
> > Apple: "Introduction to Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X"
> >
>
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/chapter_1_section_1.html
> >
> > "Developing Cross-Platform Unix Applications with Mac OS X"
> > http://developer.apple.com/unix/crossplatform.html
>
> Those are not application in the formal UNIX technical lingo, but an
> informal use of the word "application". Mac OS X has a formal definition
> fo what an application is, namely a specific way to bundle files to that
> the GUI can use it.

So now you're bringing in formal vs informal.  Nice.  You originally said
that no UNIX developer would even understand what an application is:  "Don't
ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one will not know what you
are speaking about."  Quit backpedaling.

Greg


0
G
10/28/2005 4:57:33 PM
In article <11m4lmd940kth61@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
> > described it.
> 
> Citation?

I looked into (as mentioned before in this thread) Maurice J. Bach, "The
Design of the UNIX Operating System", and Leffler, McKusick, Karles &
Quarterman, "The Design and Impelmentation of the BSD UNIX Operating
System". There is also a site for UNIX (POSIX) standarization,
<http://www.unix.org/>.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 5:00:35 PM
In article <11m4m41snt81k0e@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> So now you're bringing in formal vs informal.  

I always did.

>Nice.  

Thanks.

>You originally said
> that no UNIX developer would even understand what an application is:  "Don't
> ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one will not know what you
> are speaking about."  Quit backpedaling.

It evidently so that the UNIX applications mentioned are file bundles,
which then contains UNIX programs, whereas a UNIX program is a single
file. Does it sound good to mix the two notions up?

It is best somebody interested checks out more in detail what those
speaking about UNIX applications mean by that and reports back here.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 5:05:09 PM
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> writes:

>> > This is funny. I've yet to see a single decent way of building a 
>> > cross-platform application. Do you know one?
>> 
>> Tcl/Tk is great for that. Portable between MS Windows, X11 on Unix/Linux
>> and OS X.
>
> Yeah, but you can always _tell_. An app should look and act like a 
> native app on any platform for which it's deployed.

This depends largely on what GUI elements your applications needs and
how far you'd like to go in adjusting things to look and act like a
"native" app. Tk *is* native on OS X and Windows. On X11... well.
There is no "native" toolkit there, so it's a bit of a matter of taste.

> I'm only aware of one cross-platform framework that came anywhere
> close to achieving that, and it was very large in both footprint and
> budget.

Which one? 


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 
0
Jochem
10/28/2005 5:20:16 PM
In article <haberg-2810051905120001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> It is best somebody interested checks out more in detail what those
> speaking about UNIX applications mean by that and reports back here.

Well, I always thought 'application' was short for 'application program' 
as opposed to a system program or a utility. I think the term is loosely 
defined by what it is not, and any attempt at a formal definition would 
be pointless.

There is no doubt that 'application' is a term often used in the Unix 
world. See, for instance:
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/programmer/application-principles/>

I believe the distinction that is germane here is that between Mac OS 
applications, which are understood to behave in a particular way, and 
other programs that run on Mac OS.


Alwyn
0
Alwyn
10/28/2005 5:31:54 PM
On 2005-10-28, Ray Laughton <rlaughton@invalid.com> wrote:
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses
>> > > > > for the old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
>> > Maybe there are but they're harmless so you dont notice them.. :-/
>> 
>> Harmless somehow includes intentional file destruction and, much more
>> commonly, system instability that leads to unintentional data loss?
> It didnt happen to me or any Mac users I know. 
> You shouldnt believe everything you read in MacWorld, MacAddict or
> MacUser, they are paid by the software producers to push products by
> writing these scare stories..

You can take your tinfoil hat off now.

That said, I've heard quite a few Mac viral horror stories from places
other than MacWorld, etc.

>> > > > 1. Apart from that microsoft macro virus I never had trouble with
>> > > > viruses on my old Macs (since 1984).
>> > > 
>> > > And if you never saw them they never existed. Got it.
>> > Not what I said or meant.
>> 
>> Then what did you mean by responding to the statement that there were
>> dozens of viruses by indicating that you never saw one? What is the 
>> relevance?
> Huh? For me, it VERY relevant when I say I had no trouble with them!

That just means you were lucky.

> If they were present, my set-up didnt detect or malfunction because of
> them... with one exception. Disinfectant set off an alarm on a Mac at
> work in the early 90s -and removed the virus. Thats ONCE in 20 years of
> Macs!

Again, you were lucky.  Of course, it was a different time then, when
the main way to get viruses was by copying infected floppies.

-- 

-------------------- http://www.techhouse.org/lou ----------------------
"Dragonmaster Lou"    | "Searching for a distant star, heading off to  
lou at tealstudios com| Iscandar, leaving all we love behind, who knows
Tech House Alum       | what dangers we'll find..."                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
Dragonmaster
10/28/2005 5:40:17 PM
In article <dt015a1979-245D2A.18315228102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> > It is best somebody interested checks out more in detail what those
> > speaking about UNIX applications mean by that and reports back here.
> 
> Well, I always thought 'application' was short for 'application program' 
> as opposed to a system program or a utility.

It seems to be more a bundle of files, which may contain one or more
programs. The UNIX kernel does as such not recognize any difference
betweem system or or utility programs, etc., even though there are
different ways to start and run such programs: there are just programs,
and an instantiation thereof is called a process. By contrast, Mac OS 9-
did make such distinctions. So UNIX is simpler than Mac OS 9-.

> I think the term is loosely 
> defined by what it is not, and any attempt at a formal definition would 
> be pointless.

In the UNIX world, I think it so. 

> There is no doubt that 'application' is a term often used in the Unix 
> world. See, for instance:
> <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/programmer/application-principles/>

Apparently.

> I believe the distinction that is germane here is that between Mac OS 
> applications, which are understood to behave in a particular way, and 
> other programs that run on Mac OS.

They also directories with files that are bundled in a particular way.

It is somewhat confusing, but now that Mac OS X is UNIX based, it is
probably good to sort this stuff out. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 5:42:44 PM
In article <m2slul8sof.fsf@marvin.revier.com>,
 Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net> wrote:

> > I'm only aware of one cross-platform framework that came anywhere
> > close to achieving that, and it was very large in both footprint and
> > budget.
> 
> Which one? 

Galaxy.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/28/2005 5:43:56 PM
In article <1h55e9m.bqwdut1i6lhs2N%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
 rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > This is most definitely incorrect. There were dozens of viruses
> > > > > > for the old Mac OS, there are none for Mac OS X.
> > > Maybe there are but they're harmless so you dont notice them.. :-/
> > 
> > Harmless somehow includes intentional file destruction and, much more
> > commonly, system instability that leads to unintentional data loss?
> It didnt happen to me or any Mac users I know. 
> You shouldnt believe everything you read in MacWorld, MacAddict or
> MacUser, they are paid by the software producers to push products by
> writing these scare stories..

Didn't have to read about it. I _did_ see it happen.

> > > We'll do the comparison when we get to OS XX, ok?
> > 
> > Why would that be okay? By your argument we should have as much OS X 
> > malware by now as we did "classic" malware by 1990. Hasn't happened.
>
> By your argument maybe. Mine says by the time the new OS has been
> through 9-10 major versions (like the old) the virii should have
> arrived.

They arrived for traditional Mac OS in far less than "9-10 major 
versions."

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
0
Gregory
10/28/2005 5:46:52 PM
In article <haberg-2810051942470001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > I believe the distinction that is germane here is that between Mac OS 
> > applications, which are understood to behave in a particular way, and 
> > other programs that run on Mac OS.
> 
> They also directories with files that are bundled in a particular way.

That is an application bundle. Not all Mac OS applications are thus 
structured, although the vast majority of them are today. The current 
ICQ program, for instance, is a single (PEF) file.


Alwyn
0
Alwyn
10/28/2005 6:02:38 PM
In article <dt015a1979-1998B9.19023728102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> > They also directories with files that are bundled in a particular way.
> 
> That is an application bundle. Not all Mac OS applications are thus 
> structured, although the vast majority of them are today. The current 
> ICQ program, for instance, is a single (PEF) file.

The PEF file, is it executed directly, or via the Classic environment?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 7:02:08 PM
In article <haberg-2810052102120001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <dt015a1979-1998B9.19023728102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > > They also directories with files that are bundled in a particular way.
> > 
> > That is an application bundle. Not all Mac OS applications are thus 
> > structured, although the vast majority of them are today. The current 
> > ICQ program, for instance, is a single (PEF) file.
> 
> The PEF file, is it executed directly, or via the Classic environment?

ICQ 3.4 is one of those programs that will work on both Mac OS X and 
earlier Mac OS with CarbonLib. There are not so many of them left, but 
their mere existence proves that not all applications are organised in 
bundles.


