[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Detrius

Hey Charles: There is a serious design flaw in your program. It pretended to lock up my computer, but it only managed to lock up the screen that had the menu bar. I could still switch out of the application to the terminal on my other monitor. Fortunately, I was wise enough to read the Read Me file that came with it.

Nuts, I knew I forgot something! Oh well. I could alter it to try and take over both monitors, but I don't think I will, since I don't have a dual-monitor setup myself, and I don't think this app really warrants assembling an army of beta-testers. Also, I think that most people that have dual monitors are probably going to have the smarts to know that the computer's not really locked up anyway.

Heck, you could have pointed out a much more basic flaw; if you have an unsaved document open, clicking "Restart" doesn't end up restarting the computer, because after it unlocks the screen, the app with unsaved changes pops up asking if you want to save!

Thing is, I don't really care about these issues. The app is supposed to make you laugh; if it accomplishes that, then it did its job.

Another piece of advice: If you give the mach thread real-time priority and then dive in to an infinite loop, the computer will look like it has frozen solid for a couple of seconds ( until the mach kernel removes the real-time priority ). Unfortunately, this trick only works on single processor machines, as on dual processor machines, there's another processor to make the rest of the system work. This is a side effect that I found by accident in using the real-time priority for good cause.

But I don't want to actually lock up the computer. I want the user to be able to click the "Resume" button so they can hear the flying squirrel!

[badidea]

Yes, when it comes to troubleshooting, I sometimes miss OS9 (or 8, 7...)!

Why?
Because I have quite a few user related problems that I just can't solve! :grr:
I already deactivated everything 3rd party, deleted all old and unused prefs, blablabla...problems are still there.
A fresh user works flawlessly though!
In OS 9, I deactivated some control panels, extensions or deleted some prefs and always found the cause of my problem with that method!

I still prefer OS X!

[CharlesS]

What are the problems exactly?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by badidea

Yes, when it comes to troubleshooting, I sometimes miss OS9 (or 8, 7...)!

Why?
Because I have quite a few user related problems that I just can't solve! :grr:
I already deactivated everything 3rd party, deleted all old and unused prefs, blablabla...problems are still there.
A fresh user works flawlessly though!
In OS 9, I deactivated some control panels, extensions or deleted some prefs and always found the cause of my problem with that method!

that worked for me too...except when it didn't.

Like when trying to get that CD burner to work that works fine in Windows and actually comes with an OS9 driver extension. (I wasted HOURS on that one recently, and had to give up eventually.)

Or when trying to get audio interface latency down to acceptable levels. (<--that was what finally broke the camel's back for me. Imagine my surprise when the audio interface - a USB interface - defaulted to 2 ms latency under OS X. On a 400 MHz G3 iMac. Almost four years ago.)

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

I'd say that the simple fact that you and Apple can't imagine of a way to overcome this annoying unix limitation doesn't mean it can't be done without messing with security.

Yes, yes it can.

Security -not just of computers, but of all things in general- depend on two things: authentication and authorization. Authentication just means verifying that a person who wants to do something really is who he claims to be. Authorization -which cannot be done in any meaningful way until authentication is performed- is the process of determining whether you're allowed to do something. Authorization can be fully automatic, but authentication cannot.

A standard mechanical lock knows about one person: the owner. It authenticates the owner by requiring a key, whether that's a physical object the owner has or a combination the owner knows. The authorization process is also simple: the owner is allowed to open the lock. No one else is, and since no one else can authenticate this reduces to the scheme "anyone who cannot authenticate may not open the lock".

Your computer cannot see or hear you. Barring biometrics, the only way it can tell who you are is by finding out whether you know something that only you should know. This is what a password is. In order to be sure that you are who you say you are, it must ask for your password. This is a fact, beyond any possibility of debate.

In order for the computer to know whether you're allowed to do something, this fact must be recorded somewhere. This is the point of permissions. They must exist for each file, and ideally they would exist for other aspects of the system as well, such as the network itself. This is also a fact, beyond any possibility of debate.

