[driven]

I had my first OSX problem last night. (I've been using OSX since the first day it was released on 10.0.0)

My primary hard disk, for whatever reason was set to read-only. Being a long time UNIX guy I went to change the permissions but was unable to do so. I then noticed it wasn't just the root folder, but the whole darn disk.

I was somewhat dejected. I've had other, similar problems on Windows XP which usually meant hours of work to fix (*IF* it was fixable ... sometimes a reinstall was faster.)

After poking around for a bit I found a "Repair permissions" option in the "Disk Utility" tool. I ran it. Took about 70 seconds. Everything was once again golden, all *WITHOUT* a reboot.

I'm so impressed and thrilled that I could imitate the Numa Numa guy.

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by driven:
After poking around for a bit I found a "Repair permissions" option in the "Disk Utility" tool. I ran it. Took about 70 seconds. Everything was once again golden, all *WITHOUT* a reboot.

I'm so impressed and thrilled that I could imitate the Numa Numa guy.

You've been using X since v.1 and you just found out about repair permissions?
What planet have you been living on?

[driven]

No need to get nasty.

I hadn't had a problem with my permissions in all these years. Shoudln't that be a good thing?

[chris v]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
You've been using X since v.1 and you just found out about repair permissions?
What planet have you been living on?

Really. "OMG OMG OMFG someone has a life?" Go outside.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by driven:
No need to get nasty.

I hadn't had a problem with my permissions in all these years. Shoudln't that be a good thing?

Yes, I'm glad you made this thread actually. It provides a great example of what the Repair Permissions function is actually for.

Too many people in here think it's some magic mystical voodoo to run periodically. It's not. It's a tool that you use when you're having problems that could be caused by permissions, like what you described.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
You've been using X since v.1 and you just found out about repair permissions?
What planet have you been living on?

Some people are users and not computer geeks. It is entirely acceptable for anyone to not know about something that you or I consider to be abundently obvious. You should treat people with dignity and respect. They have a right to know or not know whatever they want.

Also, for your information, this repair was introduced with 10.2. CharlesS is absolutely correct about this--it's not a magic cure-all. It is amazingly over-emphasized.

[gururafiki]

Originally posted by driven:
Numa Numa guy.

[kcmac]

Don't know why Oracle is getting hit so hard. Driven's post count doesn't exactly put him in the average user count.

Glad to see that it worked well Driven. I would have been in a state of panic initially if that would have happened to me. Thanks for the Numa guy thing. That is funny stuff.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by driven:
I had my first OSX problem last night. (I've been using OSX since the first day it was released on 10.0.0)

My primary hard disk, for whatever reason was set to read-only. Being a long time UNIX guy I went to change the permissions but was unable to do so. I then noticed it wasn't just the root folder, but the whole darn disk.

This happens to me at least once a month: my HD becomes read-only. Repairing permissions fixes it. What irks me is that I haven't discovered the culprit. I strongly suspect it's a misbehaving 3rd party app, but I haven't found out which one.

[driven]

I agree that it would be nice to find out what causes the problem in the first place.

Is it an error in an app? Is OSX "locking out" the hard disk in some kind of strange self-preservation instinct? who knows??

(posted from my Treo 650)

[Link]

Weird, never heard of a scenario like that, but glad to see that helped ya

I agree about repair permissions -- that and a few other somewhat annoyingly brute force tricks are wlel.. a bit too much lol.

[lenox]

The 'read-only' thing happened to me a couple of times over the course of a few months, but it eventually stopped...not sure what was going on!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliff:
This happens to me at least once a month: my HD becomes read-only. Repairing permissions fixes it. What irks me is that I haven't discovered the culprit. I strongly suspect it's a misbehaving 3rd party app, but I haven't found out which one.

Could likely be Norton Utilities. I had the same problem, and when I uninstalled NU the problem went away.

Now I only use Diskwarrior, and I boot from the DW CD when I'm checking my HD.

[analogika]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Could likely be Norton Utilities. I had the same problem, and when I uninstalled NU the problem went away.