Alwyn
0
Alwyn
10/28/2005 7:11:02 PM
In article <dt015a1979-B64A46.20110128102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> > The PEF file, is it executed directly, or via the Classic environment?
> 
> ICQ 3.4 is one of those programs that will work on both Mac OS X and 
> earlier Mac OS with CarbonLib. There are not so many of them left, but 
> their mere existence proves that not all applications are organised in 
> bundles.

This is the point I was curios about. PEF is a binary code format used on
Mac OS 9-, but Mac OS X uses what is called Mach-O or something.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 7:30:59 PM
In article <haberg-2810052131000001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <dt015a1979-B64A46.20110128102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > > The PEF file, is it executed directly, or via the Classic environment?
> > 
> > ICQ 3.4 is one of those programs that will work on both Mac OS X and 
> > earlier Mac OS with CarbonLib. There are not so many of them left, but 
> > their mere existence proves that not all applications are organised in 
> > bundles.
> 
> This is the point I was curios about. PEF is a binary code format used on
> Mac OS 9-, but Mac OS X uses what is called Mach-O or something.

You are correct; however, PEF (or CFM) executable files can also be run 
on Mac OS X.

> Building Carbon Applications
> Because Carbon is just a collection of C programming interfaces, you can use 
> just about any Macintosh C development environment that supports PowerPC to 
> build Carbon applications. However, there are some limitations. For example, 
> Carbon developers can create applications in two different executable 
> formats:
>    �	Mach-O. This is the native executable format on Mac OS X. Mach-O-based 
>    executables can run only on Mac OS X.
>    �	
>    �	PEF. The Preferred Executable Format (PEF) binary was the native 
>    executable format for PowerPC Mac OS systems before Mac OS X. With some 
>    work, PEF executables can run on Mac OS X as well as some earlier systems. 
>    Note that PEF applications are sometimes called CFM-based applications 
>    because the Code Fragment Manager is the mechanism for preparing and 
>    executing such files.
>    �	
> Older environments, such as Apple's MPW, can produce only PEF executables; 
> while others, such as Metrowerks CodeWarrior, let you build either PEF or 
> Mach-O versions. Which tool you use depends on what platforms you are 
> targeting.
> Project Builder and Interface Builder are Apple's development tools for 
> building Mach-O-based applications on Mac OS X. Both tools have been written 
> with Carbon in mind, and they come free with Mac OS X, making them excellent 
> choices for new developers targeting Mac OS X.
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Conceptual/newtocarbon/c
h01.html>


Alwyn
0
Alwyn
10/28/2005 7:46:05 PM
In article <haberg-2810052131000001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> This is the point I was curios about. PEF is a binary code format used on
> Mac OS 9-, but Mac OS X uses what is called Mach-O or something.

PEF/CFM is also supported on Mac OS X. However, Xcode can't build CFM.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/28/2005 8:16:07 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <11m4lmd940kth61@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
>>>described it.
>>
>>Citation?
> 
> 
> I looked into (as mentioned before in this thread) Maurice J. Bach, "The
> Design of the UNIX Operating System", and Leffler, McKusick, Karles &
> Quarterman, "The Design and Impelmentation of the BSD UNIX Operating
> System". There is also a site for UNIX (POSIX) standarization,
> <http://www.unix.org/>.
> 

Whoa - Cop out! I you are so insistent, then it's only politeness to do 
the research yourself and come up with url or two.
0
Paul
10/28/2005 8:17:13 PM
In article <sdfisher-F778BC.13160928102005@localhost>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <haberg-2810052131000001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
>  haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
> 
> > This is the point I was curios about. PEF is a binary code format used on
> > Mac OS 9-, but Mac OS X uses what is called Mach-O or something.
> 
> PEF/CFM is also supported on Mac OS X. However, Xcode can't build CFM.

I forgot to mention PEF/CFM applications *can* be bundles, they just 
don't have to be. I don't think a Mach-O application can be a single 
file. So there is some advantage to CFM if you're not overly fond of 
bundles.

-- 
Steven Fisher; sdfisher@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
0
Steven
10/28/2005 8:17:51 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:

> You are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want. But it does
> not mean that it is a part of the UNIX standard.

I don't think that anyone claimed that the term "Application" had a 
formal definition in the Unix standard.  Look the words "file" mean 
something different on Mac filesystems (with their resource forks) then 
for most other Unix file systems.  But we can still use the word "file" 
without problem.  In the rare circumstances when these subtle 
differences actually matter we can be more precise.

So while as a Unix user for 25 years, I don't tend to use the word 
"application", I'm not going to have a fit when someone refers to say, 
GIMP or LaTeX as applications.

In user space (not the Unix technical meaning, but in the way users look 
at things) these all are "applications" irrespective of how the 
operating system treats them.

-j

0
Jeffrey
10/28/2005 8:20:20 PM
In article <dt015a1979-1792B4.20460528102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> > This is the point I was curios about. PEF is a binary code format used on
> > Mac OS 9-, but Mac OS X uses what is called Mach-O or something.
> 
> You are correct; however, PEF (or CFM) executable files can also be run 
> on Mac OS X.

Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that Carbon'ized
applications were more adapted to UNIX/Mach. Examples of non-bundled app's
are NewsWatcher-X and OzTeX.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 8:20:48 PM
In article <3sffa9Fng0q5U1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:

> >>>The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
> >>>described it.
> >>
> >>Citation?
> > 
> > I looked into (as mentioned before in this thread) Maurice J. Bach, "The
> > Design of the UNIX Operating System", and Leffler, McKusick, Karles &
> > Quarterman, "The Design and Impelmentation of the BSD UNIX Operating
> > System". There is also a site for UNIX (POSIX) standarization,
> > <http://www.unix.org/>.

> Whoa - Cop out! I you are so insistent, then it's only politeness to do 
> the research yourself and come up with url or two.

You mean providing a link for something I do not think exist? :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 8:22:26 PM
In article <11m5206ese03671@news.supernews.com>, jeffrey+news@goldmark.org
wrote:

> > You are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want. But it does
> > not mean that it is a part of the UNIX standard.
> 
> I don't think that anyone claimed that the term "Application" had a 
> formal definition in the Unix standard.  

I think you are wrong there. People seem to have muddled picture about
these things, which in itself is not strange, given the compexity of it.

> Look the words "file" mean 
> something different on Mac filesystems (with their resource forks) then 
> for most other Unix file systems.  But we can still use the word "file" 
> without problem.  In the rare circumstances when these subtle 
> differences actually matter we can be more precise.

In the case you give, one must keep the disticntion between the formal
definition of a Mac OS HFS file, a UNIX file, and the intuitive notion of
a file.

> So while as a Unix user for 25 years, I don't tend to use the word 
> "application", I'm not going to have a fit when someone refers to say, 
> GIMP or LaTeX as applications.

Well, I think if you do not make the disticntion clear on the Mac OS X
hybrid platform, causal Mac users will get even more confused when trying
to figure how things are getting executed and so on, especially when
working from the Terminal or another console.

> In user space (not the Unix technical meaning, but in the way users look 
> at things) these all are "applications" irrespective of how the 
> operating system treats them.

One problem, on Mac OS X, is that applications and programs are executed
differently, and have different file structures. So not making the
distinction is like saying apples and oranges are the same.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 8:41:49 PM
In article <haberg-2810051854430001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <11m4lcmsq30upe5@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why bother?  In the face of overwhelming usage in real-life Sr. Aberg will
> > continue to insist there is no such thing as an UNIX application.  
> 
> Why don't you track it down at <http://www.unix.org/>?
> 

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification.html
"The UNIX specification has been separated from its licensed source-code 
product, and "UNIX'' has become a single stable specification to be used 
to develop portable APPLICATIONS that run on systems conforming to the 
Single UNIX Specification"

http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/login_threads.html
"Some APPLICATION developers may wish to change the stack guard size. 
When an APPLICATION creates a large number of threads, the extra page 
allocated for each stack may strain system resources. "

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/why_this_is_different.html
"This set of specifications would contain about 1170 separate APIs and 
be derived from those used by the most popular business APPLICATIONS 
running on UNIX systems."

http://www.unix.org/about.html
"Standards allow APPLICATIONS to be developed independent of any 
particular operating system implementation. They allow a stable 
foundation on which APPLICATION development can occur and application 
investment can be preserved. The UNIX specification is one such 
APPLICATION platform."


For your complete reading enjoyment search "site:unix.org application" 
on Google.

