Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rbally · 08:43 PM

c

lngtones · May 23, 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by rbally:
http://rbally.blogspot.com

Why the shift? I mean, I'm using the program and my Powerbook's been fine. Why add FUD to the debate? That's pathetic . . . and I know, the haxie debate. But, hopefully you don't have skeleton's like Gruber.

I don't see a change in his ideas at all. He is a fan of FontCard and Windowshade because they did things that you couldn't do any other way. The problems Paranoid Android is meant to fix can be fixed without introducing more code which always has the chance of bugs. He specifically mentioned his concerns when he talked about FontCard and Windowshade as well...

I think you should show a little more restraint before calling someone pathetic...

lngtones · May 23, 2004, 09:56 PM

btw, I can't believe you started a blog and a MacNN membership just for this... Who's pathetic now?

Link · 10:12 PM

I can't believe the blind zealotry behind unsanity has gotten THIS bad. Someone's gotta put a stop to this before people start getting attacked and assaulted for making competitors to unsanity's apps and saying they wouldn't reccomend them...

rbally · 08:44 PM

c

rbally · 08:44 PM

c

rbally · 08:44 PM

c

smeger · May 23, 2004, 10:31 PM

I think Gruber's post was mainly concerned with the assertion I'd made in my whitepaper saying that Paranoid Android was the only means of combating the vulnerability. It's not. I was mistaken, I've modified the whitepaper to reflect that, and that's it.

I think he's a bit harsh on APE, but that's his perogative.

I see no problem here.

Link · May 23, 2004, 11:04 PM

Good idea. I didn't think you responded to stuff THAT fast

good game......

rbally · 08:44 PM

c

Mithras · May 23, 2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by rbally:
Yikes.

There's a maniacal anti-Unsanity poster at work . . . honest fella, I just don't like simpletons like you, and I do not know or work with Unsanity. I mean, if you need proof, I will provide such

And, I post "THAT fast" 'cuz these modern bulletin boards alert me to responses . . .

Err, he wasn't talking to you.

Graymalkin · May 24, 2004, 01:25 AM

What the hell is this thread even about?

CharlesS · May 24, 2004, 03:51 AM

I don't like APE because it uses the same model as OS 9's Extensions used. Modify some program's behavior by patching it. The trouble is when two different patches try to patch the same code, and they conflict with each other.

Although in a situation like this, where you need to patch a huge security exploit, it could be reasonable to use an APE. But IMO you would want to make sure that this was the only APE in use, to avoid conflicts.

Myself, I just remap all the hazardous protocols to Chess and turn 'safe' files off. That seems to solve the problem pretty well. But to those who want to use this instead, that's fine. I would recommend using version 1.0 of PA instead of version 1.1, which has the expanded whitelist and lets FTP through, among others.

alphasubzero949 · May 24, 2004, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by smeger:
I think Gruber's post was mainly concerned with the assertion I'd made in my whitepaper saying that Paranoid Android was the only means of combating the vulnerability. It's not. I was mistaken, I've modified the whitepaper to reflect that, and that's it.

I think he's a bit harsh on APE, but that's his perogative.

I see no problem here.

You should see the posts accusing you of creating PA as spyware (on MacCentral that is).

mishap · May 24, 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
What the hell is this thread even about?

They dont even know.

lookmark · May 24, 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
I don't like APE because it uses the same model as OS 9's Extensions used. Modify some program's behavior by patching it. The trouble is when two different patches try to patch the same code, and they conflict with each other.

I think it's only fair, however, to point out that unlike OS 9's Extensions, APE can't bring down the entire OS, and each APE module (or the entire thing) can be easily toggled on and off, entirely, or on an application-specific basis.

It seems to me about as safe as a system-wide hacking framework could be, all things considered... In any case, I'm a modest APE user (IceCoffee, ClearDock, SS on occasion) and have yet (knock on wood) to have encounter a bad experience with it.

Loading up fifteen APE modules sure does sound like a recipe for potential trouble, but who on earth, with any memory of Extension conflict troubleshooting hell, would do that?

msuper69 · May 24, 2004, 11:21 AM

Your link should be directly to the post, which by the way, gives a 404 which makes this whole thread pointless.

[APi]TheMan · May 24, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
I don't like APE because it uses the same model as OS 9's Extensions used. Modify some program's behavior by patching it. The trouble is when two different patches try to patch the same code, and they conflict with each other.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
What the hell is this thread even about?

Yep, I'm trying to figure the same thing out. John Gruber pulled a 180? Whoopdie doo, Tony Hawk like did a 900 once.

absmiths · May 25, 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by rbally:
c

What a wuss. If you post something stupid, or realize that you have been dumb, don't go back and erase your posts - just post that you have been acting stupid.

turtle777 · May 26, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by absmiths:
What a wuss. If you post something stupid, or realize that you have been dumb, don't go back and erase your posts - just post that you have been acting stupid.

Yep.

But I bet rbally already has a new account and new nick.
So he can start annoying us all over again.

-t