Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Warning Message While Repairing Permissions

Warning Message While Repairing Permissions
Thread Tools
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2012, 12:50 AM
 
Hey all,

I wonder if I could trouble you for some troubleshooting.

When I was running the repair permissions disk utility I saw this message:

Warning: SUID file "System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app/Contents/MacOS/ARDAgent" has been modified and will not be repaired.

Is this a problem?
Is there something I need to do about it?

Thanks!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2012, 03:05 AM
 
That Message is completely normal and can safely be ignored.

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1448
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2012, 09:18 AM
 
You also probably don't have to waste your time repairing permissions, depending on your reason for doing this.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
no that's not a problem and you don't need to do something about it. don't worry it's kinda normal. ignore it.
don't judge a book by its cover :p
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You also probably don't have to waste your time repairing permissions, depending on your reason for doing this.
I recommend to most of my users once a month to keep a machine running healthy.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I recommend to most of my users once a month to keep a machine running healthy.
Why? This is a complete and utter waste of time. There is no "healthy". You run the tool when you need very specific things fixed, such as applications not launching at all, applications not being able to access files and directories, etc. which is a very, VERY rare problem. For every other purpose you might as well give your computer a massage, it would be about as productive.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 03:10 AM
 
Do you wait for your engine to seize up before you oil it, or oil it every 6 months to keep it running problem free for a decade.....

Why wait until unexplained problems and slow downs to occur vs keeping it running at tip top condition always. Be amazed at how quickly permissions get messed up in every day use. Its advice I've been given out for half a decade and all those that follow it have never had any kind of problems ever. Considering it only takes a few minutes to run its not really that much of a waste of time. Its a good preventative measure.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Do you wait for your engine to seize up before you oil it, or oil it every 6 months to keep it running problem free for a decade.....

Why wait until unexplained problems and slow downs to occur vs keeping it running at tip top condition always. Be amazed at how quickly permissions get messed up in every day use. Its advice I've been given out for half a decade and all those that follow it have never had any kind of problems ever. Considering it only takes a few minutes to run its not really that much of a waste of time. Its a good preventative measure.
Athens, I like you and stuff, but the engine comparison is just dumb. Really dumb.

Computers are not car engines. They are not mechanical things. Yes, hard drives have mechanical parts and are prone to file corruption (as is HFS+ at a software level), but repairing the permissions doesn't address file corruption, the lone quasi-car like thing you might be able to use in your analogy.

If you want anecdotal stories, I probably haven't repaired my permissions for probably 5 or 6 years or so or more, and I have not had the sorts of problems that the permissions repair script is designed to fix. I accomplished nothing by repairing permissions back then, I was just grasping for straws and looking for things to click on.

Technically speaking, as far as it being a worthwhile preventative measure, it's about as worthwhile as spraying anti-bear repellant all over your house. Permissions being set incorrectly being a problem is extremely rare. Not only this, but if you recall a few years ago there was actually a security exploit that took advantage of people brainlessly repairing their permissions (although I don't remember the explicit details).

People need to get over these silly car analogies, over this idea of modern computers needing "maintenance". Computers are not cars, they don't need maintenance. The only exception I can think of right now is Windows benefiting from defragging, but out of all modern computing this is the very odd exception.

Just. Run. Your. Computer... There is no "maintenance".
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:45 AM
 
I don't like debating outside of the PWL, out here I just try to be helpful. I only continue for its educational value. I disagree with your opinion. I have been servicing and maintaining Macs since 1997. I have about 50 regular clients that are only Mac and maintain production Macs for a large international corporation. I think I am well covered in this area. As for the technical merits. Yes files can become corrupt if the operating system attempts to do something with a file that the file system won't allow it to do so. Its the nature of packaged based programs. The component or file being inaccessible to the operating system or application can adversely affect the operation of either. Be it a damaged data fork or corrupt code or being set to a permission that makes it unusable all classify as corruption. If the permission of a file is incorrect from what OS X expects it to be for normal computer operations you can experience problems with the system when it tries to access to modify the files. It can cause problems logging into the account, printing issues, running or launching programs or worst case starting up the Mac. Another important consideration is security. Most system level files have permissions set in a way that prevents applications or users from meddling with them. If the permissions of some system level files get changed so access is no longer restricted you have the potential for security problems with malware, viruses and hackers. Viruses and hackers being the least of the worries but as recently shown malware can be a problem.

Additionally fixing disk permissions also checks on a few vital symbolic links as well. I should have added but forgot originally that once every few months to start up off of DVD and run Repair Disk as well which does the checks on the HFS+ tree and Catalog files among many other things. I left that out above by mistake. Generally speaking you don't need to run repair disk very often.

As for the car analogy it is correct, you misunderstood what I was conveying. I was not referring to the concept of mechanical operation for comparison just the symbolic point of would you prefer to break down and have to fix something or keep something running smoothly and not dealing with it. I use the car analogy because most people who are computer "users" but don't have a good understanding of computers can relate to the concept through a car analogy. Its like explaining to a person the difference between dial up (a 2 lane road) vs broadband internet (a 10 lane freeway) The 10mb vs 1000gb speed difference means little to some one with a weak computer background but they can understand the "concept" through the road vs freeway much easier because they can envision it and understand that.

Macs do run longer maintenance free, but are not perfect and actually do require maintenance even if less of it. The way a person uses a computer can affect how often maintenance is needed. Causal light users could go for years with out any. Heavy downloaders, those that play with dozens or hundreds of applications, adding and removing things often can require it much more often. I error on the side of caution and try to offer advice that is easy to follow, that is not time consuming that has a low risk and large potential gains in a good experience. Clicking a button once a month and starting up off of DVD a couple times a year is much easier then a login problem or startup problem that requires some one like me with the knowledge and tools to fix it at a $$$ per hour rate not to mention the frustration, anxiety and inconvenience of lost use or access or unexplained problems.
( Last edited by Athens; May 8, 2012 at 05:52 AM. Reason: Typo, Grammar, addition.)
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't like debating outside of the PWL, out here I just try to be helpful. I only continue for its educational value. I disagree with your opinion. I have been servicing and maintaining Macs since 1997. I have about 50 regular clients that are only Mac and maintain production Macs for a large international corporation. I think I am well covered in this area. As for the technical merits. Yes files can become corrupt if the operating system attempts to do something with a file that the file system won't allow it to do so. Its the nature of packaged based programs. The component or file being inaccessible to the operating system or application can adversely affect the operation of either. Be it a damaged data fork or corrupt code or being set to a permission that makes it unusable all classify as corruption. If the permission of a file is incorrect from what OS X expects it to be for normal computer operations you can experience problems with the system when it tries to access to modify the files. It can cause problems logging into the account, printing issues, running or launching programs or worst case starting up the Mac. Another important consideration is security. Most system level files have permissions set in a way that prevents applications or users from meddling with them. If the permissions of some system level files get changed so access is no longer restricted you have the potential for security problems with malware, viruses and hackers. Viruses and hackers being the least of the worries but as recently shown malware can be a problem.
I'm aware of what sorts of problems can arise from incorrectly set permissions, but again, these problems are exceedingly rare. There is no point in running the permissions script as a means of prevention, because it does not prevent these problems from happening in the future, it corrects what has already happened. When you have a permissions related problem, run the script, but running it 5 seconds, minutes, days, or weeks before the problem makes no difference.

