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 > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > GUI Customization > Unifier 1.0 - haxie to control Tiger's ''unified'' look (Demetalifizer?)

Unifier 1.0 - haxie to control Tiger's ''unified'' look (Demetalifizer?)
Thread Tools
ZXspectrum
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 07:13 AM
 
"Unifier" was built to unify the look of MacOS X 10.4.

The latest version of MacOS introduced a new interface design: the unified toolbar/menubar look. You can find examples of this look in the new Mail.app.

This haxie will let you enable or disable the unified look of any Cocoa application (safari, adium, colloquy are examples of applications that will profit from Unifier).

Since Unifier uses Unsanity's award winning "Application Enhancer" preference pane, it'll leave your system free from any modification. All the customizations of your GUI are done on the fly and only in memory.


http://www.chatelp.org/?s=haxies
( Last edited by ZXspectrum; Jun 3, 2005 at 07:31 AM. )
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 07:22 AM
 
Interesting app but it doesn't play well with some apps when themes are loaded.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ZXspectrum
\Since Unifier uses Unsanity's award winning "Application Enhancer" preference pane, it'll leave your system free from any modification.
Actually, that is not true. Haxies are modifications. And they do effect your computer.

It just modifies the resources in a different way.

Not that modifying your computer is bad no matter how you do it when you know what you are doing.

This FUD is silly. Unsanity should really stop promoting it.
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Actually, that is not true. Haxies are modifications. And they do effect your computer.

It just modifies the resources in a different way.

Not that modifying your computer is bad no matter how you do it when you know what you are doing.

This FUD is silly.
Speak with the Developer...


BTW - you should start a movement "People against Haxies"

.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 07:56 AM
 
And I have nothing against haxies.

Just the FUD that is being spread.

Trying to scare people into buying their stuff if they want to modify their system.

I don't know why it's being done. Unsanity can sell their products without all the FUD.

All one has to do is read this forum to see that haxies are indeed modifications that do indeed effect the system.
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Trying to scare people into buying their stuff if they want to modify their system. I don't know why it's being done. Unsanity can sell their products without all the FUD.
i am not scared and still i own every app Unsanity made...how exactly they are trying to scare people into buying their stuff?
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 08:24 AM
 
ZX you can manually do a lot of what haxies do by replacing files or editing resources. Them saying "It doesn't mod your system, and is safer because of it" is nonsense.

It really isn't any more safer. It just does things differently.

They are trying to sell the product by spreading FUD that it is somehow safer and a better way of doing things.

I don't know how many people has come up to me asking me about a hack I did, and where they could download it. When I informed them that I manually hacked it, I always got the "OMG isn't that dangerous!?!" and most of the time they will tell me that they believed such hacks were dangerous because they have been taught that.

I guess FUD works.

Buy haxies because you don't want to muck with it yourself by all means! Buy haxies that do things you normally can't do yourself by all means!

But don't buy haxies thinking it's somehow safer, and less likely your system will be screwed up compared to manually doing it. Because that is pure promotional FUD.
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 08:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire

But don't buy haxies thinking it's somehow safer than manually doing it.
i did that myself and still do(manually), but for the average person who has no idea it's actually a great solution. messing with CoreServices/resources..is not recommended for the average user. also if you don't have time or a bit lazy it's a great fast solution. i liked what you did with your system but it's a bit limited...maybe you have a lot of spear time but it will take you a week to do what we can do with TP/SS in a few hours, i think.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ZXspectrum
but for the average person who has no idea it's actually a great solution.
I agree! And I am glad there is an option. That is who they sell most of the haxies to anyhow.
messing with CoreServices/resources..is not recommended for the average user.
Depends on what you mean by average. I am just a graphics monkey. All you are basically doing is moving files.
also if you don't have time or a bit lazy it's a great fast solution. i liked what you did with your system but it's a bit limited...maybe you have a lot of spear time but it will take you a week to do what we can do with TP/SS in a few hours, i think.
My system is only limited by what I want to do with it. I have it set up the way I want it. It only took me a hour tops to do what I wanted to do with it.

