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 > Community > MacNN Lounge > Why Does Most Software Suck?

Why Does Most Software Suck? (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
There were never any unmarked files in OS 9, except those that came from PC/UNIX and they had a suffix.
I had some from time to time, don't remember why

No, it's not user error, I checked and rechecked all the GC prefs, and the OS does not recognize the creator code. A JPEG is always, always, always opened by default in Preview, since that's the system default. (OS X 10.7)

Well perhaps I recalled wrong and the support was dropped in 10.6 - at last it's gone in 10.7
Apparently so
How Snow Leopard Ditched Creator Codes, And Why It Matters | Cult of Mac
This is definitely a downgrade; there's no silver lining that I can see

I don't want any file name extension, thus there being no right or wrong.
Then you forgot what I was responding to
It was this: "you could call a jpeg picture file "readme.doc" and that wouldn't matter, the Finder would not be confused and try to open it with Word. "


No it's not unfair criticism, it would be very useful for some people not to have Spotlight waste time on searching ~/Notimportantstuff/ thus a fine feature to add as would it be great for many to be able to tell Spotlight to index /Library/ or ~/Library/

In fact it's very modest suggestion.
It is if you're accusing it of being worse than OS 9. Unless I'm out of it, OS 9 didn't have this either.

No the feature was removed completely, something that's gone isn't better than something that worked (albeit could have been designed better)
The feature migrated to the Dock, and added drag-n-drop, animation, live updates and drop shadows

I don't know, I install everything, always in /Applications - I've been conditioned by Apple to do that since OS X 10.0.0 and just don't feel like being adventurous.
Think different

Or you know, don't "up"grade. I didn't see anything worth paying for in 10.6 and same again in 10.7. The only reason I have them installed is to test for compatibility on the app I write.

It was still valid and working just as fine in 2001.
But it wasn't *better* anymore
I don't know about you, but I lived in list view. You could see about 100x more information that way.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I had some from time to time, don't remember why
All you had to do was copy a Mac file to a USB stick.


The file extensions are definitely an inferior system to creator codes, but they're one that actually works.

We can teach everybody Esperanto - it's a far superior language, easier to learn, simpler to teach — but no matter how we insist, English remains the useful lingua franca.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 08:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I had some from time to time, don't remember why
Actually you're right, there were sometimes unmarked files, it happened when creator codes got flushed (along with the resource fork) for example after sending a file through email, compressing it with something that didn't conserve the resource fork - and of course files that weren't supposed to be interacted with by the user. You're right, they were there from time to time.

Apparently so
How Snow Leopard Ditched Creator Codes, And Why It Matters | Cult of Mac
This is definitely a downgrade; there's no silver lining that I can see
Yes, I agree with that, and I find it to be very un-Apple to take a feature that actually removed unnecessary user interaction and introduced it as obligatory á la Windows/UNIX some 25 years after using a more advanced system. There's a reason for it, I'm sure - some logic that can excuse and apologize this decision, but at the same time, Apple could and should have been ready with a replacement method if the old method wasn't good enough for some technological reason.

Then you forgot what I was responding to
It was this: "you could call a jpeg picture file "readme.doc" and that wouldn't matter, the Finder would not be confused and try to open it with Word. "
Ah pardon, I guess I did.. at least I didn't make myself clear enough. I guess the reason why the file would be named "readme.doc" and still be a jpeg, would be something like, I make a screen for a computer game that is a short readme or intro document and I use the dot instead of space. (it's not a great example, but I hope the meaning comes across, that creating the three letter suffix in that case was just a coincidence, because the user didn't even consider it to be a suffix, it never entered his mind)

It is if you're accusing it of being worse than OS 9. Unless I'm out of it, OS 9 didn't have this either.
I should make myself clear, I was using the OS 9 Finder as an example, not that I want to "live in the past" or that it was better in every sense - rather that even today;
1) The OS X Finder could learn things from the OS 9 Finder
2) The OS X Finder could be improved a lot - and never really has been

Sure OS X was new, but it's Finder has the same purpose as the OS 9 Finder, thus it's completely reasonable to examine the most popular features of the OS 9 Finder - and disregarding the OS 9 Finder completely, the OS X Finder has very much room for improvement, but looking at its development (or the lack there of) it seems to have been relegated into software in class B or C at Apple - slightly above Dashboard, but below iChat.