Cheers,
DT
0
Dino
10/28/2005 8:58:39 PM
In article <dino-1332F5.16583828102005@news.starpower.net>, Dino Tobin
<dino@kozmo.com> wrote:

> > Why don't you track it down at <http://www.unix.org/>?
> 
> http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification.html
> "The UNIX specification has been separated from its licensed source-code 
> product, and "UNIX'' has become a single stable specification to be used 
> to develop portable APPLICATIONS that run on systems conforming to the 
> Single UNIX Specification"
> 
> http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/login_threads.html
> "Some APPLICATION developers may wish to change the stack guard size. 
> When an APPLICATION creates a large number of threads, the extra page 
> allocated for each stack may strain system resources. "
> 
> http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/why_this_is_different.html
> "This set of specifications would contain about 1170 separate APIs and 
> be derived from those used by the most popular business APPLICATIONS 
> running on UNIX systems."
> 
> http://www.unix.org/about.html
> "Standards allow APPLICATIONS to be developed independent of any 
> particular operating system implementation. They allow a stable 
> foundation on which APPLICATION development can occur and application 
> investment can be preserved. The UNIX specification is one such 
> APPLICATION platform."

So what is the definition of application?

You may not be aware of it, but it says that applications can be developed
on the UNIX platform, not that applciations are a part of the UNIX OS
technical definition vocabulary.

I can develop a Web browser on the UNIX platform (if it has GUI like X
Window), but it does not mean that the UNIX OS has Web browsers as a
defined concept. Right?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 9:15:39 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2810052315410001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
>
> So what is the definition of application?
>

Goodness, who cares?  None of your examples create any confusion on my part,
and I doubt they'd cause confusion for a UNIX Application Developer.

Greg



0
G
10/28/2005 9:24:58 PM
In article <11m55pd78n6r7f4@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > So what is the definition of application?
> 
> Goodness, who cares?  

There seems to be people knocking their heads on this question over and
over again, and I do not know really why. I just try to help them on the
way.

> None of your examples create any confusion on my part,

I did't know I gave any examples.

> and I doubt they'd cause confusion for a UNIX Application Developer.

So do you mean those consider "application" and "program" as synonymous?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 9:40:01 PM
In article <11m55pd78n6r7f4@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T.">
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> ... a UNIX Application Developer.

Perhaps this might enlighten those who so wish:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/28/2005 10:38:32 PM
In article <haberg-2810051854430001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
>In article <11m4lcmsq30upe5@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
><getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> Why bother?  In the face of overwhelming usage in real-life Sr. Aberg will
>> continue to insist there is no such thing as an UNIX application.  
>
>Why don't you track it down at <http://www.unix.org/>?
>
>> I have
>> yet to find any RFC or similar document even remotely suggesting that one
>> will be crucified for saying UNIX application.
>
>You are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want. But it does
>not mean that it is a part of the UNIX standard.

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html



-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.
0
russotto
10/29/2005 1:16:52 AM
In article <sdfisher-DFCD1C.16134127102005@localhost>,
 Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <scott-2F904C.16061527102005@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:
> 
> > I find this difference in experience rather amusing - I brought in 
> > CodeWarrior (for windows) during the time when the company I was with 
> > was using Borland C++, because I found CW less crashy and more usable.
> 
> I've never used Borland C++. It would surprise me if it was any good at 
> all, since the whole product was little more than an afterthought.

Your instincts are correct.  Based on my experiences back about ten 
years, Borland C++ was prety much utter junk.

Scott

-- 
Scott Ellsworth
scott@alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
0
Scott
10/29/2005 1:22:51 AM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
That's right, you can't apply Unix to anything.
It's like the points on "Who's Line Is It Anyway?"

Oh, you mean application programs?
Yes, Unix is in a sort of semantic Twilight Zone.
It has application programmers,
but no application programs.


-- 
Wes Groleau
   "To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying
    Amen to what the world tells you you should prefer,
    is to have kept your soul alive."
                          -- Robert Louis Stevenson
0
Wes
10/29/2005 3:13:33 AM
Steven Fisher wrote:
> I forgot to mention PEF/CFM applications *can* be bundles, they just 
> don't have to be. I don't think a Mach-O application can be a single 
> file. So there is some advantage to CFM if you're not overly fond of 

I sense another argument about the meaning of application.
Rather than be drawn into that, I offer one example of a
single file, and everybody make their own decision whether
it supports, refutes, or is irrelevant.

Graphite:~ wgroleau$ file /bin/ls
/bin/ls: Mach-O executable ppc
Graphite:~ wgroleau$ ls -lat /bin/ls
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  32464 23 Sep 19:48 /bin/ls


-- 
Wes Groleau

    In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
    from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
0
Wes
10/29/2005 3:19:53 AM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> Well, I think if you do not make the disticntion clear on the Mac OS X
> hybrid platform, causal Mac users will get even more confused when trying
> to figure how things are getting executed and so on, especially when
> working from the Terminal or another console.

Do casual Mac users actually try to figure out how things are getting 
executed and so on ?

-- 
Wes Groleau
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^  A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent ^
^  of a black velvet clown painting.  It's a rectangle of carets      ^
^  surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like        ^
^  Heinlein or Dr. Who.                                               ^
^                                -- Chris Maeda                       ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
0
Wes
10/29/2005 3:23:10 AM
In article <281020050907173316%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > adobe version cue (part of adobe creative suite cs2) definitely did not
> > > like being moved.  however, the rest of cs2 (and earlier versions) do
> > > not have a problem being elsewhere. 
> > 
> > Hmm, I've moved Version Cue to /Applications/Graphics/ and it works like a 
> > charm...
> 
> i moved it and it gave me a number of errors, and it recreated portions
> of the contents of the version cue folder in /applications, despite the
> rest of it being elsewhere.  i moved it back to /applications and the
> errors went away and it worked fine.  this is with cs2. 

CS2 here too. I can't duplicate this.

> > > there was also some game i downloaded once whose name i do not recall
> > > that when run, put up an alert that said 'this app must be in
> > > /applications to run.'  at that point i decided a more appropriate
> > > location was the trash.  
> > 
> > Indeed - and badly ported games doesn't make prime examples of how 
> > "applications can't be moved in OSX".
> 
> so now the application has to meet some quality standard?  there *are*
> applications that don't like being outside of /applications.  it may
> not be a high profile app, but they do exist. 

So name them. I don't consider badly ported *games* to be applications.

> > > quite a few applications, notably apple's, must be in their original
> > > location (/applications or /applications/utilities) for the system
> > > updates to properly find and update the app.
> > 
> > This is correct, and unfortunate. But it doesn't constitute a case where an 
> > application can't be moved to operate as designed.
> 
> yes the app works fine - until there is an update.

Actually, the application will continue to work fine regardless if an update is 
available or not.

> > > so while the app itself
> > > will still work when moved, it will not get updated if it is not where
> > > the updater expects.  the net effect is, those apps need to stay in
> > > their original location. 
> > 
> > Or need to be moved to /Applications prior to running software update.
> 
> in other words, it needs to be in /applications unless wants to shuffle
> things around before and after every update.

But not in order for them to actually run.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 4:28:32 AM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <3sffa9Fng0q5U1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
> <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
>>>>>described it.
>>>>
>>>>Citation?
>>>
>>>I looked into (as mentioned before in this thread) Maurice J. Bach, "The
>>>Design of the UNIX Operating System", and Leffler, McKusick, Karles &
>>>Quarterman, "The Design and Impelmentation of the BSD UNIX Operating
>>>System". There is also a site for UNIX (POSIX) standarization,
>>><http://www.unix.org/>.
> 
> 
>>Whoa - Cop out! I you are so insistent, then it's only politeness to do 
>>the research yourself and come up with url or two.
> 
> 
> You mean providing a link for something I do not think exist? :-)
> 
But you implied that it does exist, in your previous reply to me:

 >From: Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se>
 >Date: 28.10.2005 17:55 Uhr
 >
 >Those are not application in the formal UNIX technical lingo, but an
 >informal use of the word "application".

That to me implies that "application" does have some meaning in "formal 
UNIX technical lingo".
0
Paul
10/29/2005 6:01:22 AM
In article <mr-ECAA5E.06283229102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> CS2 here too. I can't duplicate this.

i did the following:

boot tiger (version cue is not automatically started).
move version cue from /applications to /applictions/mine
open the system preference panel for version cue and turn it on

after a few moments an error was displayed that it could not start
version cue. 

looking in the console:

2005-10-28 23:48:44 : VCDataReadFromFile failed to
open(/Applications/Adobe Version Cue CS2/config/StartupOptions.xml)
<errno:2> No such file or directory
2005-10-28 23:48:44 : VCDataReadFromFile failed to
open(/Applications/Adobe Version Cue CS2/config/VersionCueSettings.xml)
<errno:2> No such file or directory
2005-10-28 23:48:48 : VCDataReadFromFile failed to
open(/Applications/Adobe Version Cue CS2/config/StartupOptions.xml)
<errno:2> No such file or directory
2005-10-28 23:48:48 : VCDataReadFromFile failed to
open(/Applications/Adobe Version Cue CS2/config/VersionCueSettings.xml)
<errno:2> No such file or directory

i then quit the system preference panel, moved version cue back to
/applications and then re-opened the preference panel and turned it on.
it worked.