But for the reasons you mentioned above, you are correct haxies are great for these reasons. Again, my problem isn't with the haxies themselves.
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 08:58 AM
 
i understand just had a feeling you carry a grudge towards HX but i get your point. anyway this post is just to inform about this new HX, maybe some people will find this useful.
( Last edited by ZXspectrum; Jun 3, 2005 at 09:12 AM. )
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 09:12 AM
 
Not at all. My point is Unsanity makes SUCH GREAT products, it doesn't need FUD to sell them.
     
chatelp
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 09:50 AM
 
first of all, thanks for the thread :-)
Unifier is not metalifizer, but they do share a similar interface. It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't play well with SS and themed applications because unsanity did a great job in APE at handling conflict between haxies patching the same functions. So it must de-activate Unifier for application that were already themed.

Concerning the whole FUD issue, replying to Zimphire concerns more specifically:

- haxies are modifications, true. But they do *not* alter any file, any application, any bundle or any resource on your computer. It works by patching various method and functions calls in the memory loaded 'image' of an application. This is a feature provided by the MacOS X programming environment but that is very (very) hard to use out-of-the-box. The other way to go is the use SIMBL which uses the 'Input Manager' facility to be loaded in other apps.

- IMHO this is not FUD. Not for Unifier at least. I didn't say that it is safer than any other apps, i told you some facts. And, as far as I'm concerned, i didn't try to sell you anything... since it's free :-)

- I don't think that basing the whole marketing of SS around the fact that it is safer to use than any other theming app is a great idea. But, I'm sorry, this is not FUD.
Patching only dynamically in memory is way safer and secure than altering files. As a developer, i can tell you it's a fact ! Nothing else. It's safer because if something bad happens you just have to turn it off and re-launch the application, it's also safer because the worst thing that could happen when upgrading your system is that the haxie will not work anymore, not the whole system !

It's true that altering apps and file on your HD *can* be secure. But imagine that apple make modifications to the resources or .nib format (very unlikely to happen of course), will your hard-modified files will continue to work ? Or, an other example, if i release a script or give explanations on how to manually unify application, what will happen if someone make an error when manually-altering his files ?

PS: sorry for my bad english
( Last edited by chatelp; Jun 3, 2005 at 05:01 PM. )
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 10:11 AM
 
Thank you for making this app. their have been so many questions on this forum regarding the new Unified look so i think that a lot of people will find this very useful. i hope you will keep on developing this app.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 10:13 AM
 
Be nice if it worked with themes. I tried a few and all had problems in Safari.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
MacDog
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 10:40 AM
 
You know Zimph... I think you just like to disagree with everyone about everything. I don't know a single person who was "scared into buying" any application, let alone Unsanity's apps. And if you think Shapeshifter is just as dangerous as manually replacing system files, then you're quite uninformed.
The Graphic Mac: Tips, tricks and commentary for design, Adobe and Mac OSX.
     
smeger
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Tempe, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 02:31 PM
 
Zimphire, I think the original post should have said that it'll leave your filesystem free of modification. That's the point. You might be comfortable swapping files, and that's fine, but mere mortals tend to prefer a solution where they can revert to the original without needing to remember which 94,002 files they've modified manually. Avoiding modifications to the filesystem accomplishes that goal, nothing FUDdy about it.

Also, please note that while Unifier uses Unsanity's APE framework, it's not an Unsanity product. The APE framework is available to developers generally. If you have an issue with this product's wording, it's inequitable to bring a different company into the matter.

Anyway, sorry to spend my whole post on side topics! Great first APE module, chatelp!!!
Geekspiff - generating spiffdiddlee software since before you began paying attention.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacDog
You know Zimph... I think you just like to disagree with everyone about everything.
Well that is nonsense.
I don't know a single person who was "scared into buying" any application, let alone Unsanity's apps.
I know many that bought them for the VERY FACT that they were told that unless they did it that way, they could very well screw up their system.
And if you think Shapeshifter is just as dangerous as manually replacing system files, then you're quite uninformed.
I am saying they are BOTH equally NOT dangerous.