Just for the record (needs to be said every time someone mentions this miscreant software:

NORTON UTILITIES FOR OS X IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

If you search the Applications forum, you will find dozens of instances where NU found errors only because it itself had created them. It very nearly killed one of my hard drives - Diskwarrior fixed the Norton-induced madness within minutes, and I've never had problems since.

[chris v]

Originally posted by analogika:
J
NORTON UTILITIES FOR OS X IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

Huh. Where'd you hear this? I just clicked through their website up to the putting in my CC info window. They claim it's in stock, (ver. 8.0) and it has the little OS X bug in the window. They should stop shipping it, though.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by chris v:
Huh. Where'd you hear this? I just clicked through their website up to the putting in my CC info window. They claim it's in stock, (ver. 8.0) and it has the little OS X bug in the window. They should stop shipping it, though.

Symantec is still selling Norton for OS X, but they've stopped development on it. There will not be a Tiger-compatible version of it. It works with Panther, although it's about as trustworthy as Michael Jackson with children.

[mikerally]

Norton Systemworks / Norton Utilies software development for Windows and Macintosh have stopped, period.

The current version they are selling will be the last, and when they stop selling that the product will be discontinued.

I might add, that Symantec have stated that Norton Systemworks / Norton Utilities for Mac OS 9 and X is only compatible with Mac OS X v10.2 Jaguar and not Mac OS X v10.3 Panther (sorry I don't have the link to the tech support doc handy).

It will install under v10.3 Panther, but a lot of the functions don't work correctly or as expected - most particularly the Uninstaller, which doesn't work at all in v10.3 Panther, meaning if you install it - you will have to manually remove it (and all it's associated files).

Take advice from me (as someone who installed NUM in Panther just for kicks), you want keep well away from this piece of software and use Diskwarrior instead (as reiterated in many of the other threads on here).

Norton Antivirus, AFAIK, remains in development.


On a seperate note, keeping within the topic of the thread:-

I am one of those people who repair permissions constantly, not out of any voodoo or anything, but I seem to always run into programs that screw them up.

Yes I run repair permission before and after upgrading Mac OS X system versions (e.g. 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.3 etc) and likewise when installing new software for the first time.

And believe it or not, the permission of something is always messed up more often than not (whether it's the cause of any real problems or not is another debate, but the fact my current install of Panther dates back to November 2003 and has been updated from 10.3.0 to 10.3.1 and every other single update up to 10.3.8 without any problems suggests to me that maybe my preventative measures are indeed paying off - and my system has been through a *LOT*).

Just as a side note, if you ever install QuarkXPress 6 (any version from 6.0 to 6.5), be sure the repair permissions after, as the installer consistantly screws up the permissions of the entire /Applications folder and it's subdirectories at every level (the repair takes about 10-20mins).

Installing software like this only increases my concern about disk permissions, as if a big software company like Quark can screw it up with their installer, I'd hate to think what any piece of shareware/freeware could do (although I'd imagine it would be written better than the POS Quark is).

I also run repair permissions before cloning my disk for backup (infact CarbonCopyCloner offers it as an automatic option).

Look, it's not like I do it out of some religous zeal or something, but it's just like any other keeping job I do in Mac OS X to keep things in order (as a preventative measure for any future trouble), like the crontabs that are run in the middle of the night and the emptying of the caches.

For those who are not technically inclined, I can't recommend enough Cocktail which can do all the necessary housekeeping jobs for you at the click of one button (AutoPilot).

Just my two cents.

[d.fine]

Originally posted by Spliff:
although it's about as trustworthy as Michael Jackson with children.

lol

oh, BTW, I HATE all Norton and alike software, and never use it... They're just big bugs with sponsors and names.

[analogika]

Originally posted by chris v:
Huh. Where'd you hear this? I just clicked through their website up to the putting in my CC info window. They claim it's in stock, (ver. 8.0) and it has the little OS X bug in the window. They should stop shipping it, though.

Sorry - I stand corrected.

I guess I should have said that Norton for OS X Panther is not available. We sure as hell no longer sell Norton where I work, and haven't for a while.