You must have authentication. You must have authorization. OSX already provides the bare minimum needed for adequate security. To go lower is to compromise everything. This is also a fact, beyond the possibility of debate. I can point you to evidence, if you'd like.

It must be fixed in a way that serves both you and me without opening any holes in the system.

This cannot be done. Every single principle of computer security depends on these two things.

In the meantime I'd appreciate a global preference that would let me override at least *some* of those annoying privileges and password prompts.

You know, I hope you get hacked someday. Then you'll understand why security is important, because your insipid "it can't happen to me" attitude clearly won't let you understand until that happens.

[Don Pickett]

Absolutely not.

I was sold on OS X the first time I used it in a production environment, which was about two or three years ago. I was using Quark – making changes and printing – and making huge PDFs in the background at the same time, and the machine didn't skip a beat. Unlike OS 9 and earlier, this was real multitasking.

Now, every time Illustrator or InDesign dies an ugly death (thanks, Adobe) I'm grateful I'm not running OS 9.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

In the meantime I'd appreciate a global preference that would let me override at least *some* of those annoying privileges and password prompts.

You know what, mAxximo? If you want these options, go switch to Windows. It has these options, and the fact that it has them is a very large part of why it is so insecure. But it'll give you this naive idea of "convenience" that you seem to want so much.

People who are not qualified to set up security systems should not be allowed to turn them on and off at will. Insecurity is not, and should never be, an option.

[Agent69]

Personally, I appreciate the security of Mac OS X. For example, my personal account is an unprivledged user with its home directory on a partition all by itself. This means that I can't accidently run a program that kills the entire operating system or launch a runaway process that uses up all available disk space. I also keep all my user installed programs in ~/Applications, making backup and restores very easy.

Basically, the only time I log in as an admin is to run os updates.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

People who are not qualified to set up security systems should not be allowed to turn them on and off at will. Insecurity is not, and should never be, an option.

It's my computer, it's my prerogative.
I'm more than qualified to do with it whatever I want.

[osxrules]

I've been using os x since version 10.1 and I've never looked back. I almost switched to Linux before I heard about OS X.

The old OS was unstable and featureless. I also had to reinstall the system on numerous occasions. For programming, it sucked badly. I had to restart my machine on every debug of my software when it crashed and took down the system.

Under OS X, I do Photoshop stuff, use 3D software, do software development, audio/video encoding, run P2P software - a lot of the time simultaneously and I still get days if not weeks of uptime. When I do restart, it is rarely to do with a system crash.

The only thing I use OS 9 for is the indeo video codecs for quicktime since they haven't ported that codec to os x.

Everything is so much more intuitive and having the terminal, debuggers and process viewer just makes me feel more in control of what's going on.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

It's my computer, it's my prerogative.

When your computer can be taken over to affect other computers, the prerogative ceases to be solely yours.

I'm more than qualified to do with it whatever I want.

No, you are not. You have admitted this yourself on more than one occasion.

The minimum amount of measures needed to make a computer secure has been proven on a mathematical level. If you believe it can be made more "usable", then the only way you can be qualified to decide this is by providing a counterexample: design your own system which is somehow more "convenient" by your reckoning, but just as secure by mine.

This is a challenge. If you come up with such a system, I will be vicious but fair in evaluating it, and if it turns out to actually be as secure then I will concede this debate. But I'll tell you right now: I don't think you can do it.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

What are the problems exactly?

- VLC is crashing nearly everytime I want to play a movie
- D-Vision is crashing when I try to join AVI files
- some JPEGs are way too dark in preview and safari but not in GraphicConverter (solved just recently - color sync profile was broken but switching to another one didn't help, I had to delete my entire color sync folder)
- ... (don't remember the rest right now)

^all user related - works well with a fresh user

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

the only way you can be qualified to decide this is by providing a counterexample: design your own system which is somehow more "convenient" by your reckoning, but just as secure by mine.