And I am indeed well informed.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by smeger
Zimphire, I think the original post should have said that it'll leave your filesystem free of modification.
Well that would be correct yes. But it still modifying them system.
That's the point. You might be comfortable swapping files, and that's fine, but mere mortals tend to prefer a solution where they can revert to the original without needing to remember which 94,002 files they've modified manually.
I'm just a graphics monkey. And there is no need to manually install that many files. I believe it took me what, 1 minute to install Max's theme.
Avoiding modifications to the filesystem accomplishes that goal, nothing FUDdy about it.
I never said that was the FUD part. Saying that it is somehow SAFER is the FUD part.
     
davdav
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 02:59 PM
 
Well, Unifier makes it so I don't have to dig around in the .nib files... Makes my life easier!

-dav
     
smeger
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Tempe, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
I know many that bought them for the VERY FACT that they were told that unless they did it that way, they could very well screw up their system.

I am saying they are BOTH equally NOT dangerous.
This is demonstrably not the case. I'm not aware of a single occurence in which installing ShapeShifter has necessitated reinstallation of the operating system. I'm aware of uncountable occurrences in which using ThemeChanger, Duality, or Installer packages resulted in hosed operating systems. Theme creators spent more time answering support emails than they did making themes.

I mean, think about it! If someone who doesn't know the innards of the operating system replaces an obscure file needed to boot the OS with one from a different version of the OS and then reboots, he's screwed. If the method he used to replace it didn't keep a backup, he can't even use single-user-mode to fix it. These aren't academic test cases - this is what used to happen, regularly.

Whereas if ShapeShifter were to somehow get completely screwed, you just hold the shift key down as you boot to disable APE and then turn it off, and you're golden.

These are quite clearly different levels of danger.

Again, you know how to do it manually, I'm not in any way disputing that. But claiming that the two methods are equally dangerous to the general public is completely incorrect, pure and simple.
Geekspiff - generating spiffdiddlee software since before you began paying attention.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by davdav
Well, Unifier makes it so I don't have to dig around in the .nib files... Makes my life easier!

-dav
Exactly! At that is what it is for. The people who don't want to mess around with .nib files.

And it does a decent job of it.
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 04:07 PM
 
it's all about the Stars.....here it comes 29,044 on me
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by smeger
This is demonstrably not the case. I'm not aware of a single occurence in which installing ShapeShifter has necessitated reinstallation of the operating system.
I've never seen switching themes manually causing someone to have no choice but to reinstall either. Now, if someone happened to choose to reinstall, that is on their own accord.

Take for example this user

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...e+Shifter+load

He even reinstalled his system to get SS to work.

Does that mean that it's required?

Again, this goes back to user error. Not because the process itself is dangerous.
I'm aware of uncountable occurrences in which using ThemeChanger, Duality, or Installer packages resulted in hosed operating systems. Theme creators spent more time answering support emails than they did making themes.
How were they hosed? Describe this hozation.

The only time theme changing messed up OSs was when someone tried to install an old theme for an old version of OS X in a newer version of OS X.

And even then, no reinstallation should be required.
I mean, think about it! If someone who doesn't know the innards of the operating system replaces an obscure file needed to boot the OS with one from a different version of the OS and then reboots, he's screwed. If the method he used to replace it didn't keep a backup, he can't even use single-user-mode to fix it. These aren't academic test cases - this is what used to happen, regularly.
AGAIN, this falls under user error. Not the process again.

Manually switching files in no more dangerous. As long as you don't have your head lodged up your rear.

I've seen people hose their system using SS because of the same reasons. The forum is full of people hosing SS because they have their head up their rears.

Same thing goes with manually installing, or using installers.
Whereas if ShapeShifter were to somehow get completely screwed, you just hold the shift key down as you boot to disable APE and then turn it off, and you're golden.