If they're still selling it to unsuspecting Panther users, they should be sued.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I am one of those people who repair permissions constantly, not out of any voodoo or anything, but I seem to always run into programs that screw them up.

Yes I run repair permission before and after upgrading Mac OS X system versions (e.g. 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.3 etc) and likewise when installing new software for the first time.

And believe it or not, the permission of something is always messed up more often than not (whether it's the cause of any real problems or not is another debate, but the fact my current install of Panther dates back to November 2003 and has been updated from 10.3.0 to 10.3.1 and every other single update up to 10.3.8 without any problems suggests to me that maybe my preventative measures are indeed paying off - and my system has been through a *LOT*).

Well how about that. My current install of Panther dates back to shortly after it was available in the store where I live - I installed it as soon as I could get my hands on it, so that would have been either late October 2003 or early November 2003. It has also been updated from 10.3.0 to 10.3.1 and every other single update up to 10.3.8 without any problems, and I've never run Repair Permissions after an update. So that suggests to me that Repair Permissions isn't needed s a "preventative (sic) measure" after an Apple software update.

It boils down to the same thing someone else mentioned - if you don't trust Apple not to screw up the permissions in their update packages, why the hell do you trust their permission script? Like I pointed out before, the difference in permissions with these OS updates is usually trivial - the only thing that running Verify Permissions after 10.3.8 wanted to change that it didn't before was slpsa.conf from -rw-r--r-- to -rwxr-xr-x. Boy, that's really going to screw over my system if some configuration file isn't executable!

But hey, if I take a knife and draw blood from my body every day at a particular time in the evening, and over a period of several years I never get attacked by a horde of rabid radioactive mutant squirrels, it does not necessarily follow that the latter was caused by the former. By this logic, I could get you doing any meaningless ritual, and as long as the ritual didn't destroy the hard disk or something, you'd credit it with the fact that you didn't have any problems.

Just as a side note, if you ever install QuarkXPress 6 (any version from 6.0 to 6.5), be sure the repair permissions after, as the installer consistantly screws up the permissions of the entire /Applications folder and it's subdirectories at every level (the repair takes about 10-20mins).

Installing software like this only increases my concern about disk permissions, as if a big software company like Quark can screw it up with their installer, I'd hate to think what any piece of shareware/freeware could do (although I'd imagine it would be written better than the POS Quark is).

I can't verify this, not having Quark, but regardless, that's why I said I could kind of understand running the permission script after running an installer for a third-party product from a crappy vendor. However, running it after every Apple update is simply foolishness, IMO.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
...


I can't verify this, not having Quark, but regardless, that's why I said I could kind of understand running the permission script after running an installer for a third-party product from a crappy vendor. However, running it after every Apple update is simply foolishness, IMO.

Quark has issues... it can change the permissions on the folder that it is inside... but it doesn't realize it. It just complains that it can't run from a locked volume. From my experience, though, repairing permissions still doesn't fix it.

And I agree with Charles that repairing permissions on a regular basis is a complete waste of time. Some people argue otherwise, but I have very rarely seen it fix things (other than boot problems).

[mikerally]

CharlesS wrote:
But hey, if I take a knife and draw blood from my body every day at a particular time in the evening, and over a period of several years I never get attacked by a horde of rabid radioactive mutant squirrels, it does not necessarily follow that the latter was caused by the former. By this logic, I could get you doing any meaningless ritual, and as long as the ritual didn't destroy the hard disk or something, you'd credit it with the fact that you didn't have any problems.

Why do you have such a big chip on your shoulder over this?

I don't think that anywhere in my comments did I declare my previous experience with Mac OS X as being conclusive, or as the basis of any proven facts. I'm volunteering my information based on my previous experience as such, to illustrate my perspective on the matter - just as you are entitled to yours - and yours is indeed a valid point that I do agree with.

So why bash me for it?


Look, running repair permissions doesn't do any harm to you system anyway, no matter how many times you run it. And I realise more often that not (in my case anyway) that it doesn't come across anything it needs to change (thus it doesn't make a difference anyway). But the truth is running it anyway doesn't hurt.