This is a challenge. If you come up with such a system, I will be vicious but fair in evaluating it, and if it turns out to actually be as secure then I will concede this debate. But I'll tell you right now: I don't think you can do it.

That's Apple/NeXT's job, not mine. As long as they insist in calling it a “Mac” OS it's their moral duty to come up with a security scheme that doesn't get in the way of usability.
But I tell you right now: I don't think they can do it.
Not this Apple.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by badidea

- VLC is crashing nearly everytime I want to play a movie
- D-Vision is crashing when I try to join AVI files

Open the Console, then try to reproduce those two problems and see if anything shows up in the Console when you do so. Post the results here - they may provide clues.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

That's Apple/NeXT's job, not mine. As long as they insist in calling it a “Mac” OS it's their moral duty to come up with a security scheme that doesn't get in the way of usability.
But I tell you right now: I don't think they can do it.
Not this Apple.

Apparently you are confused as to the definition of the word "moral":Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.

As a corporation, Apple's responsibilities are to show a profit to its shareholders while obeying the laws of the land. Given Apple's increasing mind- and marketshare, it seems to be doing that just fine.

If you had ever show an ounce of knowledge as to OS-level security, it would be a little easier to take your comments seriously. A little.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Open the Console, then try to reproduce those two problems and see if anything shows up in the Console when you do so. Post the results here - they may provide clues.

===== Mittwoch, 31. August 2005 23:15 Uhr Europe/Berlin =====
[00000001] main vlc error: option rt-offset does not exist
[00000001] main vlc error: option rt-offset does not exist
2005-08-31 23:15:05.976 VLC[284] CFLog (21): Error loading /Library/QuickTime/LiveType.component/Contents/MacOS/LiveType: error code 4, error number 0 (Library not loaded: /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/LiveType.framework/Versions/A/LiveType
Referenced from: /Library/QuickTime/LiveType.component/Contents/MacOS/LiveType
Reason: image not found)
[00000285] a52 decoder: A/52 channels:6 samplerate:48000 bitrate:448000
2005-08-31 23:15:06.932 VLC[284] *** -[VLCWindow updateTitle]: selector not recognized [self = 0x54e3f60]
2005-08-31 23:15:06.933 VLC[284] *** NSThread: ignoring exception '*** -[VLCWindow updateTitle]: selector not recognized [self = 0x54e3f60]' that raised during delayed perform of target 0x54e3f60 and selector 'initReal:'
2005-08-31 23:15:06.986 VLC[284] *** -[VLCWindow initWithVout:view:frame:]: selector not recognized [self = 0x3292510]
2005-08-31 23:15:07.013 VLC[284] An uncaught exception was raised
2005-08-31 23:15:07.015 VLC[284] *** -[VLCWindow initWithVout:view:frame:]: selector not recognized [self = 0x3292510]
2005-08-31 23:15:07.015 VLC[284] *** Uncaught exception: <NSInvalidArgumentException> *** -[VLCWindow initWithVout:view:frame:]: selector not recognized [self = 0x3292510]
2005-08-31 23:15:07.065 VLC[284] *** -[VLCWindow updateTitle]: selector not recognized [self = 0x54e3f60]
2005-08-31 23:15:07.065 VLC[284] *** NSTimer discarding exception '*** -[VLCWindow updateTitle]: selector not recognized [self = 0x54e3f60]' that raised during firing of timer with target 20da600 and selector 'manageIntf:'
No accelerated IMDCT transform found
Aug 31 23:15:10 badideas-Computer crashdump[287]: VLC crashed
Aug 31 23:15:11 badideas-Computer crashdump[287]: crash report written to: /Users/badidea/Library/Logs/CrashReporter/VLC.crash.log


Looks like Chinese to me but what does Livetype have to do with VLC??
I don't even have LiveType installed!?!

[Tesseract]

No, I don't miss OS 9. When I print something in OS X, I don't have to say a prayer in hopes that it will actually print out.

