Mac OS X.12 Internal

Ensign Paris

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 4, 2001
1,781
0
Europe
ThinkSecret says:

Mac OS X 10.1.2 Update Released Internally

Last month, Think Secret broke the story on the 10.1.2 update to Mac OS X, aimed at fixing some of the many bugs from OS X 10.1.1. Yesterday we learned that the final version of the 10.1.2 update has been released to Apple employees, pointing to a nearing public release.

As previously noted, areas of revision in 10.1.2 include -- among other components -- FireWire, Ethernet, USB Audio, Classic, Image Capture, CD-RW support, PCMCIA, and IRDA.



------------------------------------

I really want the IrDa support for my powerbook. It will be really useful! And I want them to get rid of that really annoying program where programs just bounce up and down and don't open!

Guy
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
yeah..

its been floating arround on the web for a few weeks now. I was not brave enuph to undate with it untill Apple shipps it.
 

Ensign Paris

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 4, 2001
1,781
0
Europe
before friday

I finish school on thursday and am going to work on friday, better be released then!

Guy
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
bouncing icon, but no application startup...

Here's a solution to the problem of the bouncing application that won't start.

It seems that some file copying utilities don't preserve the permission bits (including the execution bit) of files under OS X. The result can be an application that is not recognized as an application by the file system.

A bit of Unix file system knowledge...

Every file under a Unix file system has several bits includeing: read, write and execute. These bits correspond to 3 positions: owner, group and everyone.

To see this, open the terminal and type "ls -l". This will give you a list view of the current folder. Note that each entry is preceded by a line that looks something like this...

-rwxr-xr-x <ownername> <groupname>

This is the permission setting of the file. Note that these letters represent 10 positions.

Position 1:
The first position designates whether or not the file is a directory. This is either a dash (-), which means file, or the letter 'd', which means it's a directory.

Positions 2,3,4:
These positions represent the read, write and execute permissions for the owner of the file. If the owner has full permissions on the file then these positions will show "rwx". If the owner only has read permission, it would show "r--".

Positions 4,5,6
These positions represent the permissions allowed by people who belong to the file's group.

Positions 7,8,9
These positions represent the permissions allowed for everyone else.

The position that is important to launching an application is the "execute" bit. If the "x" is not set for the user attempting to launch an application, the icon will bounce a few times but then nothing will happen.

*** BEGIN WARNING / DISCLAIMER ***
THE FOLLOWING DEMONSTRATES USE OF COMMAND LINE UTILITIES, WHICH IF MIS-USED, CAN SERIOUSLY CRIPPLE YOUR SYSTEM. USE OF THESE UTILITIES CAN ALSO HAMPER THE SECURITY OF YOUR SYSTEM. PLEASE FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS AT YOUR OWN RISK. THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT GUARANTEED IN ANY WAY.
*** END WARNING / DISCLAIMER ***

To reset the permissions on your Applications folder, open the terminal Application. (If your terminal application will not start, you can also perform this operation from ther terminal application on another machine that has file sharing access to your machine.)

1) Navigate to your root directory by typing "cd /" (or whatever directory contains the "Applications" directory on your system)

2) Type "chmod -R 755 Applications"
This tells the file system to recursively change the file permissions on your Applications folder to -rwxr-xr-x. Basically, this will give full permission to the owner of the applications and will give all users read and execute permission for your applications.

To set up permissions differently (perhaps not giving everyone execute permission), I recommend that the user read up on the 'chmod' utillity. The "man page" for chmod can be read by typing "man chmod" at the command line. However, you might find the man page a bit difficult to understand. I'm sure someone's got a good tutorial on the net somewhere. Try google.

Another issue that can occur is when ownership of a file gets lost. This can be addressed by using the "chown" command. To change ownership of a file, type "chown <username> <group> <filename>", where <username> is the new owner username, <group> is the new group name, and <filename> is the name of the file you'd like to change. "chown" also takes the "-R" recursive flag.









[Edited by oldMac on 12-18-2001 at 10:17 PM]
 

evildead

macrumors 65816
Jun 18, 2001
1,275
0
WestCost, USA
RE: OldMac

Thanks for the info. I am a UNIX admin (but still learning) and I am sure that some of the Mac users here are not aware of some of those commands. I ran in to the same bouncing Icon problem resently. I have not had time to fix it but Ill look into the permissions and owner. I just rebooted a few times and they started working again. I will probably have time to play with my Mac now that the semester is over.
 

joey j

macrumors regular
Oct 19, 2001
117
0
Re: bouncing icon, but no application startup...

oldMac>

*** BEGIN WARNING / DISCLAIMER ***
THE FOLLOWING DEMONSTRATES USE OF COMMAND LINE UTILITIES, WHICH IF MIS-USED, CAN SERIOUSLY CRIPPLE YOUR SYSTEM. USE OF THESE UTILITIES CAN ALSO HAMPER THE SECURITY OF YOUR SYSTEM. PLEASE FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS AT YOUR OWN RISK. THESE INSTRUCTIONS AR
E NOT GUARANTEED IN ANY WAY.
*** END WARNING / DISCLAIMER ***



Oh dear. This grows so corny after a while. The allcaps serve to magnify
the torture. I cringed reading the half that I managed to read. Mac users
aren't dumb by and large, in case you haven't noticed yet. Would you have
posted your patronising disclaimer if OS X users were using a (say) cocoa
frontend to chmod, rather than something distinctly terrifying (oh, yes)
like a command line (of all things)?