As far as security goes, you are accomplishing absolutely zero here by running the permissions repair script in terms of preventing future security issues.

A piece of malware will not depend on the idea that maybe there is a system level directory that has been tampered with in the past by non-malware with non-malicious intent, because the vast majority of the time it won't be, this is bad malware design, and bad malware doesn't spread. *Maybe* it will try accessing a directory that should be inaccessible while falling back to it's own methods, but the vast majority of the time the so-called fallback is going to be its primary means of execution, so it isn't a fallback. The malware is going to be designed to not be dependent on a directory that should be inaccessible being accessible, so again, you are accomplishing nothing here by trying to prevent future attacks by running the permissions repair script.

Additionally fixing disk permissions also checks on a few vital symbolic links as well. I should have added but forgot originally that once every few months to start up off of DVD and run Repair Disk as well which does the checks on the HFS+ tree and Catalog files among many other things. I left that out above by mistake. Generally speaking you don't need to run repair disk very often.
If you are going to do any so-called maintenance, I agree, running an fsck makes far more sense, but I don't think it really helps prevent future problems from occurring. HFS+ corruption can and does happen at any time regardless of how often you run fsck, that is one of it's fatal flaws.

As for the car analogy it is correct, you misunderstood what I was conveying. I was not referring to the concept of mechanical operation for comparison just the symbolic point of would you prefer to break down and have to fix something or keep something running smoothly and not dealing with it. I use the car analogy because most people who are computer "users" but don't have a good understanding of computers can relate to the concept through a car analogy. Its like explaining to a person the difference between dial up (a 2 lane road) vs broadband internet (a 10 lane freeway) The 10mb vs 1000gb speed difference means little to some one with a weak computer background but they can understand the "concept" through the road vs freeway much easier because they can envision it and understand that.
I see, but why make up an inaccurate analogy to problems that don't exist in the first place?

Macs do run longer maintenance free, but are not perfect and actually do require maintenance even if less of it.
No, they don't. Again, fsck and repair permissions are for fixing problems that have already happened, not for preventing future problems.

The way a person uses a computer can affect how often maintenance is needed. Causal light users could go for years with out any. Heavy downloaders, those that play with dozens or hundreds of applications, adding and removing things often can require it much more often.
No, there is absolutely no clear correlation here. HFS+ corruption is pretty random and can be brought on by disk failure (which can occur no matter how much use your HD gets). If there was a relationship between usage and file system or hard disk corruption, wouldn't it make sense to routinely replace hard drives after x years? I don't know anybody in the industry that does this though, because hard disk and file system corruption is purely *random*. There is no relationship between failure and the amount of usage that the drive gets.

I error on the side of caution and try to offer advice that is easy to follow, that is not time consuming that has a low risk and large potential gains in a good experience. Clicking a button once a month and starting up off of DVD a couple times a year is much easier then a login problem or startup problem that requires some one like me with the knowledge and tools to fix it at a $$$ per hour rate not to mention the frustration, anxiety and inconvenience of lost use or access or unexplained problems.
I understand your rationale, but your reasoning is completely flawed due to the reasons I've already mentioned. I don't doubt your good intentions, your good track record as a Mac tech. Being good doesn't mean that you have to be right about everything, this is something you are simply wrong about.

The repair permissions script is not "maintenance", there is no such thing.

I'm willing to make an exception to this statement by excluding any Windows related stuff other than defragmentation from this absolute statement, I don't know much about Windows. Consider my statement true of any Unix based OS.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:40 AM
 
Regarding running fsck as a maintenance thing, I don't generally recommend this either.

The problem with HFS+ is that there is no integrity provided. You could face file system corruption minutes after running fsck, or you could manage to escape having problems for prolonged periods of time, you just never know. I'd say that if you need to be productive in the near future, maybe it would be a good idea to run fsck in advance of doing this just to ensure that you start this period of work with a clean filesystem, but again, this provides no guarantees and failure is so utterly unpredictable that it doesn't make sense to me to do this randomly as a matter of routine.

I'd say that, like the repair permissions script, fsck is more a damage control tool for dealing with problems that have already happened, not for preventing future problems.

I'd say that maintenance, by definition, is stuff that you should be doing because you *know* you will benefit by doing it. Changing your oil is a good example. We can debate how often your oil should be changed, but you will have problems if you never change your oil. On Windows, from what I can gather, doing the defrag prevents performance problems (if these are enough to hinder you). Both are predictable.

File system and permissions problems are not predictable, they are random, and in the case of incorrect permissions that actually result in problems, exceedingly rare.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 08:01 AM
 
Athens, I'm afraid besson is completely correct.

Also, note that file permissions-related errors that impede work only tend to happen within user-land (iTunes recently refused to sync my ringtones when permissions in the iTunes library got munged after moving the library from one machine to another—despite the entire library being on an external drive that was set to ignore permissions!).
But repairing permissions cannot and does not even touch those! (It only works for packages installed through the regular installer, which leave ACLs and/or receipt files detailing the files installed and their respective permissions.)
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 08:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't like debating outside of the PWL, out here I just try to be helpful.
Fair enough, but you show up stating an opinion the direct opposite of everyone who's replied in the thread so far. You have to expect a certain amount of pushback.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I only continue for its educational value. I disagree with your opinion. I have been servicing and maintaining Macs since 1997.
4 years before Mac OS X. Myself I started using them in 1985 - just as irrelevant a statistic. I did however support UNIX machines for years before OS X came along, which is slightly more relevant.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I have about 50 regular clients that are only Mac and maintain production Macs for a large international corporation. I think I am well covered in this area. As for the technical merits. Yes files can become corrupt if the operating system attempts to do something with a file that the file system won't allow it to do so. Its the nature of packaged based programs.
ObNitpick: FILES do not become corrupt. Packages might, if the permissions have been tweaked on a PART of a package, but that's a different story.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The component or file being inaccessible to the operating system or application can adversely affect the operation of either.
Any file that is essential to the OS can only be written with root privileges, so any update of OS files will ignore permissions any

(Well, except for schg and uchg and such, but repair permissions doesn't touch those anyway).