(My experience with printing in OS 9 was that I was lucky if it worked 50% of the time. Actually, I can't think of any OS where printing is easy and Just Works™, but OS X >= 10.2 comes a lot closer than other OSes.)

[bradoesch]

I miss OS 9. Not to the point where I want my Mac mini to boot OS 9 (OK, maybe somtimes), but I still miss the Application Switcher and Platinum.

[fisherKing]

a friend came over with a *gasp* 300mhz clamshell ibook today, running 9.2.2.

i helped her update some software (iE, netscape, etc).

configuring things, checking extensions, finding the right pref files...

all of it: makes me glad for os x.

[leperkuhn]

i would have switched to windows or linux if we still had to use os9.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Apparently you are confused as to the definition of the word "moral":Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.

As a corporation, Apple's responsibilities are to show a profit to its shareholders while obeying the laws of the land. Given Apple's increasing mind- and marketshare, it seems to be doing that just fine.

If you had ever show an ounce of knowledge as to OS-level security, it would be a little easier to take your comments seriously. A little.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Do you miss OS 9, with its quirks and strange little things that it did? Well, have I got the thing for you!

OS9Experience

With this little app, you'll feel like you're using OS 9 again in no time! Have fun...

Just tried the "Resume" button.

Now THAT is funny!!!!!! (and oh so appropriate).

LOL! Really LOL!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by badidea

Looks like Chinese to me but what does Livetype have to do with VLC??
I don't even have LiveType installed!?!

Looks like there's a LiveType plugin in the /Library/QuickTime folder. VLC probably uses QuickTime, which would explain why it would be trying to load the LiveType plugin. Have you tried removing it from /Library/Quicktime?

I'm not sure why it's claiming VLCWindow isn't responding to updateTitle or initWithVout:view:frame since class-dump clearly shows that those two methods exist on VLCWindow. I suppose it could be a weird permission issue, but I don't quite understand how since those methods appear in the VLC binary itself.

Also, I would like to see the console log for the D-Vision problem, and also the crash log for VLC if possible.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Apparently you are confused as to the definition of the word "moral":Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.

As a corporation, Apple's responsibilities are to show a profit to its shareholders while obeying the laws of the land. Given Apple's increasing mind- and marketshare, it seems to be doing that just fine.

If you had ever show an ounce of knowledge as to OS-level security, it would be a little easier to take your comments seriously. A little.

Let it go, you're talking to:

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

That's Apple/NeXT's job, not mine. As long as they insist in calling it a “Mac” OS it's their moral duty to come up with a security scheme that doesn't get in the way of usability.
But I tell you right now: I don't think they can do it.
Not this Apple.

They did and came up with what we have now. Microsoft will adapt Apple's ideas with Vista, because they tried it your way (no passwords, nothing in the face-type of security, and it didn't work. What else do you need?

I would suggest you read a few books on design philosophy (not necessarily for computers) and the point of imposing hurdles when needed or designing things slightly more `un-ergonomic'. Contrary to your belief, this has nothing to do with NeXT or unix.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

That's Apple/NeXT's job, not mine.

Then why mindlessly rail against things you admit to not understanding? If you really want to be a crusader for your so-called "usable security", then learn a thing or two about security. Otherwise you're just some buffoon who has no idea what he's talking about by his own admission.

Gah; why do I bother taking you so seriously?

As long as they insist in calling it a “Mac” OS it's their moral duty to come up with a security scheme that doesn't get in the way of usability.

And they have. Your childish mistaking of "convenience" for usability notwithstanding, they've come up with one of the most usable security systems to date.

But I tell you right now: I don't think they can do it.
Not this Apple.

And I tell you right now: not any Apple, and not anyone else.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

It's my computer, it's my prerogative.
I'm more than qualified to do with it whatever I want.