These are quite clearly different levels of danger.
Again, not in the process itself. The only danger is the user .
Again, you know how to do it manually, I'm not in any way disputing that. But claiming that the two methods are equally dangerous to the general public is completely incorrect, pure and simple.
No, I never said equally as dangerous. As said equally as being not-dangerous .

Neither way is dangerous when you know what you are doing and don't have your head up your butt.

Either way I have seen people mess up their OS by not knowing what they are doing and having their heads up their butt.

I would never blame SS for these people having their heads up their butt.

Just like I wouldn't call manually installing themes dangerous just because some idiots didn't do it right.

It's real simple actually anymore. With permissions, you can even hot-swap them and re-log in.

The only reason a theme wouldn't load would be that it was missing resources.

That's an easy check.
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:02 PM
 
Just like I wouldn't call manually installing themes dangerous just because some idiots didn't do it right.
But the thing there is, if SS fails, it won't leave you with an interface file that is borked and your comp wont work right.

Thats the only "safe" part in my mind, the fact that it might be a bit easier to "recover" if something don't work. or really, not necessary to "recover" from it, it just did not work when SS does it.

-Owl
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OwlBoy
But the thing there is, if SS fails, it won't leave you with an interface file that is borked
I've seen many threads of SS users complaining of having half themes. Now, I am not blaming SS here. But yes, that does happen.
Thats the only "safe" part in my mind, the fact that it might be a bit easier to "recover" if something don't work. or really, not necessary to "recover" from it, it just did not work when SS does it.

-Owl
The only reason someone would need to "recover" if they used a old theme for a new OS. Again, user error.


Again, if you think you can't install a theme without installing one for a different version of OS X, or don't want to mess with installing it. Or change themes a lot, you should def get SS.

But if you don't have your head up your butt, you can manually install it and it wont be any more dangerous.

And installers are just as safe as well. As long of course as the themer doesn't package a faulty Extras.rsrc.

Which is HIGHLY unlikely.

SS is safer than installers or manually installing themes the way that wearing a helmet while walking to the kitchen for dinner is safer than not.
     
tjr124
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:11 PM
 
Cool haxie, it would be really nice if this could somehow allow the user to select Aqua, Brushed Metal, or the Unified toolbar for cocoa apps.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by tjr124
Cool haxie, it would be really nice if this could somehow allow the user to select Aqua, Brushed Metal, or the Unified toolbar for cocoa apps.

Now that would be cool.

Esp if it had one that took out the stripes.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by chatelp
first of all, thanks for the thread :-)
- haxies are modifications, true. But they do *not* alter any file, any application, any bundle or any resource on your computer. It works by patching various method and functions calls in the memory loaded 'image' of an application. This is a feature provided by the MacOS X programming environment but that is very (very) hard to use out-of-the-box. The other way to go is the use SIMBL which uses the 'Input Manager' facility to be loaded in other apps.
I write patching code myself, but I disagree with this statement. Patching code is STILL altering files, applications, and bundles. The result of patching a binary on the hard drive and patching a binary on the fly in memory is the same. The only difference between the two is with patching the change can be more easily reversed. You're just altering a program in a different part of it's "lifespan". I think the argument for patching is that it is more powerful, but I wouldn't say it's much safer. Patching can actually be far dangerous than changing out files on a hard drive if it's not done right. ShapeShifter can in theory run into the same problems that any old theme changer could (although I have the feeling Jason has changed his patching engine so it's a bit different).

I also wouldn't say redirecting pointers to functions is a very very hard feature to use out of the box. Quite a few people have done it. It's not simple, and any Apple employee will probably tell you it's not condoned, but it's not impossible software.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:51 PM
 
hi goMac - what happened to Duality? did you give up?
     
chatelp
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
I write patching code myself, but I disagree with this statement. Patching code is STILL altering files, applications, and bundles.
No, with the kind of patching i'm talking about, it is not altering ANY file, nor bundle.