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Be it a damaged data fork or corrupt code or being set to a permission that makes it unusable all classify as corruption. If the permission of a file is incorrect from what OS X expects it to be for normal computer operations you can experience problems with the system when it tries to access to modify the files.
Sure, but...so? The metadata is much less likely than anything else to be corrupted, because it is updated atomically - that's what journalling is all about - so permissions is the least likely to be corrupted. If they are, they have been reset by something that shouldn't have touched them. THAT process is what you need to find and nuke.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
It can cause problems logging into the account, printing issues, running or launching programs or worst case starting up the Mac.
I need a smiley doing that wiggly scale thing with their hand. If something has messed up the permissions of files required to start the Mac, it was running with root permissions. That qualifies as malware, in my book.

How many user files do the permission reset thing touch anyway? It's based on the install receipts, which should not include user files (which are imported or created by the installer).

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Another important consideration is security. Most system level files have permissions set in a way that prevents applications or users from meddling with them. If the permissions of some system level files get changed so access is no longer restricted you have the potential for security problems with malware, viruses and hackers.
You're missing the point: If something has reset permissions to give more privileges, that is already malware. You resetting them again doesn't cure the problem, it only hides it.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Viruses and hackers being the least of the worries but as recently shown malware can be a problem.

Additionally fixing disk permissions also checks on a few vital symbolic links as well. I should have added but forgot originally that once every few months to start up off of DVD and run Repair Disk as well which does the checks on the HFS+ tree and Catalog files among many other things. I left that out above by mistake. Generally speaking you don't need to run repair disk very often.
You can verify the disk without rebooting, and that can be done as often as you like. I used to do that a lot before journalling, less so these days.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
As for the car analogy it is correct, you misunderstood what I was conveying. I was not referring to the concept of mechanical operation for comparison just the symbolic point of would you prefer to break down and have to fix something or keep something running smoothly and not dealing with it. I use the car analogy because most people who are computer "users" but don't have a good understanding of computers can relate to the concept through a car analogy. Its like explaining to a person the difference between dial up (a 2 lane road) vs broadband internet (a 10 lane freeway) The 10mb vs 1000gb speed difference means little to some one with a weak computer background but they can understand the "concept" through the road vs freeway much easier because they can envision it and understand that.
To use your car analogy, then: Your car has an oil leak. It is spouting black smoke, and the oil level is down. You "solve" the problem by adding oil. On your next car, the manufacturer has added a feature to make that breakdown much less likely. You still go add oil every now and then.

See where I'm going here? Permissions got corrupt every now and then back on 10.0 and 10.1. Most likely this was mainly due to the variety of untested installers that everyone used back then combined with Error Behind Keyboard of inexperienced users, but some of it could be regular HFS corruption. To combat this, Apple added their repair tool (and eventually bundled it with Disk Utility). Since then, most everyone have either switched to Apple's installer or not using an installer at all, and more recently to using the Mac App Store. Users have become more experienced. Journalling has reduced the incidence of HFS corruption. Together, these things have managed to remove the root cause (or causes) of permissions corruption.

Your arguments about security cut to the heart of the problem with repairing things: you're papering over the defects. If something has opened a backdoor into the OS, you shouldn't just close it - you should figure out why it opened, because that is not normal behavior.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Macs do run longer maintenance free, but are not perfect and actually do require maintenance even if less of it. The way a person uses a computer can affect how often maintenance is needed. Causal light users could go for years with out any. Heavy downloaders, those that play with dozens or hundreds of applications, adding and removing things often can require it much more often. I error on the side of caution and try to offer advice that is easy to follow, that is not time consuming that has a low risk and large potential gains in a good experience. Clicking a button once a month and starting up off of DVD a couple times a year is much easier then a login problem or startup problem that requires some one like me with the knowledge and tools to fix it at a $$$ per hour rate not to mention the frustration, anxiety and inconvenience of lost use or access or unexplained problems.
You're advising wearing a helmet everywhere in case of a meteor strike - it's uncomfortable, the meteor strike is highly unlikely and even if you were hit, there is no guarantee that it would help. If you want to recommend anything, recommend that they back up regularly. Time Machine - the one maintenance task that you did not mention - can solve all of these problems by just doing a nuke&pave and then a restore from the backup.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 08:54 AM
 
Repairing permissions used to fix things more often than it tends to nowadays. Of course there is no way to measure how often it works as a preventative measure but I don't bother doing it unless something is awry and my Macs get as abused as any I'd guess. My disks are usually overfilled, I don't clear out crap from my desktop, my user folder has been through about 5 different Macs, 4 different versions of OS X and anything up to 10 hard drives by this point and I use it to test software before putting into live environments for customers so there is all manner of crap installed on it.

I get drive failures far more often than I get corrupted files or filesystems.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I recommend to most of my users once a month to keep a machine running healthy.
If it's necessary to repair permissions to keep the machine running healthy, why doesn't MacOS repair permissions automatically? It would seem like a massive design flaw otherwise.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If it's necessary to repair permissions to keep the machine running healthy, why doesn't MacOS repair permissions automatically? It would seem like a massive design flaw otherwise.
Exactly! The OS will defrag automatically, it will run fsck automatically after a crash (although, to be fair, not when idle) and it includes an automatic backup feature even if it isn't on by default for hardware reasons. All of these things are automatic, because you shouldn't have to bother with maintenance.

Even if running permissions repair periodically in the background were too heavy (it isn't), there are many things that Apple could do to "fix" such problems automatically. You could lock the files (uchg) and just unlock them as required in the Software Update script, and then open console.app, sit back and watch what triggers "Operation not permitted" errors. You could use fseventsd to watch all of those critical files in real time and see which were changed, and even change them back on the fly. You could use the ACL to just remove the ability to change permissions - the list is long. Yet Apple has not done any of this. Connect the dots.