Make 2 partitions. put the OS on one. Tell the OS to ignore permissions on the other. Store all your files on the one with ignored permissions. Problem solved.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Then why mindlessly rail against things you admit to not understanding? If you really want to be a crusader for your so-called "usable security", then learn a thing or two about security. Otherwise you're just some buffoon who has no idea what he's talking about by his own admission.

Dude, I'm the ultimate user. I don't want to have ANYTHING to do with software engineering solutions, that's not what I do. I've been using computers for almost 20 years now, mostly Macs, and I know a thing or two about usability. This security scheme is obviously the easy way out for programmers (which by nature LOVE passwords) but it's a pain in the ass for users, period. Most notably when there's more than one person using the computer. Then it turns into a NIGHTMARE.

It MUST be fixed.

[Psycho Therapist]

I don't really miss OS 9. I started out with System 7 and used it for quite some time before upgrading to OS 8 & beyond. When I first got the chance to try OS X, I was immediately impressed and it was enough for me to actually want to save up and get a G5, which I eventually did. OS 9 never inspired me to upgrade past the Beige G3 that I have, it was good, but not essential.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Do I miss my G4 crashing before the finder even finishes completely loading? No.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Also, I would like to see the console log for the D-Vision problem, and also the crash log for VLC if possible.

Well, I haven't used D-Vision for a few weeks and it seems that it suddenly is working again!

But VLC is still crashing!

Here's the crash log:

edit: I cannot post the crash log because it is too long!



Thanks for trying to help though!!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Dude, I'm the ultimate user.

Yeah?
What about the rest of us? We are not, ahem, ultimate users? Are we?

You remind me of a client of mine. He hates passwords. If he has to use one, it's 0000. Credit card: 0000. EC card: 0000. He avoids passwords on his computer, because he sees his data (as well as his clients' data) as expendable. No harm done when someone else can actually access it.

[wataru]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Dude, I'm the ultimate idiot. I don't want to have even a basic understanding of anything, especially computers, that's not what I do. I've been using computers for almost 20 years now, mostly Macs, and I am completely unable to adapt to new ways of working and thinking. This security scheme is obviously way too hard for me to understand because it isn't like OS 9's way of doing things, which is to say no security, period. I have nothing better to do than make a fool of myself on internet forums and make browsing MacNN a NIGHTMARE for sane, logical people with more than 2 brain cells.

I MUST be fixed.

Is this what you meant?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Dude, I'm the ultimate user.

You, my friend, are far from the ultimate user, at least in any general sense of the term. You may be a fairly typical user for a publishing or printing firm -I've never been quite sure exactly what it is that you do- but there are many kinds of users, of which you are no more than a handful. I'm no more than a handful either -I doubt there's anyone who is truly every kind of user- but I have a slight advantage: I know how these things work. I have studied the theories, and as part of those studies I've had to put them into practice before.

I don't want to have ANYTHING to do with software engineering solutions, that's not what I do.

All right, then. Let's not bother defining this in terms of software engineering. I've already shown you how computer security can be traced back to something as simple as a physical padlock. Take your new idea for security and define it in terms of something you understand better and then we'll work together to project it forward, onto a computer.

Let's take a familiar real-world example: a bank vault. You can put just about anything in a bank vault (assuming it fits inside), and be reasonably sure that it's secure. We'll forget about things like what the vault is made of or how thick the walls are: we're going to focus on the front door. How would you lock the front door to a bank vault?

I've been using computers for almost 20 years now, mostly Macs, and I know a thing or two about usability.

Where did you learn 'a thing or two about usability'?

This security scheme is obviously the easy way out for programmers (which by nature LOVE passwords)...

Why do programmers "by nature LOVE passwords"?

...but it's a pain in the ass for users, period. Most notably when there's more than one person using the computer. Then it turns into a NIGHTMARE.

But it's when there's more than one person using the computer that it becomes most necessary.

It MUST be fixed.

It CAN'T be fixed. Or if it can, then you and I can devise a method together. I'll even do all the software-design work for you; all you have to do is come up with real-world concepts that I can translate. This is an honest challenge, and I am sincerely extending my hand with a desire to help, because even if I don't think this will work it sounds like an interesting exercise. How about it?