Originally Posted by goMac
The result of patching a binary on the hard drive and patching a binary on the fly in memory is the same. The only difference between the two is with patching the change can be more easily reversed.
Not "more easily reversed", it doen't even have to be reversed, turn off the haxie, relaunch the app and voila !

Originally Posted by goMac
You're just altering a program in a different part of it's "lifespan". I think the argument for patching is that it is more powerful, but I wouldn't say it's much safer. Patching can actually be far dangerous than changing out files on a hard drive if it's not done right. ShapeShifter can in theory run into the same problems that any old theme changer could (although I have the feeling Jason has changed his patching engine so it's a bit different).
It is more powerfull, that's true. It can also be dangerous, that's true too. But saying it's the same as altering file is just non-sense.

Originally Posted by goMac
I also wouldn't say redirecting pointers to functions is a very very hard feature to use out of the box. Quite a few people have done it. It's not simple, and any Apple employee will probably tell you it's not condoned, but it's not impossible software.
Well, in the same app, it clearly isn't difficult. The whole point here is not the redirect function calls. It is to do that in an OTHER application. The originality of APE and SIMBL is that they let you do that specific alteration. And i tell you, it's far from trivial. If it was, we wouldn't need APE or SIMBL.

I am sorry to be so aggressive, but common' !!
     
.saNNic.
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:53 PM
 
Who phucking cares....... use it or don't use it.


This debate has worn so very, very thin......................
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by chatelp
It is more powerfull, that's true. It can't also be dangerous, that's true too. But saying it's the same as altering file is just non-sense.
Correct, just replacing the file runs the system like it would out of the box. No patching when launching, no slow-downs, no inconsistencies.

     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by .saNNic.
Who phucking cares....... use it or don't use it.


This debate has worn so very, very thin......................
I don't think anyone is really debating which way is better. Both ways are good. It's nice to have a CHOICE.

It's the FUD that has gotten a bit out of hand. FUD that isn't even needed.
     
chatelp
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Correct, just replacing the file runs the system like it would out of the box. No patching when launching, no slow-downs, no inconsistencies.

This is FUD
Even with SS which is doing heavy patching to a runnnig application, there are very few slowdowns related to the patching process itself. SS is very slow with Tiger but this is not directly related to that.

I guess i started an holly-war with this haxie But the debate is very interesting.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:00 PM
 
chate I never said there was A LOT of slowdowns. There is at launch and a few other things I believe.

Saying there are slowdowns is not FUD.

That is just being honest.

It's not that noticeable I am sure. To me it is.

And no holy war. I've just gotten a lot of messages from people asking me how to theme their computer without messing it up. And someone had told them that SS was the only safe way to theme and not have to reinstall their OS.
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:06 PM
 
Zimphire you are a genius! you manage to turn posting into an ARTFORM.




"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:11 PM
 
ZX do you have anything interesting to add?

or are you going to go about acting like you have sand in your vagina all day?

     
LLcoolJ
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:24 PM
 
rrr
     
kwyjiboy
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Space.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:34 PM
 
God. Zimphire sure is a gigantic blubbering vagina.
Septuple post! Quadruple word score!
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by kwyjiboy
God. Zimphire sure is a gigantic blubbering vagina.
Oh gee.

Then you are a poopy head.

or something.

AND I MEAN IT!
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
ZX do you have anything interesting to add?

or are you going to go about acting like you have sand in your vagina all day?


add what? you took a simple thread and turned it into a talk show. you are like the Jerry springer of MacNN.

"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in
order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"
"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in
order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"
"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in
order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"
"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in
order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"
"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in
order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"
"Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in
order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything"

you like this quote? i found it on Google. you know the stock is at 280$ crazy...
     
chatelp
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ZXspectrum
add what? you took a simple thread and turned it into a talk show. you are like the Jerry springer of MacNN.
lol, we ARE a bunch of funny people! If there was an IT Jerry Springer show, macNN it would be :-)
Or would it be like the Maury Show ?
     
davdav
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 09:37 PM
 
Hah! This thread went nowhere!