(BTW - if you really believe that repairing permissions helps, why don't you just use ACL to remove the ability to change them on all those files once and for all?)
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
Some people love to have a "maintenance" ritual to make themselves feel that they're helping their computers to run well. It's the computer owner's placebo pill.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
As long as they don't try digital homeopathy. Like people in the OMG I spilled threads.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
...it's about as worthwhile as spraying anti-bear repellant all over your house...
Good, now I can get all that bear repellant out of my garage and finally fit my car in...

I agree with all the examples and analogies. You can't fix permissions unless they're broken and you won't know they're broken until a symptom arises. Kind of akin to adding more air into a car's tires just in case it springs a leak or getting a leg set in a cast just in case you break it skiing...makes little sense.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Fair enough, but you show up stating an opinion the direct opposite of everyone who's replied in the thread so far. You have to expect a certain amount of pushback.
Um no, the only person that had a opposite opinion when I posted was one person Besson3c. So replace your "Everyone" with Besson3c and this statement is correct.

I need a smiley doing that wiggly scale thing with their hand. If something has messed up the permissions of files required to start the Mac, it was running with root permissions. That qualifies as malware, in my book.

You're missing the point: If something has reset permissions to give more privileges, that is already malware. You resetting them again doesn't cure the problem, it only hides it.
Installers created for 10.3 running on 10.5 or 10.7 changing things that while was correct for 10.3 is not correct for anything above 10.4. Mix and match any of those numbers around anyway you want, 10.5 installer installing on 10.7 making a mess of things changed in 10.7.

Either way it comes down to this:

Not running it once in a while, and running it once in a while.

Pro's and Con's

Not running it once in a while means waiting for things to screw up before you run it. Effect at some point you run into a misbehaving computer and all that goes with it.

Running it once in a while, worst case absolutely nothing needed fixing at all and you wasted a couple minutes of time. Best case scenario you repair permissions before you noticed the affects from it and prevented cascading issues that would have built up over time to cause more serious problems. The only problem in this thread is saying out right I am wrong when at the end of the day its just your opinions and nothing more. I know I'm right.

Looking at articles to back myself up I didn't realize how polarized and how big of a debate this was. Apple recommends it, MacFixIt and other Apple based tech companies recommend it, people like me who professionally service Macs recommend it vs regular I know it all users who at the end of the day hire people like me when things go seriously wrong with there computer recommending against it. Im going to keep recommending it until the day Apple removes the tool or says users no longer need to run this. And in the mean time keep taking the money from people like you when you need that extra level of help.


Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Good, now I can get all that bear repellant out of my garage and finally fit my car in...

I agree with all the examples and analogies. You can't fix permissions unless they're broken and you won't know they're broken until a symptom arises. Kind of akin to adding more air into a car's tires just in case it springs a leak or getting a leg set in a cast just in case you break it skiing...makes little sense.
How about discovering a leak in a tire before the tire actual goes flat and fixing it while it still is able to be driven on vs waiting until its totally flat and cant be driven on. This analogy of adding more oil and air into something that isn't broken is retarded and really shows the limited cranial capacity of some to think. If there is nothing to fix Disk permissions does not fix something anyways just because you ran it. If no oil leaked or no air escaped a tire, you wouldn't add more oil or add more air. If the oil was low or the air was low you would add oil or air and in the case of Disk Permissions if it finds incorrect permissions would fix it. Do people wait until the engine seizes or the tire is flat before "Check the Oil Levels" and "Checking the Air Pressure" ??? so why would you wait until you couldn't boot up OS X or launch a application to run a tool that can prevent that. Explain that logic to me which every one against running disk permissions has not really explained.
( Last edited by Athens; May 8, 2012 at 02:02 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 03:33 PM
 
Agree with Athens.

Personally I routinely repair Permissions with installations. Not as a fix, just resetting Permissions after installers have had their way with them. Also working trouble I usually will repair Permissions as part of routine, not because I expect a magic fix.

Since y'all are into car analogies, IMO it is like air in your tires - - except where you have no tire gauge, just the ability to easily bring the tires to appropriate pressure whether they need it or not, and no downside risk to pushing the "bring tires to appropriate pressure" button.

It definitely mattered in early OS X. Perhaps as some say today all is perfect among the permutations/combinations of all OS versions and all installers, and Athens and I are wasting our time. However it seems appropriate, fast, easy prophylaxis for some unknown permutation/combination that might occur - - especially since it has provided benefit under OS X in the past.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; May 8, 2012 at 03:40 PM. )
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Um no, the only person that had a opposite opinion when I posted was one person Besson3c. So replace your "Everyone" with Besson3c and this statement is correct.
Then I mixed this thread up with another one. I think most people these days know that it's pointless juju to run the repair feature.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Installers created for 10.3 running on 10.5 or 10.7 changing things that while was correct for 10.3 is not correct for anything above 10.4. Mix and match any of those numbers around anyway you want, 10.5 installer installing on 10.7 making a mess of things changed in 10.7.
There are no programs that will even run on both 10.3 and 10.7, so I don't see how that is even possible. The OS hierarchy and permissions has not changed much recently, except for 10.7 tightening some things up (which an older installer couldn't possibly know about). Do you have even a single example of this happening anytime recently?

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Either way it comes down to this:

Not running it once in a while, and running it once in a while.

Pro's and Con's

Not running it once in a while means waiting for things to screw up before you run it. Effect at some point you run into a misbehaving computer and all that goes with it.

Running it once in a while, worst case absolutely nothing needed fixing at all and you wasted a couple minutes of time.
No, that is far from the worst case scenario. You may have hidden malware. You may have reset things so they no longer work, if they were changed in a script that doesn't use Apple's installer (e.g. a package manager).

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Best case scenario you repair permissions before you noticed the affects from it and prevented cascading issues that would have built up over time to cause more serious problems.
Any verified examples of this? Vague ten year old forum threads do not count.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The only problem in this thread is saying out right I am wrong when at the end of the day its just your opinions and nothing more. I know I'm right.
And that is not an opinion?

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Looking at articles to back myself up I didn't realize how polarized and how big of a debate this was. Apple recommends it,
You have a link for that?