So why flame people for running more often than they need to?


Why would people want to Repair Permissions before or after a System Update?

Well a lot of people install third party haxxies and software that do on occassion modify stuff at system level. And it is possible that this may intefere with the update that the updater applies.

Repairing permissions before applying an update maybe useful in a situation where you have forgotten to check permissions after installing third party software - as for after an update, there really is no good reason to if you've already repaired permissions before installing an update, but there is no harm in doing it anyway, is there?

[sniffer]

Repairing permissions and resetting PRAM have fixed every problem with my Mac that I couldn't find a reason for. Like for instance the time System Preferences.app unexpectedly crashed when I tried to hit the sceensaver panel. The only time I gave up and started from scratch was when upgrading from Jaguar and I kept all my old preferences, and to make matter worse I enabled FileVault. Not a pretty sight. These days I let CCC automatically run permission repair before cloning the drive. My system is very robust. Can't say if it's because of the regularly repairs of file permissions, but I've seen it has solved issues in the past. It's not a big deal to run a few maintenance scripts once a month in the background with apps like Onyx for instance. You can still smurf around MacNN or other sites while it takes the laundry.

Edit: Regarding repairing before and after system software updates etc, I think it was more relevant in 10.2 days actually.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Why do you have such a big chip on your shoulder over this?

I don't think that anywhere in my comments did I declare my previous experience with Mac OS X as being conclusive, or as the basis of any proven facts. I'm volunteering my information based on my previous experience as such, to illustrate my perspective on the matter - just as you are entitled to yours - and yours is indeed a valid point that I do agree with.

So why bash me for it?


Look, running repair permissions doesn't do any harm to you system anyway, no matter how many times you run it. And I realise more often that not (in my case anyway) that it doesn't come across anything it needs to change (thus it doesn't make a difference anyway). But the truth is running it anyway doesn't hurt.

So why flame people for running more often than they need to?

I'm not bashing you, I'm bashing a general idea that I see a lot around here. People (not necessarily you) have been yelling at newbies that they must repair permissions before and after every software update, sometimes in a not-so-nice manner. This has the effect of wasting a lot of people's time, and really gives the wrong idea about OS X. Plus, it's reached the level of a superstition (I like to refer to it as a cargo cult), and while there are many superstitious rituals that wouldn't necessarily do you harm (carrying a rabbit's foot or whatever), it doesn't necessarily follow that we should be relying on these things or going around telling everyone to do them.

Here's what I said about this in an earlier thread:

The reason I find this advice harmful, and the reason it gets my ire up so much when I hear people parroting it is that by telling newbies that they have to perform this voodoo ritual of running Repair Permissions twice every software update, you've turned a nice, convenient feature into a confusing, time-consuming process. While Software Update is a quick, easy, and painless thing to do when you can just get it started and then go have a cup of coffee and let it finish whenever it's ready, if you have to mess with Repair Permissions it becomes a chore. This is going to breed a generation of users who just don't bother with Software Update because it's a pain in the ass. So you'll end up with unapplied security updates, machines still running 10.3.1, and if someone ever finds a really nasty security hole, all these users will be wide open. You'll also generate a lot of bad press about Apple ("Mac OS X is so retarded, you have to repair permissions every time you do a simple Software Update!"), as we all know the effect these rumors have, whether informed or no.

I think this sums it up adequately.

Originally posted by sniffer:
Edit: Regarding repairing before and after system software updates etc, I think it was more relevant in 10.2 days actually.

There was never any reason to run it before a software update. Software Update, as you may have noticed, asks for your admin password when you run it. It runs all its tasks as root. And root doesn't care what the permissions are at all. So running Repair Permissions before an update is nothing but a waste of time, period. And running it afterward is only necessary if you think Apple would be dumb enough to release an OS update with fubared permissions.

Repair Permissions is a tool to be used when you're having problems. And the problems it fixes are fairly rare. It's not necessary to make a ritual of it.