> > so now the application has to meet some quality standard?  there *are*
> > applications that don't like being outside of /applications.  it may
> > not be a high profile app, but they do exist. 
> 
> So name them. I don't consider badly ported *games* to be applications.

as i stated, i don't recall the name.  the fact it bitched that it
wasn't in the right place meant it was crap so in the trash it went. 
it probably lasted no more than a minute on my hard drive. 

> > yes the app works fine - until there is an update.
> 
> Actually, the application will continue to work fine regardless if an update
> is 
> available or not.

it may continue to work, assuming that other parts of the system that
get updated do not affect it in any way.  and why must one have to
shuffle an app around just to keep it updated?  this is one reason why
relying on hardcoded pathnames is bad.
0
nospam
10/29/2005 7:26:03 AM
In article <3sghhjFo8mmoU1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:

> >>Whoa - Cop out! I you are so insistent, then it's only politeness to do 
> >>the research yourself and come up with url or two.
> > 
> > You mean providing a link for something I do not think exist? :-)
> > 
> But you implied that it does exist, in your previous reply to me:

You jumped into the thread without reading the context properly.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 10:39:02 AM
In article <yWB8f.168$hp5.55@trnddc04>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:

> > Well, I think if you do not make the disticntion clear on the Mac OS X
> > hybrid platform, causal Mac users will get even more confused when trying
> > to figure how things are getting executed and so on, especially when
> > working from the Terminal or another console.
> 
> Do casual Mac users actually try to figure out how things are getting 
> executed and so on ?

Well, from the input of this thread, apparently not.

But then again, it is going to become harder and harder to pretend Mac OS
X does not have anything with UNIX to do. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 10:40:22 AM
In article <xNB8f.166$hp5.10@trnddc04>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:

> > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> That's right, you can't apply Unix to anything.
> It's like the points on "Who's Line Is It Anyway?"
> 
> Oh, you mean application programs?
> Yes, Unix is in a sort of semantic Twilight Zone.
> It has application programmers,
> but no application programs.

This is what I tried to say. I do not know what those in this thread using
the word "application" mean by that, and suspect they probably do not know
it either (with a few exceptions). :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 10:43:07 AM
In article <haberg-2910051243070001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <xNB8f.166$hp5.10@trnddc04>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:
> 
> > > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> > That's right, you can't apply Unix to anything.
> > It's like the points on "Who's Line Is It Anyway?"
> > 
> > Oh, you mean application programs?
> > Yes, Unix is in a sort of semantic Twilight Zone.
> > It has application programmers,
> > but no application programs.
> 
> This is what I tried to say. I do not know what those in this thread using
> the word "application" mean by that, and suspect they probably do not know
> it either (with a few exceptions). :-)



http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/tutorial.html

"UNIX, on the other hand, lets a computer do several things at once, 
such as printing out one file while the user edits another file. This is 
a major feature for users, since users don't have to wait for one 
application to end before starting another one."

"Today there are hundreds of UNIX applications that can be purchased 
from third-party vendors, in addition to the applications that come with 
UNIX."

"The UNIX system is functionally organized at three levels:
   �	The kernel, which schedules tasks and manages storage;
   �	The shell, which connects and interprets users' commands, calls 
programs from memory, and executes them; and
   �	The tools and applications that offer additional functionality to 
the operating system"



Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
have some letter writing to do, Hans!


Cheers,
DT
0
Dino
10/29/2005 2:26:53 PM
In article <dino-941CF8.10265329102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
<dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
> http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/tutorial.html
> 
> "UNIX, on the other hand, lets a computer do several things at once, 
> such as printing out one file while the user edits another file. This is 
> a major feature for users, since users don't have to wait for one 
> application to end before starting another one."
> 
> "Today there are hundreds of UNIX applications that can be purchased 
> from third-party vendors, in addition to the applications that come with 
> UNIX."
> 
> "The UNIX system is functionally organized at three levels:
>    �    The kernel, which schedules tasks and manages storage;
>    �    The shell, which connects and interprets users' commands, calls 
> programs from memory, and executes them; and
>    �    The tools and applications that offer additional functionality to 
> the operating system"

> Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
> have some letter writing to do, Hans!

You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 3:52:18 PM
In article <wcudnfPxrKIZUP_eRVn-ug@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> >You are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want. But it does
> >not mean that it is a part of the UNIX standard.
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html

Have a look at
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
and then come back.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 3:52:50 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <dino-941CF8.10265329102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
: <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
: > http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/tutorial.html
: > 
: > "UNIX, on the other hand, lets a computer do several things at once, 
: > such as printing out one file while the user edits another file. This is 
: > a major feature for users, since users don't have to wait for one 
: > application to end before starting another one."
: > 
: > "Today there are hundreds of UNIX applications that can be purchased 
: > from third-party vendors, in addition to the applications that come with 
: > UNIX."
: > 
: > "The UNIX system is functionally organized at three levels:
: >    ?    The kernel, which schedules tasks and manages storage;
: >    ?    The shell, which connects and interprets users' commands, calls 
: > programs from memory, and executes them; and
: >    ?    The tools and applications that offer additional functionality to 
: > the operating system"
: 
: > Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
: > have some letter writing to do, Hans!
: 
: You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
:    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software

And who are you gonna believe, Bell Labs, or the Wikipedia?

/me smirks

Sorry, but this is an especially silly thread. Completely
bereft of anything more than semantic bickering.
0
Chris
10/29/2005 4:14:41 PM
In article <haberg-2910051752200001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <dino-941CF8.10265329102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
> <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/tutorial.html
> > 
> > "UNIX, on the other hand, lets a computer do several things at once, 
> > such as printing out one file while the user edits another file. This is 
> > a major feature for users, since users don't have to wait for one 
> > application to end before starting another one."
> > 
> > "Today there are hundreds of UNIX applications that can be purchased 
> > from third-party vendors, in addition to the applications that come with 
> > UNIX."
> > 
> > "The UNIX system is functionally organized at three levels:
> >    �    The kernel, which schedules tasks and manages storage;
> >    �    The shell, which connects and interprets users' commands, calls 
> > programs from memory, and executes them; and
> >    �    The tools and applications that offer additional functionality to 
> > the operating system"
> 
> > Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
> > have some letter writing to do, Hans!
> 
> You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software

Ah, but you have forgotten your initial, silly proclamation.  Have a 
look at:

"There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the 
formar runs some of the latter.

-- 
  Hans Aberg"

Invented by Apple, eh Hans?  Wikipedia seems to neglect that "fact" of 
yours - perhaps you should edit the entry? ;-)


Cheers,
DT
0
Dino
10/29/2005 4:17:19 PM
In article <dino-BC22E0.12171929102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
<dino@kozmo.com> wrote:

> Ah, but you have forgotten your initial, silly proclamation.  Have a 
> look at:
> 
> "There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the 
> formar runs some of the latter.

It means that the UNIX OS only executes programs not applications. Why are
you posting if you do not follow the discussion?

Does the Mac OS X have a web browser? Or is it a program distributed with
the Mac OS X?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 4:24:10 PM
In article <1T2l2s01IkpoN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> : > Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
> : > have some letter writing to do, Hans!
> : 
> : You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
> :    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
> 
> And who are you gonna believe, Bell Labs, or the Wikipedia?

Why don't you try some of the belief groups to sort it out?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 4:25:58 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <1T2l2s01IkpoN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: 
: > : > Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
: > : > have some letter writing to do, Hans!
: > : 
: > : You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
: > :    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
: > 
: > And who are you gonna believe, Bell Labs, or the Wikipedia?
: 
: Why don't you try some of the belief groups to sort it out?

Because I have socks to sort.

Seriously, what is there to gain from this exercise?
0
Chris
10/29/2005 4:33:16 PM
In article <dino-BC22E0.12171929102005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
 Dino Tobin <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
> 
> Ah, but you have forgotten your initial, silly proclamation.  Have a 
> look at:
> 
> "There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something that
> Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the 
> formar runs some of the latter.

One wishes Mr Aberg would confine himself to mathematics, about which he 
seems most knowledgeable. When he engages in discussions like this and 
spuriously seeks to perpetuate them, he merely makes himself look silly.