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
MacFixIt and other Apple based tech companies recommend it,
MacFixIt unfortunately recommend a lot of maintenance tasks that you don't need, with the goal of making you come back to the page regularly for more maintenance tips = more page views. This is well-documented - and quite sad, because it used to be a good before CNet got their claws into it.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
people like me who professionally service Macs recommend it vs regular I know it all users who at the end of the day hire people like me when things go seriously wrong with there computer recommending against it. Im going to keep recommending it until the day Apple removes the tool or says users no longer need to run this. And in the mean time keep taking the money from people like you when you need that extra level of help.
Don't worry - if I ever have a problem in software that I can't fix, I nuke&pave and then restore from my backup. The last time I had to do this was in 1992. That's the advice you should give: regular backups.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
How about discovering a leak in a tire before the tire actual goes flat and fixing it while it still is able to be driven on vs waiting until its totally flat and cant be driven on.
But this is a completely different thing! Here you have discovered that something actually is wrong. Your advice is to keep running this pointless task without any indication that anything is out of the ordinary.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
This analogy of adding more oil and air into something that isn't broken is retarded and really shows the limited cranial capacity of some to think.
Hey - ALL car analogies are stupid. Don't just heap praise on me!

(Also, all generalizations are dangerous)


Originally Posted by Athens View Post
If there is nothing to fix Disk permissions does not fix something anyways just because you ran it.
And this is where I think the misunderstanding lies. If you are checking the directory structure, for each configuration of files and directories on a certain disk, there is only one way that directory structure is correct. There is a specification, and anything that is not the specification is wrong. That is not the case for the permissions. They can be set many many ways that still work. You are not repairing the directory - you're turning the menubar transparency back on. You're not filling up the tires or changing the oil - you're resetting the height and position of the driver seat to the delivery position.

This is not just theoretical, btw. In earlier versions of the OS when I installed more X11 stuff, I reset permissions on quite large parts of the tree. More recently, I modified the settings on certain system directories to close a theoretical security hole on 10.6 (Apple closed it on 10.7, partially by modifying the defaults to something quite close to my setup).
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Um no, the only person that had a opposite opinion when I posted was one person Besson3c. So replace your "Everyone" with Besson3c and this statement is correct.
Actually, I'd venture that EVERYONE had the same opinion, but most of us didn't bother getting religious about it because we knew it would draw the placebo nuts out of the woodwork, and we REALLY didn't want to bother with yet ANOTHER of these stupid threads where everything is clear, the facts speak for themselves, the software is known, and people STILL aren't convinced, and try to put words into other people's mouths in bold text in order to infer support for their argument.

At least, that's how I felt when I posted.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
It definitely mattered in early OS X. Perhaps as some say today all is perfect among the permutations/combinations of all OS versions and all installers, and Athens and I are wasting our time. However it seems appropriate, fast, easy prophylaxis for some unknown permutation/combination that might occur - - especially since it has provided benefit under OS X in the past.
I agree that it used to be somewhat relevant.

This has become pretty much irrelevant since developers stopped using those beastly VISE installers.

Also, FWIW, the only permissions-related problem I've ever had (since Public beta in September '99) that wasn't within user-land (where Repair Permissions does nothing) was that Print Center issue back in 10.3 (IIRC). The delicious irony here is that that particular permissions bug wasn't even fixable using Repair Permissions! You had to download a custom tool from Apple's support site for that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
ObNitpick: FILES do not become corrupt. Packages might, if the permissions have been tweaked on a PART of a package, but that's a different story.
My own nitpick:

Individual files can become corrupt too, if we're talking about HFS+ integrity and not permissions?

I need a smiley doing that wiggly scale thing with their hand. If something has messed up the permissions of files required to start the Mac, it was running with root permissions. That qualifies as malware, in my book.
This is an excellent point.

As far as the notion of running the permissions script to secure a system goes, a piece of malware could just install itself to a hidden directory in the user's home directory where no special privileges are needed. In other words, if we are talking malware and security, the repair permission script is pretty much a non-factor.

You're missing the point: If something has reset permissions to give more privileges, that is already malware. You resetting them again doesn't cure the problem, it only hides it.
And any well written piece of malware would just execute whatever code was included with it to gain access back to root owned stuff anyway, should somebody lock the malware out with changing permissions to things. My take: when you have malware on your system that is running, all bets are off, and again, the repair permissions script is a complete non-factor.

I know you agree with this, I'm just refining my position.

See where I'm going here? Permissions got corrupt every now and then back on 10.0 and 10.1. Most likely this was mainly due to the variety of untested installers that everyone used back then combined with Error Behind Keyboard of inexperienced users, but some of it could be regular HFS corruption. To combat this, Apple added their repair tool (and eventually bundled it with Disk Utility). Since then, most everyone have either switched to Apple's installer or not using an installer at all, and more recently to using the Mac App Store. Users have become more experienced. Journalling has reduced the incidence of HFS corruption. Together, these things have managed to remove the root cause (or causes) of permissions corruption.
I really think that Apple should remove this feature from the Disk Utility GUI, because it has been so successful at creating misinformation and misrules and misconceptions. For those that really do need it, they can run this in their terminal.

You're advising wearing a helmet everywhere in case of a meteor strike - it's uncomfortable, the meteor strike is highly unlikely and even if you were hit, there is no guarantee that it would help. If you want to recommend anything, recommend that they back up regularly. Time Machine - the one maintenance task that you did not mention - can solve all of these problems by just doing a nuke&pave and then a restore from the backup.
Would you classify Time Machine as a "maintenance" task on par with disk defragging, the repair permissions script, zapping PRAM, and whatever else? I'd say backups are more a productivity/business type task than anything else.

I know I'm being anal about this, but something about lumping backups in with this other stuff just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Is it just me?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If it's necessary to repair permissions to keep the machine running healthy, why doesn't MacOS repair permissions automatically? It would seem like a massive design flaw otherwise.

Great point! Ditto for P's followup...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Some people love to have a "maintenance" ritual to make themselves feel that they're helping their computers to run well. It's the computer owner's placebo pill.

I guess it's sort of understandable for human beings to feel like they have to do things to protect their investments, it's just interesting that some people seem uncomfortable with the notion that their computers don't need this sort of special attention.

Aside from cleaning, which I never do
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Good, now I can get all that bear repellant out of my garage and finally fit my car in...

I agree with all the examples and analogies. You can't fix permissions unless they're broken and you won't know they're broken until a symptom arises. Kind of akin to adding more air into a car's tires just in case it springs a leak or getting a leg set in a cast just in case you break it skiing...makes little sense.
Exactly!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Agree with Athens.