Specifically, why do some of us persist in perpetuating the myth that the
command line is intrinsically more dangerous ("... COMMAND LINE UTILITIES,
WHICH IF MIS-USED ...") than non-command line software?

oldMac, a newbie would be terrified of screwing something up when all
they're doing is changing perms and suid/gid bits and the like, all easily
fixable in case of mistake.
 

samy85114

macrumors regular
Dec 20, 2001
133
0
os x great

As you said, that upgrade looks to be very interresting with a lot of new features, but for myself, i dont think that it gonna have much more innovation, it doesngt seem to be something big... well i mean, its gonna be like the upgrade of os x .1.1 ... something like that, but i dont show that im dissapointed about what i heard on os x .2 but as i said it just be great... and it's good to release upgrade each 3 month... I,M not sure that Microsoft has the same opinion than me..? :) ( iM a mac user definitly )

 

AmbitiousLemon

Moderator emeritus
Nov 28, 2001
3,338
0
down in Fraggle Rock
just installed 10.1.2 and i havent looked around yet much but it sure seems the same. i think its mostly very small bug fixes that most of us wont notice. has anyone noticed any real differences?
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
522
1
joey j, power is dangerous...

Joey J,

The danger is that it's typically not as obvious as to what a command line utility will do given certain instructions. No one would ever make a GUI utility that required the user to know what the "755" does in the command I listed.

If you really don't feel the command line is dangerous, then please consider what would happen if you forgot "755" and typed "644" or some other completely valid sequence when performing the above command. Accidentally take away your ability to run the terminal application and then tell me how good you feel. That command line won't pop up a dialogue box that says "are you sure you want to do this".

If you're comfortable telling your Mom to play around with commands like chmod, chown, rm or other potentially commands while using recursive flags, then your Mom probably has a CS degree. For the "rest of us", I think we could use a disclaimer or two along the way.

If you're still not convinced, consider what that programmer at Apple did with iTunes 2 by becoming a little lazy at the command line.

[Edited by oldMac on 12-20-2001 at 11:59 PM]
 

DannyZR2

macrumors 6502
Sep 18, 2001
331
0
Texas
Re: joey j, power is dangerous...

Originally posted by oldMac
Joey J,

If you're still not convinced, consider what that programmer at Apple did with iTunes 2 by becoming a little lazy at the command line.

[Edited by oldMac on 12-20-2001 at 11:59 PM]
he he.. hey joey j, you may not like the guy, but he's got a point...


wonder what happened to that guy anyway.. ;)
 

joey j

macrumors regular
Oct 19, 2001
117
0
Re: joey j, power is dangerous...

oldMac>The danger is that it's typically not as obvious as to what a command
line utility will do given certain instructions.

I suppose, but chmod --help (for GNU chmod anyway) yields a listing of
options, one shouldn't be using it if they don't know what the functions
do, and that applies just as much to GUI apps as to CLI applets.


> No one would ever make a GUI utility that required the user to know what
the "755" does in the command I listed.

(they wouldn't? sure they would. for example, there are os x $5 sharewares
that give you less info than ifconfig ppp0)

So, given that the user knows whatever they need to know (rwx perms scheme
in this case), why scare them with DISCLAIMERS LIKE THIS? CLI apps aren't
intrinsically more dangerous than GUI apps; I doubt you would have
included such a disclaimer if it was a cocoa app in question.


>If you really don't feel the command line is dangerous,

Not significantly more dangerous than a GUI. It is if you don't know how
to use it, but if you don't know how to use something, stay away from it,
and that applies to GUIs as much as CLIs.


> then please consider what would happen if you forgot "755" and typed
"644" or some other completely valid sequence when performing the above
command. Accidentally take away your ability to run the terminal
application and

Oh dear. What a tragedy. I guess I'll have to chmod 755 /path/to/file.


> then tell me how good you feel.

I'm absolutely horrified. chmod 755 /path/to/file is just so incredibly
difficult I can't fathom what it must be like. Absolutely heartbreaking, I
can imagine.


> That command line won't pop up a dialogue box that says "are you sure
you want to do this".

Thank God. This isn't Windows.


>If you're comfortable telling your Mom to play around with commands like
chmod, chown, rm

Straw man. I didn't advocate people to use utilities they don't know the
functionings of, people need to know what permissions are, what chmod is
and what its flags denote before they actually use it. What I said is
(given that knowledge) don't include BIG SCARY DISCLAIMERS LIKE THIS; it
is extremely patronising.


> or other potentially commands while using recursive flags, then your Mom
probably has a CS degree. For the "rest of us", I think we could use a
disclaimer or two along the way.

True, but your point is somewhat lost given that chmod doesn't have an
interactive mode to prompt the user, not all that many utilities (speaking
from a GNU perspective, I don't know how the Lite-derived utils stack up)
have an interactive mode to spit out disclaimers. The command line isn't
for newbies anyway; stay out of it if you don't know what you're doing.


>If you're still not convinced, consider what that programmer at Apple did
with iTunes 2 by becoming a little lazy at the command line.

True. But would an interactive ("disclaimer or two along the way") rm have
helped the scripter any (i didn't see the script, I'm assuming it was
-rf)?