The fact that Apple would wish the file system was gone, doesn't make it so, and for many people the Finder is a very necessary tool - but using it isn't as pleasant as useful as it could be. Using the Finder is a bit of a chore and that's by design, not by virtue of being a file browser/manipulator.

The feature migrated to the Dock, and added drag-n-drop, animation, live updates and drop shadows
Well, there's always been more than one way to do things on a Mac, and the customizable Apple menu would just be another way to launch an app. Despite Launchpad being introduced, the launching of apps can still be found in the Dock - and in fact the Dock as you describe it and Apple sort of concedes with the Launchpad, is a bit busy and dare I say: bloaty.

The instant windowshade feature of OS 9 or the near instant shrinkage of windows in Windows is far better than watching that slow, slow genie effect animation that looked old and boring 5 years ago. The Dock has it's benefits, but it's not a replacement for the Apple menu - in fact Launchpad is much closer to that.

Except, again it introduces unnecessary animation, it's available through the Dock, the keyboard or a gesture - instead of an ever-present Apple menu in a permanent menubar.

I mean: why isn't the Apple menu customizable? Even more so than in OS 9 even? What made it suddenly so holy in OS X?

Think different

Or you know, don't "up"grade. I didn't see anything worth paying for in 10.6 and same again in 10.7. The only reason I have them installed is to test for compatibility on the app I write.
Hehe yes good advice

But it wasn't *better* anymore
I don't know about you, but I lived in list view. You could see about 100x more information that way.
Oh yes, I used list view a lot, probably my favorite view even today. It is, as you say, the most informative. Kind of a pity since the icon view can allow so big and pretty icons, but list is more useful and flexible.

And really, the OS 9 spatial Finder wasn't better than anything offered in Windows, UNIX or even OS X in 2001? Allright, but it my book it was still the best until about 2003 or 2004, when the OS X Finder stopped being completely annoying and slow.

That didn't negate the decades of development and experience with the OS 9 Finder, as the true-believers would have one believe. Apple has always had trouble with the "not invented here" syndrome, but it's no better than the "not invented at NeXT" myopia of SJ and a great many of his developers from NeXT.

In fact, when looking at NeXT and how it was quietly brilliant in so many ways, the NeXT "Finder" was never among them - it was just über-nerdy column view browser, that fitted well with the UNIX crowd it was supposed to woo, but completely opposite to the brilliance of the Macintosh. Despite Steve Jobs being the driving force behind both. Ironic in some ways

What we got was the NeXT Finder with a dash of Mac, when what would have been infinitely superior would have been the Mac Finder with a dash of NeXT.

(IMHO)
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
All you had to do was copy a Mac file to a USB stick.


The file extensions are definitely an inferior system to creator codes, but they're one that actually works.

We can teach everybody Esperanto - it's a far superior language, easier to learn, simpler to teach — but no matter how we insist, English remains the useful lingua franca.
Again with the inane analogies; the above makes no sense.

It's always the same with your posts, Groundhog Day. First some obscure and provably untrue statement, then the apology for Apple and finally some analogy that makes no sense. Especially since it assumes that the Mac ditched creator codes to be more compatible with the rest of the world. It was just as compatible in 10.5 *with* creator codes.

You're so full of it, it makes me sick. And by "it" I mean Apple apologism sprinkled with condescending besserwisser attitude
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Again with the inane analogies; the above makes no sense.