Personally I routinely repair Permissions with installations. Not as a fix, just resetting Permissions after installers have had their way with them. Also working trouble I usually will repair Permissions as part of routine, not because I expect a magic fix.

Since y'all are into car analogies, IMO it is like air in your tires - - except where you have no tire gauge, just the ability to easily bring the tires to appropriate pressure whether they need it or not, and no downside risk to pushing the "bring tires to appropriate pressure" button.

It definitely mattered in early OS X. Perhaps as some say today all is perfect among the permutations/combinations of all OS versions and all installers, and Athens and I are wasting our time. However it seems appropriate, fast, easy prophylaxis for some unknown permutation/combination that might occur - - especially since it has provided benefit under OS X in the past.

-Allen

Sorry dude, your air pressure analogy doesn't work.

In many cases, the sorts of things that a permissions repair will reset do not impact your work in the slightest. Putting air in your tires actually makes your car (or bike) run better.

I think I see the premise behind your thinking here, I'm just not satisfied with this car analogy.

Then again, car/computer analogies almost always fail.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My own nitpick:

Individual files can become corrupt too, if we're talking about HFS+ integrity and not permissions?
FSCK checks for file system integrity, and not data integrity, though, right?

Is individual files becoming damaged a problem specific to HFS+, or are you talking about things like bad sectors and defective hardware, and merely mentioning those in relation to HFS+ because of its lack of redundancy?

Because then: Yeah, nitpick, but also not really relevant to this thread, unless you also recommend regular surface scans as part of preventative maintenance (in which case, the proper remedy is backups, once again).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
As far as the notion of running the permissions script to secure a system goes, a piece of malware could just install itself to a hidden directory in the user's home directory where no special privileges are needed. In other words, if we are talking malware and security, the repair permission script is pretty much a non-factor.
He wasn't referring to the malware itself, but to the fact that malware could (and would) easily and promptly reverse any permissions settings "repaired" by Disk Utility.

So running Disk Utility would do nothing but mask the actual problem.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Running it once in a while, worst case absolutely nothing needed fixing at all and you wasted a couple minutes of time. Best case scenario you repair permissions before you noticed the affects from it and prevented cascading issues that would have built up over time to cause more serious problems. The only problem in this thread is saying out right I am wrong when at the end of the day its just your opinions and nothing more. I know I'm right.
Before you declare yourself the victor here, why don't you make some factual statements we can all agree upon?

Bad permissions do not cause cascading problems that compound, they have absolutely *zero* impact on the future.

Looking at articles to back myself up I didn't realize how polarized and how big of a debate this was. Apple recommends it, MacFixIt and other Apple based tech companies recommend it, people like me who professionally service Macs recommend it vs regular I know it all users who at the end of the day hire people like me when things go seriously wrong with there computer recommending against it. Im going to keep recommending it until the day Apple removes the tool or says users no longer need to run this. And in the mean time keep taking the money from people like you when you need that extra level of help.
Where does Apple recommend repairing permissions as a matter of routine?

How about discovering a leak in a tire before the tire actual goes flat and fixing it while it still is able to be driven on vs waiting until its totally flat and cant be driven on.
No, no, no, no, no... Bad permissions do not compound and become greater problems over time, they just don't. Put this out of your head, this is just flat out wrong.

An incorrect permission is like an incorrect configuration in an application. It just affects what it affects, it doesn't cause rot, it doesn't get worse over time. It's about time you retire this false notion.

This analogy of adding more oil and air into something that isn't broken is retarded and really shows the limited cranial capacity of some to think. If there is nothing to fix Disk permissions does not fix something anyways just because you ran it. If no oil leaked or no air escaped a tire, you wouldn't add more oil or add more air. If the oil was low or the air was low you would add oil or air and in the case of Disk Permissions if it finds incorrect permissions would fix it. Do people wait until the engine seizes or the tire is flat before "Check the Oil Levels" and "Checking the Air Pressure" ??? so why would you wait until you couldn't boot up OS X or launch a application to run a tool that can prevent that. Explain that logic to me which every one against running disk permissions has not really explained.
See above, and if I were you I'd back off on the accusations on limited cranial capacity until you have a handle on the facts.

Please provide some evidence that badly set permissions cause rot, compounding problems, etc.?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
FSCK checks for file system integrity, and not data integrity, though, right?

Is individual files becoming damaged a problem specific to HFS+, or are you talking about things like bad sectors and defective hardware, and merely mentioning those in relation to HFS+ because of its lack of redundancy?

Because then: Yeah, nitpick, but also not really relevant to this thread, unless you also recommend regular surface scans as part of preventative maintenance (in which case, the proper remedy is backups, once again).
Individual files becoming damaged is a problem specific to HFS+, because there is no assurance of integrity of any kind with this file system. I suggest pulling up some of the Hypercritical John Siracusa podcasts about this if you are interested, he explains in great detail why this is so.

The problem is, I'm not clear on what kind of integrity NTFS provides, so this might just be a sorry state of mainstream computing right now. However, there are definitely file systems that are aware of destructive file operations that have gone awry. The HFS+ journal is insufficient though, it is just an intent log, it can't actually vouch for the accuracy of what it is actually doing, it just knows what it is trying to do.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:23 PM
 
It's actually really humbling to consider that there is absolutely zero assurance that any of the files on your Mac's HD that you covet and consider sacred have any kind of integrity to them. Backups don't help either, because you could have been backing up corrupt files all along.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Actually, I'd venture that EVERYONE had the same opinion, but most of us didn't bother getting religious about it because we knew it would draw the placebo nuts out of the woodwork, and we REALLY didn't want to bother with yet ANOTHER of these stupid threads where everything is clear, the facts speak for themselves, the software is known, and people STILL aren't convinced, and try to put words into other people's mouths in bold text in order to infer support for their argument.

At least, that's how I felt when I posted.
Until this thread I had no idea the topic about disk permissions was so religious that it would be best in the PWL. I am actually floored it has turned into this. One person makes a post saying its useless, I disagree, explain clearly why. It didn't have to go further then that. I have to guess cuz I didn't keep stats but most of the service calls I have done for Macs have been fixed by just repairing permissions. The rest of been corrupt Safari plugins, corrupt caches and over a couple weeks period fixing that damn Trojan that infected so many computers. Over a two week period I saw more infected Macs then I had in the previous 15 years. I come across hardware related problems so rarely I never expect it unless its a latest generation Macbook Air which seems to have a disproportional problem with the trackpad compared to other Macbooks. Other then that people pay me $50.00 to click a button in a utility program they can do themselves. I don't know why it matters so much to people who believe you shouldn't spend 5 minutes a month running something.