Alwyn
0
Alwyn
10/29/2005 4:36:06 PM
In article <0T2l2t5eIl3aN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> Seriously, what is there to gain from this exercise?

You seem the one to decide.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 4:40:18 PM
In article <dt015a1979-9AD86B.17360529102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:

> One wishes Mr Aberg would confine himself to mathematics, about which he 
> seems most knowledgeable. When he engages in discussions like this and 
> spuriously seeks to perpetuate them, he merely makes himself look silly.

Personal attacks like this usually come into play when the originator does
not have factual arguments at hand.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 4:41:32 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <0T2l2t5eIl3aN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: 
: > Seriously, what is there to gain from this exercise?
: 
: You seem the one to decide.

Tomato, tomato, potato, potato, let's call the whole thing off...
0
Chris
10/29/2005 4:51:30 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <dt015a1979-9AD86B.17360529102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
: Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:
: 
: > One wishes Mr Aberg would confine himself to mathematics, about which he 
: > seems most knowledgeable. When he engages in discussions like this and 
: > spuriously seeks to perpetuate them, he merely makes himself look silly.
: 
: Personal attacks like this usually come into play when the originator does
: not have factual arguments at hand.

Usually.

In this case, though... you seem like an intelligent guy who
has become obsessed by meaningless minutia. Silly.
0
Chris
10/29/2005 4:53:37 PM
In article <281020050852571730%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > these two statements conflict each other. 
> > 
> > Actually, they don't. The items installed in /Developer aren't location 
> > sensetive, but the BSD tools (such as gcc) are. They are installed into 
> > /usr/bin, not /Developer.
> 
> if the developer tools MUST (their emphasis) be installed on the boot
> drive, then there can't be a way to put it elsewhere.  yet they
> describe a way to put the developer tools elsewhere.  so either the
> tools MUST be on the boot drive, or they can be relocated elsewhere. 
> one can't have it both ways.

You're not following. "The Developer Tools" need to be installed to the boot 
drive since *some of them* have to reside there. Not all of them, though. The 
installer doesn't (and really shouldn't) ask you if you want to put A in X and 
B in Y.

After installation, the entire /Developer structure (which doesn't constitute 
all that was installed in step 1) can be moved to anywhere.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:04:25 PM
In article <haberg-2810051752400001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > As said in the other post, I try to inform about the standard technical
> > > UNIX lingo. Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one
> > > will not know what you are speaking about.
> > 
> > You're the only oone who would have problems knowing what people would be 
> > speaking about, it seems.
> 
> It is better you stick to expressing your own opinions, rather claiming
> what others might think.
> 
> Somehow you do not seem to understand what is obvious.

My irony meter just exploded.

Have a nice day.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:04:51 PM
In article <haberg-2810051750130001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

>>>>> Well, it's only because it does not make use of any paths in the
>>>>> filesystem that would prevent it. Are you saying it is impossible
>>>>> for an application to do so?
>>>> 
>>>> If you have to ask, then I've not reached you with the point.
>>> 
>>> Clearly not.
>> 
>> Do you think there is any chance you might understand it?
> 
> Not if you do not explain it.

Lack of explanation is not the problem here.

>>>>>> A Mac application is a application that is based on the
>>>>>> guidelines provided by Apple.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So if the Apple specs says that an applicatin should be movable,
>>>>> every application is or else it isn't an application - a
>>>>> definition again.
>>>> 
>>>> As long as your sentence contains an "if", it's not applicable to
>>>> the discussion at hand.
>>> 
>>> It was an attempt to understand your claims.
>> 
>> Then it was a failed attempt.
> 
> It is better you explain than continue with this kind of comments.

Given that that action has already been taken, it is clear that the problem 
lies elsewhere.

>>>>> There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is
>>>>> something that Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX
>>>>> program, the latter which is normally called a "process" in UNIX
>>>>> lingo, except that the formar runs some of the latter.
>>>> 
>>>> I see you've moved into Semantic Country, which means you've pretty
>>>> much departed from the discussion.
>>> 
>>> I try to inform about the technical language in use.
>> 
>> Your attempt failed, since it didn't even make any sense.
> 
> The development of the UNIX OS has a formal technical vocabulary. I
> described it.

Or, at least you think you tried to.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:06:15 PM
In article <haberg-2810051755060001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <3seqj4Fnmc4uU1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
> <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:
> 
> > > So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications.
> > 
> > Someone had better tell Sun, IBM, Apple, and a host of other folks:
> > 
> > Sun: "Porting UNIX Applications to the Solaris Operating Environment"
> > http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/portingUNIXapps.html
> > 
> > IBM: "Porting UNIX Applications to OpenEdition for VM/ESA"
> > http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg245458.html
> > 
> > 
> > Apple: "Introduction to Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X"
> >
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/
> chapter_1_section_1.html
> > 
> > "Developing Cross-Platform Unix Applications with Mac OS X"
> > http://developer.apple.com/unix/crossplatform.html
> 
> Those are not application in the formal UNIX technical lingo, but an
> informal use of the word "application". Mac OS X has a formal definition
> fo what an application is, namely a specific way to bundle files to that
> the GUI can use it.

Please send me a postcard from Semantic Land.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:07:24 PM
In article <291020050026037195%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>> so now the application has to meet some quality standard?  there
>>> *are* applications that don't like being outside of /applications.
>>> it may not be a high profile app, but they do exist.
>> 
>> So name them. I don't consider badly ported *games* to be
>> applications.
> 
> as i stated, i don't recall the name.  the fact it bitched that it
> wasn't in the right place meant it was crap so in the trash it went.
> it probably lasted no more than a minute on my hard drive.

:)

>>> yes the app works fine - until there is an update.
>> 
>> Actually, the application will continue to work fine regardless if an
>> update is available or not.
> 
> it may continue to work, assuming that other parts of the system that
> get updated do not affect it in any way.

Of course it doesn't. I've never seen an update to some function in OSX that 
requires that I first updated application X separately.

> and why must one have to shuffle an app around just to keep it
> updated?

I don't know why, but it sure annoys me. Adobe can update their apps without 
them being in a particular position, why can't Apple? Hmmm.

> this is one reason why relying on hardcoded pathnames is
> bad.

Indeed - especially in the light of a spotlight-indexed hard drive, where 
Software Update easily could find every Apple application on the hard drive in 
a millisecond.



-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:13:12 PM
In article <haberg-2910051841330001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > One wishes Mr Aberg would confine himself to mathematics, about which he 
> > seems most knowledgeable. When he engages in discussions like this and 
> > spuriously seeks to perpetuate them, he merely makes himself look silly.
> 
> Personal attacks like this usually come into play when the originator does
> not have factual arguments at hand.

Is that a "upcoming events" notice from you, since you seem to have no factual 
arguments at hand.

-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:15:05 PM
In article <1T2l2u9dIlajN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> you seem like an intelligent guy who
> has become obsessed by meaningless minutia. Silly.

If you are not interested in the UNIX that now is a part of Mac OS X, you
can just do like the other "Mac-it-all" posters in this thread, pretend it
does not exist and use the GUI only. This will save you from derogative
sprinkling onto others.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 5:20:37 PM
In article <haberg-2910051752200001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <dino-941CF8.10265329102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
> <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/tutorial.html
> > 
> > "UNIX, on the other hand, lets a computer do several things at once, 
> > such as printing out one file while the user edits another file. This is 
> > a major feature for users, since users don't have to wait for one 
> > application to end before starting another one."
> > 
> > "Today there are hundreds of UNIX applications that can be purchased 
> > from third-party vendors, in addition to the applications that come with 
> > UNIX."
> > 
> > "The UNIX system is functionally organized at three levels:
> >    �    The kernel, which schedules tasks and manages storage;
> >    �    The shell, which connects and interprets users' commands, calls 
> > programs from memory, and executes them; and
> >    �    The tools and applications that offer additional functionality to 
> > the operating system"
> 
> > Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you 
> > have some letter writing to do, Hans!
> 
> You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software

In what way are you imagining that wikipedia is supporting your claim that the 
word "application" isn't used in UNIX - and that no one would understand what 
it meant?


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/29/2005 5:22:05 PM
In article <mr-C25086.19220529102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
> >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
> 
> In what way are you imagining that wikipedia is supporting your claim
that the 
> word "application" isn't used in UNIX - and that no one would understand what 
> it meant?

I think the claim is that the UNIX OS only executes programs and does not
know what an application is, and the latter is what some software
developers call their software packages developed to be run on the UNIX
platform.