[lngtones]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Why do you have such a big chip on your shoulder over this?

I don't think that anywhere in my comments did I declare my previous experience with Mac OS X as being conclusive, or as the basis of any proven facts. I'm volunteering my information based on my previous experience as such, to illustrate my perspective on the matter - just as you are entitled to yours - and yours is indeed a valid point that I do agree with.

So why bash me for it?

Because it's people like you who are just technical enough to be dangerous that end up doing more harm than good. If you start writing about repairing permissions voodoo that fixes all your problems that you never have, then less technical people than you will believe that they must do so as well. This will not only waste their own time but give this image that OS X is inherently unstable and out of control with permissions which is absolutely not true.

I say technical enough to be dangerous because you can talk with some of the language but if you're running it before and after every update, then it's safe to say you don't have a good concept of what repair permissions actually does. Not to mention your language gives you the air of someone in superstitious fear.

[mikerally]

CharlesS wrote:
I'm not bashing you, I'm bashing a general idea that I see a lot around here. People (not necessarily you) have been yelling at newbies that they must repair permissions before and after every software update, sometimes in a not-so-nice manner. This has the effect of wasting a lot of people's time, and really gives the wrong idea about OS X. Plus, it's reached the level of a superstition (I like to refer to it as a cargo cult), and while there are many superstitious rituals that wouldn't necessarily do you harm (carrying a rabbit's foot or whatever), it doesn't necessarily follow that we should be relying on these things or going around telling everyone to do them.

Let me tell you that I am certainly not one of those people. I don't think it's necessary to Repair Permissions if you're not having any problems, but it does help to be aware that it exists when you are troubleshooting problems.

My suggestion about it for it being used for prevention of problems was just off-the-cuff speculation - but it's not like that's the only thing I run. Read the last paragraph of my original post, and you'll see that my "preventative measures" are not based on running Repair Permissions alone - I will even include running CarbonCopyCloner as (in backing up) a "preventative measure" - from losing my work!!!.

I must point out that in the context of this thread that nobody has pushed the idea of Repairing Permissions all the time on anyone or claimed that anyone is stupid for not having run Repair Permissions (the second comment in this thread, criticizes that original poster wasn't even aware that Repair Permissions function existed - not whether he ran it or not).

Don't you think you're guilty of over reacting with the same zeal as those who incessantly push the idea of Repairing Permissions at every single opportunity? (Don't mistake this for justifying Oracle's post however, I do believe he was rude to say what he said).


Like it or not, Repair Permissions (and Disk Utility/First Aid in general) is something useful to know about. And also useful enough to be included as a default function that is called up in CarbonCopyCloner (makes sense before cloning disks), and in Cocktail's Autopilot mode (along with other housekeeping chores like emptying the caches).

[mikerally]

Ingtones wrote:
Because it's people like you who are just technical enough to be dangerous that end up doing more harm than good. If you start writing about repairing permissions voodoo that fixes all your problems that you never have, then less technical people than you will believe that they must do so as well. This will not only waste their own time but give this image that OS X is inherently unstable and out of control with permissions which is absolutely not true.

Just how is what I'm doing dangerous?

In my original post:-

- Was I stating my opinion as fact: No

- Was I telling anyone what they should do: No

- Would have following my example put their computer in any danger: No

- Did I give the impression that Mac OS X is inherently unstable Hell, no - but I did suggest that some third party software could make Mac OS X unstable (which I think it fair enough to say).


As for what I know Repair Permissions does, yeah I do, and I also know what update_prebinding does aswell.

But sometimes it's best to let people believe what they want - I had to sit through a Mac User Group meeting in London once and heard someone try to explain that "Optimising..." in software update was infact Mac OS X's way of defragmenting a disk - when I very well knew it was just update_prebinding.

So what did I do? I kept silent - I kept silent cause I knew it wasn't my turn to talk (I was a speaking session, and I was sitting in the audience) - and I knew that probably 90%+ of the people there didn't even know what a framework or library was, let alone what it had to do with prebinding - and I couldn't really be bothered to explain all of that at that moment - just when about everyone was going to go home.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Let me tell you that I am certainly not one of those people. I don't think it's necessary to Repair Permissions if you're not having any problems, but it does help to be aware that it exists when you are troubleshooting problems.