I haven't been running Lion long enough to form a opinion if its needed or not, until I have I am not changing my position. But since the only copy of Lion I use is my home computer which gets checked at least once a month I haven't really been in a position to test it. Our production software where I work is not Lion compatible.

Windows and Linux people must be laughing there butts off at this if they come across it.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I agree that it used to be somewhat relevant.

This has become pretty much irrelevant since developers stopped using those beastly VISE installers.

Also, FWIW, the only permissions-related problem I've ever had (since Public beta in September '99) that wasn't within user-land (where Repair Permissions does nothing) was that Print Center issue back in 10.3 (IIRC). The delicious irony here is that that particular permissions bug wasn't even fixable using Repair Permissions! You had to download a custom tool from Apple's support site for that.

VISE installers would have had no affect on anything related to disk permissions. Only the Apple Installer deals with the receipt package. The weakness of permissions was exposed greatly during the OS 9 / OS X days with them getting messed up a lot buy stuff done in OS 9. It was originally a standalone tool before it got integrated into Disk Utilities.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
As far as the notion of running the permissions script to secure a system goes, a piece of malware could just install itself to a hidden directory in the user's home directory where no special privileges are needed. In other words, if we are talking malware and security, the repair permission script is pretty much a non-factor.
Unless the malware is trying to replace a key system file with a modified version to do its thing. Proper permissions prevent it being over written in the first place.

I really think that Apple should remove this feature from the Disk Utility GUI, because it has been so successful at creating misinformation and misrules and misconceptions. For those that really do need it, they can run this in their terminal.
The only misinformation and misconceptions I am seeing are from people like you who totally opposed to it. If its not important why leave it in terminal. Why not just remove it totally? That's the problem 2 groups of people with different opinions on its validity.


Would you classify Time Machine as a "maintenance" task on par with disk defragging, the repair permissions script, zapping PRAM, and whatever else? I'd say backups are more a productivity/business type task than anything else.
Backups are the most important thing for protecting data. Protecting performance is a different issue.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If it's necessary to repair permissions to keep the machine running healthy, why doesn't MacOS repair permissions automatically? It would seem like a massive design flaw otherwise.
There are some situations where you don't want it to automatically repair permissions. Kodak software with the Prinagy series required some modifications to operate on Snow Leopard. Lotus Notes required modifications to folders beyond 10.4 and of course hacking the installer to let it install on 10.5 and 10.6. But c'mon its only a simple and easy button to press. Even my mother can run this so why would it need to be automatic. Some people could go a entire year with out needing to use it. Really depends on the end user.

No, no, no, no, no... Bad permissions do not compound and become greater problems over time, they just don't. Put this out of your head, this is just flat out wrong.
Ya it can, when it interference with another process that then results in corruption, partially installed files, and so on. Canon Printer drivers are a joy for this. Bad permissions results in failed updated driver creating a printer problem after a update because not all the files could be written to disk or replaced. This is a cascading problem because the original problem which was undetected created a new one causing something that is noticed.
( Last edited by Athens; May 8, 2012 at 07:02 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Until this thread I had no idea the topic about disk permissions was so religious that it would be best in the PWL. I am actually floored it has turned into this. One person makes a post saying its useless, I disagree, explain clearly why. It didn't have to go further then that.
Most of the posters on a technical advice board will try to not let bad or incorrect advice be the last word, so yes, it did have to go further than that, then.

And sorry, I meant to say that it would draw the "religious nuts" out of the woodwork, because going through regular rituals without any indication other than past mantra on whether they have any effect or meaning, and then inevitably ending up in a brawl when somebody calls them into question is absolutely typical of religious convictions.

(I ended up not saying that, though, because that would have left me open to accusations of being anti-religion, which I am most decidedly NOT.)

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I have to guess cuz I didn't keep stats but most of the service calls I have done for Macs have been fixed by just repairing permissions.
Damn. Those are stats I'd like to see.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Most of the posters on a technical advice board will try to not let bad or incorrect advice be the last word, so yes, it did have to go further than that, then.
Well that justifies my continued posting

Damn. Those are stats I'd like to see.
I'll start keeping a log with details of what the problem was and how it was fixed with this tool from the devil.

This is def not going to go anywhere though, the yays and nays are locked into there positions and I can't think of any real evidence that could change my mind over the subject. I think its bad advice to say run it daily before bed. I think its also bad advice to say wait until you have problems to run it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I have to guess cuz I didn't keep stats but most of the service calls I have done for Macs have been fixed by just repairing permissions.
Seriously? This is complete bullshit, and you know it, unless you have incredibly strange clients that just sit in their terminals all day long sudo chown -Ring stuff randomly. I'd be willing to bet that the problems your clients have aren't this unusual though.

If most service calls are rectified by repairing permissions, again, why wouldn't Apple be automatically preventing permission changes, or fixing them automatically?

I don't understand your schtick here, Athens. If you seem surprised (and I'm assuming disproving) of the sort of controversy posts like this generate, why do you double down on your statements by upping the ante like this? Do you really think people will agree with this and move on?

It's not as if people are religious about this particular subject matter, it's just that some are religious about what is claimed factual, and what people claim is a matter of opinion when it is actually a matter of fact.

Again, bad permissions do not rot or compound.

Unless the malware is trying to replace a key system file with a modified version to do its thing. Proper permissions prevent it being over written in the first place.
No, they don't, because most malware is designed to escalate their level of access to gain root access, where the permissions you set are irrelevant.

The only misinformation and misconceptions I am seeing are from people like you who totally opposed to it. If its not important why leave it in terminal. Why not just remove it totally? That's the problem 2 groups of people with different opinions on its validity.
I'm not saying that it is completely useless, I've been pretty consistent in saying that the sorts of problems it solves are exceedingly rare, not non-existent.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
and I can't think of any real evidence that could change my mind over the subject.
Therein lies the problem. You have the right to your opinions but not your own facts.

I'm not one to take complex gray subject matter and reduce it to absolute statements of fact, but this is one case where it is pretty cut and dry and safe to do so.

Since you seem unwilling to entertain any of the arguments set forth, here is another...

Permissions are like firewalls in allowing some access, denying others, right? Do firewalls rot? Do you need to point your firewall at the same ruleset periodically to ensure it continues to do what it is designed to do? Would you consider your firewall's rules changing without your knowledge or permission just something that happens that could have been prevented by proper maintenance?