It becomes complicated when you freely put your own words into others
mouth, and then set off with heavy polemics. Perhaps this is why you post
anonymously.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 5:31:29 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> This is what I tried to say. I do not know what those in this thread using
> the word "application" mean by that, and suspect they probably do not know
> it either (with a few exceptions). :-)

"Words do not have meanings.  People have meanings
  which they use words to express."
                       -- Angie Malderez

(Except that some people use words to obscure meaning.)

-- 
Wes Groleau
   ----
   The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
   than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
                             -- Thomas Jefferson
0
Wes
10/29/2005 6:46:36 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> Personal attacks like this usually come into play when the originator does
> not have factual arguments at hand.

Or when the originator has grown extremely weary
of a long senseless argument about which word
should be used to describe a fact instead of
about any actual facts.

-- 
Wes Groleau
Heroes, Heritage, and History
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/
0
Wes
10/29/2005 6:50:09 PM
Sandman wrote:
> I don't know why, but it sure annoys me. Adobe can update their apps without 
> them being in a particular position, why can't Apple? Hmmm.

Apple can, and sometimes they do.  But usually they don't.

-- 
Wes Groleau
   "Beware the barrenness of a busy life."
                                -- George Verwer
0
Wes
10/29/2005 6:54:05 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <wcudnfPxrKIZUP_eRVn-ug@speakeasy.net>,
>>
>>http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html
> 
> Have a look at
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
> and then come back.

How many times have you said this?

And what's your point?  That a web page ANYONE can update
is a better source than opengroup for the definition of a word?

-- 
Wes Groleau
Alive and Well
http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/
0
Wes
10/29/2005 6:56:46 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2910051752200001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <dino-941CF8.10265329102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
> <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/tutorial.html
> >
> > "UNIX, on the other hand, lets a computer do several things at once,
> > such as printing out one file while the user edits another file. This is
> > a major feature for users, since users don't have to wait for one
> > application to end before starting another one."
> >
> > "Today there are hundreds of UNIX applications that can be purchased
> > from third-party vendors, in addition to the applications that come with
> > UNIX."
> >
> > "The UNIX system is functionally organized at three levels:
> >    ?    The kernel, which schedules tasks and manages storage;
> >    ?    The shell, which connects and interprets users' commands, calls
> > programs from memory, and executes them; and
> >    ?    The tools and applications that offer additional functionality
to
> > the operating system"
>
> > Poor BL bastards, thinking "applications" come with UNIX!    I think you
> > have some letter writing to do, Hans!
>
> You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
>

I find nothing there that even remotely supports your contention that UNIX
developers wouldn't know what an application is.  Do you ever just quit?

Greg


0
G
10/29/2005 6:59:57 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2910051824110001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <dino-BC22E0.12171929102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
> <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, but you have forgotten your initial, silly proclamation.  Have a
> > look at:
> >
> > "There are no UNIX applications: the word "application" is something
that
> > Apple invented which has nothing to do with a UNIX program, the latter
> > which is normally called a "process" in UNIX lingo, except that the
> > formar runs some of the latter.
>
> It means that the UNIX OS only executes programs not applications. Why are
> you posting if you do not follow the discussion?
>

You said:

"So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications."  This has been
refuted over and over and over by many here.  When do you give up?

"Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one will not know
what you are speaking about."  Again, you have not come up with one citation
saying that a UNIX developer can't use the word "application".  In fact, we
have many UNIX Application Developers at work and they develop applications.
Not one of them that I have talked to so far care if an application is a
bundle of programs and support files, or if "application" is used in place
of "program".

Give it up already.

Greg


0
G
10/29/2005 7:07:56 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2910051841330001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <dt015a1979-9AD86B.17360529102005@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > One wishes Mr Aberg would confine himself to mathematics, about which he
> > seems most knowledgeable. When he engages in discussions like this and
> > spuriously seeks to perpetuate them, he merely makes himself look silly.
>
> Personal attacks like this usually come into play when the originator does
> not have factual arguments at hand.
>

How ironic.

Greg


0
G
10/29/2005 7:08:54 PM
In article <11m7hnurcv5qb51@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > In article <dino-941CF8.10265329102005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Dino Tobin
> > <dino@kozmo.com> wrote:
....
> Do you ever just quit?

Here you jump with your anonymous posts into sombody elses discussion
without knowing what it is about.

> I find nothing there that even remotely supports your contention that UNIX
> developers wouldn't know what an application is.  

I never said that. But apparently they don't, because I just checked with
the UNIX/POSIX standards development list that "application" does not
appear to be defined in the POSIX standard. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 7:25:49 PM
In article <11m7i4g78s3e12f@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > It means that the UNIX OS only executes programs not applications. Why are
> > you posting if you do not follow the discussion?
> 
> You said:
> 
> "So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications."  

Right, the UNIX OS only execute programs, and does not know anything about
applications.

> This has been
> refuted over and over and over by many here.  

Winshful thinking on your behalf.

>When do you give up?

You are the one supposed to resign to the facts.

> "Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one will not know
> what you are speaking about."  

Right. An "application" is probably a software package designed as
"application". It can't as such be run on a UNIX cmoputer, only the
programs it may contain can be run.

> Again, you have not come up with one citation
> saying that a UNIX developer can't use the word "application".  

You are freely inventing your own words an putting them into my mouth.
What I should I respond to that?

> In fact, we
> have many UNIX Application Developers at work and they develop applications.
> Not one of them that I have talked to so far care if an application is a
> bundle of programs and support files, or if "application" is used in place
> of "program".

So what?

> Give it up already.

You are the one to give it up. Perhaps you might produce more serious
posts if you stopped making anonymous posts.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 7:35:11 PM
In article <BvP8f.320$xp1.286@trnddc01>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:

> > Personal attacks like this usually come into play when the originator does
> > not have factual arguments at hand.
> 
> Or when the originator has grown extremely weary
> of a long senseless argument about which word
> should be used to describe a fact instead of
> about any actual facts.

Do you mean that if somebody is observing a discussion others have that
they do not like, that they must jump in with personal attacks?

Why not just let those that so wish sort it out by themselves and stay out
of it - go reading another thread?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 7:41:39 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <1T2l2u9dIlajN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: 
: > you seem like an intelligent guy who
: > has become obsessed by meaningless minutia. Silly.
: 
: If you are not interested in the UNIX that now is a part of Mac OS X, you
: can just do like the other "Mac-it-all" posters in this thread, pretend it
: does not exist and use the GUI only. This will save you from derogative
: sprinkling onto others.

Chances are that I've been grepping and vi'ing longer than
you've been, uh, doing something that you've been doing for
awhile. 

My background is in Unix, and I came to OSX only because it
had the best GUI planted on top of a Unix kernel that I had
yet seen. Still so.

I'm interested in solving actual problems. Splitting hairs
between what separates a program from an application does me
no good whatsoever. But you're going to have a very difficult
time convincing me that, say, Netscape for Solaris isn't an
application.
0
Chris
10/29/2005 8:19:09 PM
In article <1T2l3a6vIo02N34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> I'm interested in solving actual problems. Splitting hairs
> between what separates a program from an application does me
> no good whatsoever. But you're going to have a very difficult
> time convincing me that, say, Netscape for Solaris isn't an
> application.

All you have to do is to define it: I just checked with
the UNIX/POSIX standards development list that "application" does not
appear to be defined in the POSIX standard. :-)

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/29/2005 8:34:29 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2910052234310001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <1T2l3a6vIo02N34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in solving actual problems. Splitting hairs
> > between what separates a program from an application does me
> > no good whatsoever. But you're going to have a very difficult
> > time convincing me that, say, Netscape for Solaris isn't an
> > application.
>
> All you have to do is to define it: I just checked with
> the UNIX/POSIX standards development list that "application" does not
> appear to be defined in the POSIX standard. :-)
>

Nice non-sequitur.  Clearly UNIX Application Developers don't need
"application" to be defined in the POSIX standard because it's a de-facto
standard and obvious to everyone except the master of pseudo-semantics Hans
Aberg.

Greg Thomas


0
G
10/29/2005 9:17:24 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-2910052135130001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
>
>
> You are the one to give it up. Perhaps you might produce more serious
> posts if you stopped making anonymous posts.
>

Your unanonymous posts sure aren't keeping you from being an obstinate fool.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.system/browse_thread/thread/ed475a6f98390d2e/e6b4a55331b3a7f3?q=aberg+public+group:*mac*&hl=en&

Greg Thomas


0
G
10/29/2005 9:50:23 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <1T2l3a6vIo02N34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: 
: > I'm interested in solving actual problems. Splitting hairs
: > between what separates a program from an application does me
: > no good whatsoever. But you're going to have a very difficult
: > time convincing me that, say, Netscape for Solaris isn't an
: > application.
: 
: All you have to do is to define it:

That's where you're wrong. I don't. There's no need.
0
Chris
10/29/2005 10:05:46 PM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <BvP8f.320$xp1.286@trnddc01>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:
>>Or when the originator has grown extremely weary
>>of a long senseless argument about which word
>>should be used to describe a fact instead of
>>about any actual facts.
> 
> Do you mean that if somebody is observing a discussion others have that
> they do not like, that they must jump in with personal attacks?