That's why I stuck the (not necessarily you) in there. You asked why this gets my ire up. I explained it.

If you look around the Internet, you will find this attitude all over. For example, this guy on MacNN a while ago was telling some guy to follow a 14-step procedure just to upgrade from Jaguar to Panther! And this procedure involved repairing permissions four times! These guys make it sound like using Mac OS X is something you'd need a PhD to do successfully.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by mikerally:
...(along with other housekeeping chores like emptying the caches).

Why on earth do you want to empty your caches on a regular basis? The cache is there to speed things up. A properly written cache is beneficial in that it puts your system in a state that some task does not have to be done again (the software update cache is not properly written in that downloads will stay in the cache indefinitely). A web cache is limited in size and makes it so you don't have to download images and pages from the internet if they have not changed. Why would you want to delete that? (unless you are just paranoid... in which case you'd be repairing permissions at the same time too).

[Detrius]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Just how is what I'm doing dangerous?

In my original post:-

- Was I stating my opinion as fact: No

- Was I telling anyone what they should do: No

- Would have following my example put their computer in any danger: No

- Did I give the impression that Mac OS X is inherently unstable Hell, no - but I did suggest that some third party software could make Mac OS X unstable (which I think it fair enough to say).


...

We are trying to make the point that emphasizing running "repair permissions" as a preventative measure is a bad thing to do.

Is that act itself dangerous? No.

Is the recommendation of running this at all in the act of updating the system dangerous? YES! This will lead to the same situation that plagues the Windows community--only geeks install software updates. It is a pain to install software updates on Windows, as there are a bunch of them and you have to reboot your system a couple of times. As a result, updates and security patches don't get installed. Absolutely anything at all that makes this process more difficult is bad for the entire internet.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Detrius:
We are trying to make the point that emphasizing running "repair permissions" as a preventative measure is a bad thing to do.

Is that act itself dangerous? No.

Is the recommendation of running this at all in the act of updating the system dangerous? YES! This will lead to the same situation that plagues the Windows community--only geeks install software updates. It is a pain to install software updates on Windows, as there are a bunch of them and you have to reboot your system a couple of times. As a result, updates and security patches don't get installed. Absolutely anything at all that makes this process more difficult is bad for the entire internet.

Exactly!

[mikerally]

Detrius wrote:
Why on earth do you want to empty your caches on a regular basis?

To be honest, I mainly empty the Font Cache, as it is frequently corrupted by Suitcase and QuarkXPress, and needs to be emptied out every now and again for Fonts to display properly in those programs.

The caches don't have to be emptied for Mac OS X to run fine either. Although on occassion a corrupt startup cache has been known to prevent Mac OS X from starting up.

I really don't understand guys, go take a look at Cocktail, is this program breeding the supposed so-called "fear" you are talking about?

IMHO I don't think running Repair Permissions is going to make the slightest difference in reality to whether people run software update or not. Quite frankly, the majority of Mac users I've met are either not aware of it's existance or purely can't be bothered (or forget to) run it anyway - remember not everyone is on broadband - and couldn't care less to leave their computer occupying the phoneline for the sake of an update.

Those users do not need to do anything at all in terms of looking after their Mac (apart from backing up their work, which is overlooked by many people), particulary if they just let software update run itself in the background every now and again (even then I know people who just click cancel every time they see the Software Updater reminder popup anyway).

[sniffer]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
There was never any reason to run it before a software update.

Point taken. I can't remember if I repaired file permissions before an update, at least I didn't do it regulary, but with the wacko 10.2.3-10.2.8 days I can understand if some people did it just to be on the safe side. I am sure glad those days are over now with 10.3.x. This is really not much of an issue to day, most of the time.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by driven:
I had my first OSX problem last night. (I've been using OSX since the first day it was released on 10.0.0)

I envy you.

-t