Unifier is working like a charm for me ;-)
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2005, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ZXspectrum
add what? you took a simple thread and turned it into a talk show. you are like the Jerry springer of MacNN.
Actually I am not the one bringing down to Jerry level...
     
MacMan4000
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2005, 01:22 AM
 
[on topic]
nice haxie. Works great
[/on topic]

[off topic]
I honestly can not figure out how I would hose my system using SS. I will try if you tell me how...

Now hosing my system by manually hacking... that is easy.

Im not saying either way is safer... im not saying either way is better... Im saying SS is easier, faster to change themes, and harder to crash. thats all.



oh, and zimph... you really do like arguing with everyone about everything.
[/off topic]
     
ZXspectrum  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2005, 03:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Actually I am not the one bringing down to Jerry level..."or are you going to go about acting like you have sand in your vagina all day?"
you don't?

hi Z i am sure that you are an interesting person but somtimes it really looks like you are just looking for ratings/attention, and it's o.k if you are on MacNN Lounge but come on...


BTW - i will continue to follow you with that Quote if you continue to hijack treads.

BTW2 - i enjoyed your tread "Here is a brushed resource question for you theme" that was fun but this is funny
     
Kate
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2005, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
....I've never seen switching themes manually causing someone to have no choice but to reinstall either. Now, if someone happened to choose to reinstall, that is on their own accord.The only time theme changing messed up OSs was when someone tried to install an old theme for an old version of OS X in a newer version of OS X.
......
I recall seeing dozens, including me. If you manually switched resources and afterwards did an OS upgrade you're likely to hose the system and leave it in an unbootable state. Without a backup on an alternative boot volume you're likely stuck and have to reinstall.

You may say that's all user error. And you're having a point. Running software at all is always a user error unless you have independent proof it is working bug free and reliable. Let alone manually patching things.

In that sense it is easy to blame the user of everything the way you're trying here, but I cannot follow your logic here. Hosing the system by means of a manual patch is much more likely to occur according to my experience than by use of a haxie. You must reset your manual patches everytime you are upgrading something as a precaution. This is not only an inconvenience, but also a source of error and fault. User fault you may argue, but everything that brings risk down helps. In that sense using APE is in reality much more safe than a system of manual patches, that needs extensive testing, care, precaution, resetting and a version control system to keep up with alterations of either your hacks or changes in the system or apps. Stating this is not more FUD than claiming that keeping your mony in a bank is more secure than keeping it in cash at home. There is always a chance of robbery in either cases. But that makes these not equally safe.

I understand your attempt at pointing out, that nearly everything can be achieved also by manual hacks rather than using APE or SS. But calling people using this FUD-affected is going beyond reason. And Unsanity didn't market their solution with the "absolutely-safe" sticker. In my view they reasonably stated what I tried to point out here as well without doing the manual way any injustice.
     
version
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bless you
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2005, 07:40 AM
 
Put it this way, and I'm talking purely from my own perspective here. I've never had a problem with Shapeshifter crashing my Mac, destroying it, or making it funky in any way. In fact, no APE module has ever done that to me.

Using it to change themes is a breeze - install it, instal the theme, no problem.

Ages ago I used to do the extras.rsrc hand manipulation thing. On several occasions I ended up with a damaged extras file. After copying it back to its rightful place, OS X wouldn't launch properly. Ok, fine, I made an error, I just booted into Darwin and copied the original version over (thankfully I had kept a copy of the original one).

That's a hassle, it is fixable, but wtf is a normal user who couldn't give a toss about all that voodoo, meant to do?