Do you feel attacked?  Hmmm.  I wonder why.

-- 
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else.
                                     -- Benjamin Franklin
0
Wes
10/30/2005 1:32:52 AM
In article <haberg-2910051931300001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > > You haven't read the discussion. Have a look at:
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
> > 
>> In what way are you imagining that wikipedia is supporting your claim
>> that the word "application" isn't used in UNIX - and that no one
>> would understand what it meant?
> 
> I think the claim is that the UNIX OS only executes programs and does not
> know what an application is

"the UNIX OS" doesn't know any English at all. You seem to want to build a case 
where the term "programs" (or "processes" - you've been very inconsistent about 
it) are the only terms one can use to describe a binary in UNIX since there is 
some form of limitation (first with UNIX users and now with UNIX "OS") that 
will make these binaries somehow fail to work (either by UNIX users not having 
any clue what so ever what they are - or as you now claim, that the OS somehow 
can't even parse the word 'application').

You're no longeer in Semantic Land, and I don't you ever went there. You're 
actually in Loony Land, where you think you're making some form of point but 
find yourself having to redefine that point while trying desperately to ignore 
whatever you actually explicitly claimed earlier in the thread.

> and the latter is what some software developers call their software
> packages developed to be run on the UNIX platform.

BUt you earlier claimed that software developers on UNIX had no idea what an 
application was. I mean, really, how stupid do you have to be to bee qualified 
as a UNIX developer?

> It becomes complicated when you freely put your own words into others
> mouth

I bet it does. I'll take your word for it, though.

> and then set off with heavy polemics. Perhaps this is why you post
> anonymously.

I don't post anonymously. 



-- 
Sandman[.net]

  "Joe Ragosta is intelligent."
    - Edwin
0
Sandman
10/30/2005 5:22:32 AM
In article <hzP8f.321$xp1.152@trnddc01>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>> I don't know why, but it sure annoys me. Adobe can update their apps
>> without them being in a particular position, why can't Apple? Hmmm.
> 
> Apple can, and sometimes they do.  But usually they don't.

Yes, they do it sometimes. I worded it badly. The question would rather be why 
they are being so inconsistent.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/30/2005 5:23:31 AM
In article <haberg-2910052135130001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > You said:
> > 
> > "So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications."  
> 
> Right, the UNIX OS only execute programs, and does not know anything about
> applications.

That sentence would make sense if you interacted with "the UNIX OS" using the 
English language, where "start program foo" would work, but not "start 
application foo".

As it is - the word "program" *or* "application" isn't used in a scenario where 
the user is telling the operating system to launch a binary. The artificial 
limitation you're trying to impose on "the UNIX OS" just does not exist.

> > This has been
> > refuted over and over and over by many here.  
> 
> Winshful thinking on your behalf.

Great argument.

> >When do you give up?
> 
> You are the one supposed to resign to the facts.

We are the ones who have provided the facts, Einstein.

> > "Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application" because one will not know
> > what you are speaking about."  
> 
> Right. An "application" is probably a software package designed as
> "application".

"Probably"?

> It can't as such be run on a UNIX cmoputer, only the
> programs it may contain can be run.

So, the Oxford American Dictionary's definition of "application" does not apply 
on UNIX, for some strange and yet-to-be-revealed reason?

> > Again, you have not come up with one citation
> > saying that a UNIX developer can't use the word "application".  
> 
> You are freely inventing your own words an putting them into my mouth.
> What I should I respond to that?

We are even quoting you.

> > In fact, we
> > have many UNIX Application Developers at work and they develop applications.
> > Not one of them that I have talked to so far care if an application is a
> > bundle of programs and support files, or if "application" is used in place
> > of "program".
> 
> So what?
> 
> > Give it up already.
> 
> You are the one to give it up. Perhaps you might produce more serious
> posts if you stopped making anonymous posts.

In what way are you imagining you're less anonymous that me, for example?


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/30/2005 5:29:25 AM
In article <11m7pnal5b022f8@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > All you have to do is to define it: I just checked with
> > the UNIX/POSIX standards development list that "application" does not
> > appear to be defined in the POSIX standard. :-)
> >
> 
> Nice non-sequitur.  Clearly UNIX Application Developers don't need
> "application" to be defined in the POSIX standard because it's a de-facto
> standard and obvious to everyone except the master of pseudo-semantics Hans
> Aberg.

You are wrong as always:
   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
3.16 Application

If it wouldn't have been defined, it would have an error of the standrd,
of course. It's just that you do not know how to work with technical
documents. Right?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 9:12:35 AM
In article <1T2l3gksIp4jN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> : All you have to do is to define it:
> 
> That's where you're wrong. I don't. There's no need.

You are wrong as always:
   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
3.16 Application

If it wouldn't have been defined, it would have an error of the standrd,
of course. It's just that you do not know how to work with technical
documents. Right?

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 9:14:09 AM
In article <8pV8f.2174$sF6.280@trnddc03>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:

> > Do you mean that if somebody is observing a discussion others have that
> > they do not like, that they must jump in with personal attacks?
> 
> Do you feel attacked?  

Not really.

I merely observe strange behavior.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 9:15:52 AM
In article <mr-C4780C.07292530102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > "So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications."  
> > 
> > Right, the UNIX OS only execute programs, and does not know anything about
> > applications.
> 
> That sentence would make sense if you interacted with "the UNIX OS" using the 
> English language, where "start program foo" would work, but not "start 
> application foo".
....
> ... The artificial 
> limitation you're trying to impose on "the UNIX OS" just does not exist.
Why don't you look it up in Maurice J. Bach, "The Design of the UNIX OS".

It's a classical book.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 9:21:04 AM
In article <11m7rl4cocrj33b@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> Your unanonymous posts sure aren't keeping you from being an obstinate fool.
> 
>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.system/browse_thread/thread/ed475a6f98390d2e/e6b4a55331b3a7f3?q=aberg+public+group:*mac*&hl=en&

I have no idea what you are hinting at here. You'll have to clarify your
anonymous posts.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 9:23:54 AM
In article <haberg-3010051021060001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

>>>> "So explain what it is. UNIX does not have applications."
>>> 
>>> Right, the UNIX OS only execute programs, and does not know anything
>>> about applications.
>> 
>> That sentence would make sense if you interacted with "the UNIX OS"
>> using the English language, where "start program foo" would work, but
>> not "start application foo". The artificial limitation you're trying to
>> impose on "the UNIX OS" just does not exist.
>
> Why don't you look it up in Maurice J. Bach, "The Design of the UNIX OS".
> It's a classical book.

The artificial limitation you're trying to impose on "the UNIX OS" just does 
not exist.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/30/2005 9:34:29 AM
In article <haberg-3010051015540001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <8pV8f.2174$sF6.280@trnddc03>, groleau+news@freeshell.org wrote:
> 
> > > Do you mean that if somebody is observing a discussion others have that
> > > they do not like, that they must jump in with personal attacks?
> > 
> > Do you feel attacked?  
> 
> Not really.
> 
> I merely observe strange behavior.

Then you should get rid of all those mirrors.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/30/2005 9:34:48 AM
In article <haberg-3010051012360001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> > Nice non-sequitur.  Clearly UNIX Application Developers don't need
> > "application" to be defined in the POSIX standard because it's a de-facto
> > standard and obvious to everyone except the master of pseudo-semantics Hans
> > Aberg.
> 
> You are wrong as always:
>    http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
> 3.16 Application
> 
> If it wouldn't have been defined, it would have an error of the standrd,
> of course. It's just that you do not know how to work with technical
> documents. Right?

I see you've begun talking to yourself. But why did you quote someone else 
before your monologe?


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
10/30/2005 9:36:09 AM
In article <mr-9C2713.10342930102005@individual.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> >> The artificial limitation you're trying to
> >> impose on "the UNIX OS" just does not exist.
> >
> > Why don't you look it up in Maurice J. Bach, "The Design of the UNIX OS".
> > It's a classical book.
> 
> The artificial limitation you're trying to impose on "the UNIX OS" just does 
> not exist.

There is also Leffler, McKusick, Karels & Quarterman, "The Design and
Implementation of the BSD UNIX OS". Highly recommendable.