It's always the same with your posts, Groundhog Day. First some obscure and provably untrue statement, then the apology for Apple and finally some analogy that makes no sense. Especially since it assumes that the Mac ditched creator codes to be more compatible with the rest of the world. It was just as compatible in 10.5 *with* creator codes.
Creator codes have been deprecated since 10.3 or so, for "lingua franca" reasons. They *could* have been left in indefinitely, but that would have meant either a) continued effort to support them or b) that developers would either follow guidelines or not, resulting in creator codes working sometimes and not other times. A system that works sometimes isn't a system — it's broken functionality. This was the REALITY as of OS 9, where simply copying a file to a USB stick would ostensibly BREAK it.

If that seems inane to you, I suggest you take it up with reality.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
You're so full of it, it makes me sick. And by "it" I mean Apple apologism sprinkled with condescending besserwisser attitude


I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish, but you have self-worth issues that are FAR beyond the scope of this forum, and certainly beyond what I'm willing to deal with.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Creator codes have been deprecated since 10.3 or so, for "lingua franca" reasons. They *could* have been left in indefinitely, but that would have meant either a) continued effort to support them or b) that developers would either follow guidelines or not, resulting in creator codes working sometimes and not other times. A system that works sometimes isn't a system — it's broken functionality. This was the REALITY as of OS 9, where simply copying a file to a USB stick would ostensibly BREAK it.

If that seems inane to you, I suggest you take it up with reality.

Nope, copying a file to a HFS formatted USB stick wouldn't break anything. What you call "reality" is whatever fantasies you make up to support your Quixotic mission to make apologies for any and all decisions made by Apple, including this. Apple has never been concerned with any "lingua franca" before on anything else, much to the annoyance of people who find their servers littered with .ds_store files on any server a Mac touches or the HFS+ disk format, or not supporting other formats open source or not (e.g. OGG, BD, Flash on iOS etc).

OS X files can and do support creator codes, it's just that now the OS ignores them. Lingua franca indeed

I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish, but you have self-worth issues that are FAR beyond the scope of this forum, and certainly beyond what I'm willing to deal with.
That statement is so ironic on so many levels. And to think that you actually play a part on this forum and that you have to "deal" with anything that you don't want to is just priceless
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Ah pardon, I guess I did.. at least I didn't make myself clear enough. I guess the reason why the file would be named "readme.doc" and still be a jpeg, would be something like, I make a screen for a computer game that is a short readme or intro document and I use the dot instead of space. (it's not a great example, but I hope the meaning comes across, that creating the three letter suffix in that case was just a coincidence, because the user didn't even consider it to be a suffix, it never entered his mind)
Right, and as I hinted at the first go-round (perhaps not clearly enough), this is one of those situations where the objectively right behavior is for the Finder to babysit the user, by at least warning that this will most definitely cause a problem (for interoperability).

I should make myself clear, I was using the OS 9 Finder as an example, not that I want to "live in the past" or that it was better in every sense - rather that even today;
1) The OS X Finder could learn things from the OS 9 Finder
2) The OS X Finder could be improved a lot - and never really has been

Sure OS X was new, but it's Finder has the same purpose as the OS 9 Finder, thus it's completely reasonable to examine the most popular features of the OS 9 Finder - and disregarding the OS 9 Finder completely, the OS X Finder has very much room for improvement, but looking at its development (or the lack there of) it seems to have been relegated into software in class B or C at Apple - slightly above Dashboard, but below iChat.

The fact that Apple would wish the file system was gone, doesn't make it so, and for many people the Finder is a very necessary tool - but using it isn't as pleasant as useful as it could be. Using the Finder is a bit of a chore and that's by design, not by virtue of being a file browser/manipulator.
Well, they do constantly add new stuff, it's just not the stuff you want. You want them to add certain features (file search blacklist) and take away cruft (file extensions), meanwhile they actually ARE adding new features (coverflow) and taking away cruft (apple menu). It's just that they're not (all) the same ones you want. Then you present your wish list in the form of a complaint, meaning that you won't be happy until it reaches an unreachable ideal. You're kind of the boy who cried wolf; there's no hope to satiate you, so your dissatisfaction is meaningless.

I don't mean this as Apple apologism, but more of a "know your enemy," or more accurately to tailor your expectations to appropriate limits given known realities, so that you have at least a chance of being happy one day.