No. Firewalls, like permissions, are configurations. That is it. If you feel that configurations require maintenance, do you check on your System Preference pane configurations as a matter of routine or maintenance?
( Last edited by besson3c; May 8, 2012 at 07:29 PM. )
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
...How about discovering a leak in a tire before the tire actual goes flat and fixing it while it still is able to be driven on vs waiting until its totally flat and cant be driven on. This analogy of adding more oil and air into something that isn't broken is retarded and really shows the limited cranial capacity of some to think. If there is nothing to fix Disk permissions does not fix something anyways just because you ran it. If no oil leaked or no air escaped a tire, you wouldn't add more oil or add more air. If the oil was low or the air was low you would add oil or air and in the case of Disk Permissions if it finds incorrect permissions would fix it. Do people wait until the engine seizes or the tire is flat before "Check the Oil Levels" and "Checking the Air Pressure" ??? so why would you wait until you couldn't boot up OS X or launch a application to run a tool that can prevent that. Explain that logic to me which every one against running disk permissions has not really explained.
Although my analogy may not have been perfect, yours is just as illogical. In any case, I'd opt to know what "fix permissions" fixed then look for symptoms and apply it as needed.

I do not appreciate your attack on my intelligence (e.g. "limited cranial capacity") but I does appear we're ganging up on you which may cause you to lash out...maybe if we "fixed your disk permissions" prior to replying we would have prevented your illogical and unfounded responses and attacks.

At the end of the day I'd say you're only wasting a bit of time fixing permissions so probably no harm done; why not continue if it makes you comfortable?
( Last edited by cgc; May 8, 2012 at 08:50 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 08:04 PM
 
Well, the thing is that he's also wasting a bunch of other people's time by recommending it on a publicly accessible internet forum.

Like MacFixit ended up wasting hours/days of his time by recommending it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 06:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The problem is, I'm not clear on what kind of integrity NTFS provides, so this might just be a sorry state of mainstream computing right now.
There is no integrity in NTFS either, but MS is supposedly working on that.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
There are some situations where you don't want it to automatically repair permissions. Kodak software with the Prinagy series required some modifications to operate on Snow Leopard. Lotus Notes required modifications to folders beyond 10.4 and of course hacking the installer to let it install on 10.5 and 10.6.
So what you're saying is that pushing that button if you have the Kodak software or Lotus Notes installed is a bad thing, and despite this you're recommending it regularly to anyone in a forum, without any caveats?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
There are some situations where you don't want it to automatically repair permissions. Kodak software with the Prinagy series required some modifications to operate on Snow Leopard. Lotus Notes required modifications to folders beyond 10.4 and of course hacking the installer to let it install on 10.5 and 10.6. But c'mon its only a simple and easy button to press. Even my mother can run this so why would it need to be automatic. Some people could go a entire year with out needing to use it. Really depends on the end user.
So, because a few apps don't install correctly, Apple can't make Repair Permissions an automated function? What happens if these Kodak and Lotus Notes users Repaired Permissions? Do these users know not to do this?

There are MANY simple things that are automated in a computer that even our mothers can do. But, that's the point of computers ... to automate simple tasks. If repairing permissions is as necessary as you say it is, I take issue with Apple requiring users to find out about this extremely necessary task on their own and with finding the obscurely located button necessary to accomplish this task.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Would you classify Time Machine as a "maintenance" task on par with disk defragging, the repair permissions script, zapping PRAM, and whatever else? I'd say backups are more a productivity/business type task than anything else.

I know I'm being anal about this, but something about lumping backups in with this other stuff just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Is it just me?
Why not include them? It's a task that needs to be done every so often to sleep well at night.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, because a few apps don't install correctly, Apple can't make Repair Permissions an automated function?
Of course Apple could make Repair Permissions an automated function. However repairing Permissions is not an instant process. I just tested and on my 2011 SSD MBP it took just over a minute.

A reboot on the same MBP takes about 20 seconds. It would be inappropriate to add any significant time to the reboot process just to repair Permissions. I certainly would not want to. Because reboot is so fast with an SSD I shut down or restart very frequently for various reasons.

I am one who does religiously repair Permissions (around installs and for trouble) but I would not want it automated if it added any time at all to boot time.

Also fast startup is a major marketing issue that Apple rightfully would not sacrifice unless for a really really good reason.

-Allen
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 04:40 PM
 
Not having to restart your computer is the actual reality. Restart times are largely irrelevant.

Running a permissions repair could easily be done at 3 a.m. or whenever the other cron jobs run.

Fact is, Apple doesn't consider the job necessary, does not recommend running it regularly ANYWHERE in their literature, and has relegated it to a utility no regular user is likely to ever see.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 04:50 PM
 
Exactly. And, that's all I'm really trying to say.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Not having to restart your computer is the actual reality. Restart times are largely irrelevant.

Running a permissions repair could easily be done at 3 a.m. or whenever the other cron jobs run.

Fact is, Apple doesn't consider the job necessary, does not recommend running it regularly ANYWHERE in their literature, and has relegated it to a utility no regular user is likely to ever see.

I think what used to be cron jobs are now launchd jobs that run based on time interval ala anacron. A lot of people wouldn't have their machines on at 3 AM, so I believe these jobs just run periodically at random times whenever they haven't been run for a while.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sorry dude, your air pressure analogy doesn't work.

In many cases, the sorts of things that a permissions repair will reset do not impact your work in the slightest. Putting air in your tires actually makes your car (or bike) run better.

I think I see the premise behind your thinking here, I'm just not satisfied with this car analogy.

Then again, car/computer analogies almost always fail.
I agree that the resetting of the seat position is an easier analogy, but repairing Permissions does sometimes (however rare) impact your computer's operation. If it was totally meaningless as you state above Apple would remove the operation from Disk Utility. When they do I will stop using it.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Would you classify Time Machine as a "maintenance" task on par with disk defragging, the repair permissions script, zapping PRAM, and whatever else? I'd say backups are more a productivity/business type task than anything else.
No.

Backup is enterprise-critical, whereas maintenance (today, 2012) is not even computer-critical, let alone enterprise-critical. Hence I consider backup to be on another level far more important than maintenance.

With proper backup I can recover from a total computer failure in a few hours and by spending $3k at the Apple Store on a new box I was going to buy sooner or later anyway.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; May 9, 2012 at 05:14 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2