[mAxximo]

I'm in, sure!

Using your bank vault example it should work like these for me:

—I get to the bank in the morning with my girlfriend. I opened her a security box in my same bank to keep things organised but both of us can openly access both accounts.

—We identify with the bank employee that takes us through the bank vault and into the room where's my security box.

—After I do what I need, we then proceed to her security box (that's in the same room inside the bank vault) and grab something I need to put into mine. We are all still in the same room so I should just walk over to my security box and do whatever I need there. The bank employee is still there but he obviously won't ask me to identify again because we already went through that and he's witnessing the whole process. So I'm free to go back and forth between our two boxes and nobody is bothering us with questions or restrictions (“what you have in your hand it's not yours, it's your girlfriend's, you can't put in your box”) every time we walk from one to the other.

—We finished what we had to do and leave the bank vault. (At this point we are in the “Login Screen” with both of us still “logged in”) We walk two meters inside the bank and realise we forgot something and have to go back into our security boxes. The bank employee just let us back in without asking any questions because he still remembers who we are and just saw us coming out of the vault. Duh. We didn't get out of the bank, we didn't “log out”. We were in front of the vault, no need to show IDs again.

The next day we come back to the bank to put some other stuff in our security boxes. The same employee is there but it's his duty to ask for our identification even though he knows us well. We show our IDs and get in. The process starts again.

I hope the general concept came accross....limited English and all that....

[wataru]

What do you think those IDs are? Passwords. Oops, guess we're back to square one. OS X already implements a system like you described.

You realize what the OS 9 analog would be, right? No guards, no ID. Instead of a lock box at the bank, your stuff is in a shoe box on the street corner.

[mAxximo]

What do you think those IDs are? Passwords. Oops, guess we're back to square one.

OF COURSE, but look at how many times per session I have to enter them. ONE. Hardly the case now. I suggest you share your computer with someone else before expressing your opinion....

[wataru]

If you manage permissions properly, then yeah, you only have to do it once. You just don't want to bother understanding permissions enough to manage them. You'd rather do away with them altogether because you don't understand them.

The fact that the bank guy knows it's ok for you to mess with your girlfriend's box = properly set-up permissions. Don't blame Apple for your inability to do this very simple task.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by wataru

OS X already implements a system like you described.

Not even close. OS X has a retarded employee who wants to see my ID at *every single step* of the process I described before.

You realize what the OS 9 analog would be, right? No guards, no ID. Instead of a lock box at the bank, your stuff is in a shoe box on the street corner.

No, the analogue would be I have all my stuff in my apartment instead of in the bank vault. Funny, nobody could ever get through the front desk and enter my apartment...

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by wataru

If you manage permissions properly, then yeah, you only have to do it once. You just don't want to bother understanding permissions enough to manage them. You'd rather do away with them altogether because you don't understand them.

Oh, yeah, like it takes a rocket scientist to understand permissions...
The difference is I also understand *usability*.

The fact that the bank guy knows it's ok for you to mess with your girlfriend's box = properly set-up permissions. Don't blame Apple for your inability to do this very simple task.

Simple task? You tell me a simple way of opening a Photoshop file she created, do some changes in my profile and Save it without having to go through the privileges nightmare and I'll send you a bottle of Bracchetto D'Aqui.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

OF COURSE, but look at how many times per session I have to enter them. ONE. Hardly the case now. I suggest you share your computer with someone else before expressing your opinion....

No, at an ATM, you have to enter it once per transaction. You withdraw 100 €, you enter the pin for that. Then you withdraw money again, so it'll ask for your pin – again.

To say `I suggest you share your computer with someone else …' is very daring as many of us do (I have seven users representing six persons on my PowerBook).

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by wataru

You realize what the OS 9 analog would be, right? No guards, no ID. Instead of a lock box at the bank, your stuff is in a shoe box on the street corner.