And of course, the UNIX kernel does not execute programs either; but it
would carry too far to explain that in this thread. But those books will
tell you why.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 9:42:33 AM
Hans Aberg wrote:
> In article <1T2l3gksIp4jN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>>: All you have to do is to define it:
>>
>>That's where you're wrong. I don't. There's no need.
> 
> 
> You are wrong as always:
>    http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
> 3.16 Application
> 

"3.16 Application

A computer program that performs some desired function."

It is perfectly clear that you are trying to force a different language 
and set of rules on us.


Here's a more commonly accepted definition of "application":

Chambers Online

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/chref/chref.py/main?query=application&title=21st

"application noun 1 a formal written or verbal request, proposal or 
submission, eg for a job. 2 a the act of putting something on (something 
else); b something put on (something else) � stopped the squeak with an 
application of oil. 3 the act of using something for a particular 
purpose � the application of statistics to interpret the data. 4 
computing a specific task or function that a computer system or program 
is designed to perform, eg payroll processing, stock control. 5 
computing, colloq an applications package. "

No way in the commercial world are either payroll processing or stock 
control applications confined to a single executable progam. They will 
typically consist of multiple executables, and also data file 
layouts/templates, documentaion etc.
0
Paul
10/30/2005 11:44:39 AM
In article <3sjq18Foou92U1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
<paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:

> >    http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
> > 3.16 Application

> "3.16 Application
> 
> A computer program that performs some desired function."
> 
> It is perfectly clear that you are trying to force a different language 
> and set of rules on us.

This is what the POSIX standard says: a technical definition of the term.
Other technical documents may have other definitions.

> No way in the commercial world are either payroll processing or stock 
> control applications confined to a single executable progam. They will 
> typically consist of multiple executables, and also data file 
> layouts/templates, documentaion etc.

This informal use of the term was also pointed out. Technical documents
may have formalizations of this interpretation as well, as on the Mac OS
X.

Case closed.

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 1:23:14 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: In article <1T2l3gksIp4jN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: 
: > : All you have to do is to define it:
: > 
: > That's where you're wrong. I don't. There's no need.
: 
: You are wrong as always:

No I'm not. There is no need to define "application." Your
quoting definitions doesn't change that.

Sorry.

What a strange thread this is.
0
Chris
10/30/2005 4:10:02 PM
In article <0T2l5g58I70vN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
 Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:

> In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> : In article <1T2l3gksIp4jN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
> : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> : 
> : > : All you have to do is to define it:
> : > 
> : > That's where you're wrong. I don't. There's no need.
> : 
> : You are wrong as always:
> 
> No I'm not. There is no need to define "application." Your
> quoting definitions doesn't change that.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> What a strange thread this is.

It is a strange thread, but you have made an important point, if I may 
say so: Intelligent discourse is possible without defining terms. For 
instance, every native speaker of English knows what a chair is, and it 
would be weird indeed if we had to consult dictionary definitions to 
decide whether a piece of furniture was a stool, a chair or a sofa.

I think Wittgenstein said it best: Don't look for the meaning, look for 
the use.


Alwyn
0
Alwyn
10/30/2005 4:24:52 PM
In article <haberg-2910051240230001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

>But then again, it is going to become harder and harder to pretend Mac OS
>X does not have anything with UNIX to do. :-)

As Apple has been splattering UNIX all over their advertising
materials to the point of being sued over it, I don't see anyone doing
such pretending.


-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.
0
russotto
10/30/2005 4:44:49 PM
In comp.sys.mac.apps Alwyn <dt015a1979@mac.com> wrote:
: In article <0T2l5g58I70vN34@redshark.goodshow.net>,
:  Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: 
: > In comp.sys.mac.apps Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
: > : In article <1T2l3gksIp4jN34@redshark.goodshow.net>, Chris Bellomy
: > : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > : 
: > : > : All you have to do is to define it:
: > : > 
: > : > That's where you're wrong. I don't. There's no need.
: > : 
: > : You are wrong as always:
: > 
: > No I'm not. There is no need to define "application." Your
: > quoting definitions doesn't change that.
: > 
: > Sorry.
: > 
: > What a strange thread this is.
: 
: It is a strange thread, but you have made an important point, if I may 
: say so: Intelligent discourse is possible without defining terms. For 
: instance, every native speaker of English knows what a chair is, and it 
: would be weird indeed if we had to consult dictionary definitions to 
: decide whether a piece of furniture was a stool, a chair or a sofa.

It's pedantry, isn't it, to insist on rigid and narrow uses
of words? While it's true that we must agree that words mean
things, we must have enough flexibility in language such that
not every conversation devolves into metadiscussion like this
thread has.

: I think Wittgenstein said it best: Don't look for the meaning, look for 
: the use.

I often get frustrated because I try to be precise with my
language, and readers often take liberties with meaning that
I didn't intend -- that, in fact, I was specifically trying
to avoid. Nonetheless, I think I agree with you here.
0
Chris
10/30/2005 4:48:29 PM
In article <haberg-2910051752520001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
>In article <wcudnfPxrKIZUP_eRVn-ug@speakeasy.net>,
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> >You are free to invent and use whatever terminology you want. But it does
>> >not mean that it is a part of the UNIX standard.
>> 
>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap02.html
>
>Have a look at
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
>and then come back.

My link is to the group which purports to maintain the UNIX standard.
It trumps your Wikipedia link, regardless of the contents of that
link (which do not, in any case, appear to be relevant).  My link includes
a formal definition of the term "Strictly Conforming POSIX
Application".  The POSIX standard is (according to that same page) a
subset of the UNIX standard.  
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.
0
russotto
10/30/2005 4:48:49 PM
In article <X7udna4mCNjsZPneRVn-jQ@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> My link is to the group which purports to maintain the UNIX standard. ...

You come in late: I checked with the POSIX/UNIX Standardization list (yes,
the site maintains the POSIX/UNIX standard), and the first reply could not
find a definition, and the second, by I believe one of the principal
developers of it, gave:
  http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
  3.16 Application

-- 
  Hans Aberg
0
haberg
10/30/2005 5:33:34 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-3010051012360001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <11m7pnal5b022f8@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > > All you have to do is to define it: I just checked with
> > > the UNIX/POSIX standards development list that "application" does not
> > > appear to be defined in the POSIX standard. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Nice non-sequitur.  Clearly UNIX Application Developers don't need
> > "application" to be defined in the POSIX standard because it's a
de-facto
> > standard and obvious to everyone except the master of pseudo-semantics
Hans
> > Aberg.
>
> You are wrong as always:
>    http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
> 3.16 Application
>
> If it wouldn't have been defined, it would have an error of the standrd,
> of course. It's just that you do not know how to work with technical
> documents. Right?

How ironic.  An application is a program.  You're a very funny man.

Greg


0
G
10/30/2005 6:22:45 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-3010051023560001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <11m7rl4cocrj33b@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
> <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > Your unanonymous posts sure aren't keeping you from being an obstinate
fool.
> >
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.system/browse_thread/thread/ed475a6f98390d2e/e6b4a55331b3a7f3?q=aberg+public+group:*mac*&hl=en&
>
> I have no idea what you are hinting at here.

That you're an obstinate fool.

> You'll have to clarify your anonymous posts.

Why?  My friends call me GT, I've used it since 1996 on Usenet with no
changes, and anyone with even a modest knowledge of Usenet can see that my
name is Greg Thomas.  Hardly anonymous.  In fact, no less anonymous than
Hans Aberg.

Greg



0
G
10/30/2005 6:25:15 PM
"Hans Aberg" <haberg@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:haberg-3010051423160001@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se...
> In article <3sjq18Foou92U1@individual.net>, Paul Sture
> <paul.sture@decus.ch> wrote:
>
> > >
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap03.html
> > > 3.16 Application
>
> > "3.16 Application
> >
> > A computer program that performs some desired function."
> >
> > It is perfectly clear that you are trying to force a different language
> > and set of rules on us.
>
> This is what the POSIX standard says: a technical definition of the term.
> Other technical documents may have other definitions.
>

Then why did you say "Don't ever call a UNIX program an "application"
because one
will not know what you are speaking about."

If an application is a program then why would one not know what we are
speaking about?

Greg



0
G
10/30/2005 6:28:47 PM
In article <11ma40l3b2refc8@corp.supernews.com>, "G.T."
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> ... you're an obstinate fool.

If you only have personal attacks and derogative comments to deliver onto
others, why do you bother hanging out in technical discussion lists?

> since 1996 on Usenet

Have you done that since 1996?

> anyone with even a modest knowledge of Usenet can see that my
> name is Greg Thomas.

I doubt an