My opinion. SS is a great solution to themes on a Mac. Why some people keep trouncing on it is beyond me.
A Jew with a view.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2005, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacMan4000
I honestly can not figure out how I would hose my system using SS. I will try if you tell me how...
Do a search in this forum for people doing it. Not too hard to find.
Now hosing my system by manually hacking... that is easy.
Well yeah if you purposely try to.
oh, and zimph... you really do like arguing with everyone about everything.
Care to back up that silly exaggeration?
Originally Posted by Kate
I recall seeing dozens, including me. If you manually switched resources and afterwards did an OS upgrade you're likely to hose the system and leave it in an unbootable state. Without a backup on an alternative boot volume you're likely stuck and have to reinstall.
THAT is nonsense. I've switched TONS of resources and upgrade Kate. One of two things will happen.

1. The new upgrade will just write over the modified files.
2. The new upgrade doesn't touch said files and leaves them alone.

This falls under you really not knowing what you are talking about .

You may say that's all user error. And you're having a point. Running software at all is always a user error unless you have independent proof it is working bug free and reliable. Let alone manually patching things.
That isn't user error so much as you just being wrong.

Tell me Kelly, how does such a thing happen.
In that sense it is easy to blame the user of everything the way you're trying here,
Yes, it is easy, because 99% of the problems users have with themes are the user errors.
I've been watching since way before the Public Beta themeing days. Heck, I was doing it myself.
Hosing the system by means of a manual patch is much more likely to occur according to my experience than by use of a haxie
Kelly, which means you manually patching your system is more dangerous than you using a haxie. That is why Haxies were made. For people like you. That doesn't mean it's more dangerous. It's just more dangerous for YOU to do it obviously.
You must reset your manual patches everytime you are upgrading something as a precaution.
No, only if it's been touched. More FUD.
In that sense using APE is in reality much more safe than a system of manual patches, that needs extensive testing, care, precaution, resetting and a version control system to keep up with alterations of either your hacks or changes in the system or apps.
AGAIN MORE FUD. I don't have to do anything more than you do Dear. You know how long it took me to install Max's smooth stripes? a minute tops.

I didn't have to do it again after the 10.4.1 upgrade either.
I understand your attempt at pointing out, that nearly everything can be achieved also by manual hacks rather than using APE or SS. But calling people using this FUD-affected is going beyond reason.
Obviously it's not. Because you did it yourself in this thread Kate.
And Unsanity didn't market their solution with the "absolutely-safe" sticker.
No, but as you have seen here, they have told many users it was, and told many users that they WOULD hose their system doing it other ways.
Originally Posted by version
Put it this way, and I'm talking purely from my own perspective here. I've never had a problem with Shapeshifter crashing my Mac, destroying it, or making it funky in any way. In fact, no APE module has ever done that to me.
Cool, most people shouldn't. The APE module is a good one if you don't mind the patching. Again, I never said the APE module was bad. Most of the problems people have with it is usually user error.
Ages ago I used to do the extras.rsrc hand manipulation thing. On several occasions I ended up with a damaged extras file. After copying it back to its rightful place, OS X wouldn't launch properly.
I keep about hearing these "damages" extras.rsrc.

The only way an Extras.rsrc wouldn't boot into OS X is
1. User deleted resources.
2. User tried to load and old Extras file.

And either way above comes down to user error.
Ok, fine, I made an error, I just booted into Darwin and copied the original version over (thankfully I had kept a copy of the original one).
You mean you didn't have to reinstall??!? IMPOSSIBLE!~!
That's a hassle, it is fixable, but wtf is a normal user who couldn't give a toss about all that voodoo, meant to do?
I would consider myself a "normal" user. I am just a graphics monkey.
Not a programmer or "hacker"
My opinion. SS is a great solution to themes on a Mac. Why some people keep trouncing on it is beyond me.
No one is trouncing on it. I think SS is a great solution too! It's nice to have A CHOICE.
Again, my only complaint was the FUD that was being spread about switching themes using an installer or manually installing it.

And that is what it is FUD.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2005, 10:15 AM
 
And I will say it again.

SS is safer than manually installing themes or using an installer the same way wearing a helmet to use the bathroom is safer than not wearing one.
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,