Come to think better of it, in OS 9 I'd *OWN* the bank. Yeah, that's exactly how it would be....

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Oh, yeah, like it takes a rocket scientist to understand permissions...
The difference is I also understand *usability*.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, despite your insistance. As for the second point, I'm sure you don't want to say that we (as the rest of us) don't understand usability, but you do? If you look at iTunes, the iPods, FCP and many other apps Apple currently offers, Apple does have some idea, too. Just a different one. Get over it.

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Simple task? You tell me a simple way of opening a Photoshop file she created, do some changes in my profile and Save it without having to go through the privileges nightmare and I'll send you a bottle of Bracchetto D'Aqui.

You either use the global shared folder or use a separate volume with no permissions set as suggested in this thread before. Unfortunately, I won't deserve this nice bottle, but I'm sure Chris V who suggested this earlier will gladly pm you his address. Cheers!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Come to think better of it, in OS 9 I'd *OWN* the bank. Yeah, that's exactly how it would be....

Even if you own the bank, there'd still be bank robbers, so you'd need those damn keys Every time you open the vault

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You either use the global shared folder or use a separate volume with no permissions set as suggested in this thread before. Unfortunately, I won't deserve this nice bottle, but I'm sure Chris V who suggested this earlier will gladly pm you his address. Cheers!

The separate partition is not an option unfortunately, much less a “simple” one, since it implies erasing all my stuff and reformatting the disk.

The Shared folder solution breaks with any personal organisation we already have in each of our profiles and works only for files *created inside that folder* but not for other stuff that was created somewhere else and then dragged into Shared. Useless.

[leperkuhn]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

The separate partition is not an option unfortunately, much less a “simple” one, since it implies erasing all my stuff and reformatting the disk.

The Shared folder solution breaks with any personal organisation we already have in each of our profiles and works only for files *created inside that folder* but not for other stuff that was created somewhere else and then dragged into Shared. Useless.

why don't you just change the permissions for you folder and create a umask to keep everything world readable?

we've gone over this before dude.

open the terminal

Code:
chmod -R go+rw *
umask 000

that will make every folder and file you create from now on world readable, as well as all the files in your home folder. now you have os9 type security between you and the other users on the computer.

enjoy, and stop posting about this issue. if this was a trouble ticket, it would say

"SOLVED, BITCH"

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

The separate partition is not an option unfortunately, much less a “simple” one, since it implies erasing all my stuff and reformatting the disk.

The Shared folder solution breaks with any personal organisation we already have in each of our profiles and works only for files *created inside that folder* but not for other stuff that was created somewhere else and then dragged into Shared. Useless.

If you have a backup strategy or an external harddrive, option #1 just means an afternoon of work tops. If you trust cloning, maybe even less.

Sharing data always breaks your personal organisation of files.

So I'll finally give you two more suggestions.

Create a startup item such that your home directory is mounted via network sharing (either Windows Sharing or AppleTalk). If you don't want to give her access to all of your files, then create a suitable directory somewhere (e. g. by either adding another user whose directory acts as a sharing directory or by downloading one of the many Windows Sharing config tools so you can mount a special `shared' directory somewhere in your directory tree. She'll write on them with your privileges, so both of you have full access.

Suggestion number two: Create a disk image located in the global shared directory. Deactivate permissions or choose HFS (non-plus)/MS-DOS. Partition and format it. Voila.

Wasn't so difficult, now was it?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

The separate partition is not an option unfortunately, much less a “simple” one, since it implies erasing all my stuff and reformatting the disk.

No, that just means you're not being creative enough. Take a disk image, and make it a Login Item. Voilà, instant partition without reformatting the disk.

[CharlesS]

You know, mAxximo, you could also try the AppleScript Folder Action that I posted here:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2583696

I remember that the first time I posted this, you replied to it...

[OreoCookie]

We're up to 6 solutions now

So who gets that bottle of wine now?