It was a great day once upon a time, when I had the realization that it was equivalent to train myself to use the built-in system, as it was to train the system to meet my rigid expectations. A great weight was lifted from me that day, I no longer had to maintain a growing library of hacks and skins, worry about their ongoing compatibility, or reimplement them every year or so when I reinstalled the system or started working at a new computer. You don't have to blindly accept the present system whatever it may be, but as with everything in life it is wise to find a compromise somewhere in the middle. The system's "way" might not be completely "right," but so long as it isn't completely "wrong" there is a great benefit in leaning that direction.



Well, there's always been more than one way to do things on a Mac, and the customizable Apple menu would just be another way to launch an app. Despite Launchpad being introduced, the launching of apps can still be found in the Dock - and in fact the Dock as you describe it and Apple sort of concedes with the Launchpad, is a bit busy and dare I say: bloaty.
Yeah actually it reminds me a lot of the "spatial finder" ideal. It works beautifully as long as there is a minimum of apps/docs in use, and no other paradigms are competing for your attention. But it doesn't scale well.

The instant windowshade feature of OS 9 or the near instant shrinkage of windows in Windows is far better than watching that slow, slow genie effect animation that looked old and boring 5 years ago. The Dock has it's benefits, but it's not a replacement for the Apple menu - in fact Launchpad is much closer to that.
I only ever use ⌘Tab, ⌘H and ⌘`. No animations (knock on wood )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Nope, copying a file to a HFS formatted USB stick wouldn't break anything. What you call "reality" is whatever fantasies you make up to support your Quixotic mission to make apologies for any and all decisions made by Apple, including this. Apple has never been concerned with any "lingua franca" before on anything else, much to the annoyance of people who find their servers littered with .ds_store files on any server a Mac touches or the HFS+ disk format, or not supporting other formats open source or not (e.g. OGG, BD, Flash on iOS etc).
I think the existence of boot camp disproves this.

Using HFS for a thumb drive would be stupid. Trying to work in a mixed office with extensionless files would be stupid. Far stupider than compromising on filename purity. By the way, why no complaint about being unable to use ":" in filenames? That bothers me more than extensions.

Almost no mac users go a year without interacting with a windows user. That wasn't true in the 90s. They should default to the expected use, and the expected use nowadays is interoperability. I agree that they should still allow people to live in their ivory tower mac-only world if they want, extensionless files and all (so removing it in 10.6 saddens me). But if there really is a conflict, I hope they support realism over idealism.

On the other hand, they found a way to work with zip files, they could have found a way to make it work with FAT32 usb drives.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think the existence of boot camp disproves this.
I'm sorry, you'll have to be more clear - disproves what?

Using HFS for a thumb drive would be stupid.
Plenty of people still do exactly that. A "thumb" drive is just a drive, if one doesn't need to format it in FAT32, its better not to. The Mac writes much slower to FAT32 than HFS.

Trying to work in a mixed office with extensionless files would be stupid. Far stupider than compromising on filename purity.
Lot's of stupid, stupid, stupid. I'm almost swayed by the beautiful rhetoric. ... but it's not that stupid, the Macs can read anything and one can just append the suffix if and when needed. Apps like Adobe apps offered this to be done with the touch of a button, long before Apple dropped to the lowest common denominator.

By the way, why no complaint about being unable to use ":" in filenames? That bothers me more than extensions.
Feel free. I think you've missed the point of this discussion. I am not the arbiter of what should and should not be complained about, not have I presented my point of view as a complete and final end-all be-all of "things that are wrong with the Finder". I mention a handful of items, just for the sake of the discussion, no one is preventing you or anyone from talking about whatever you want.

I'm not Spheric.

Almost no mac users go a year without interacting with a windows user. That wasn't true in the 90s. They should default to the expected use, and the expected use nowadays is interoperability. I agree that they should still allow people to live in their ivory tower mac-only world if they want, extensionless files and all (so removing it in 10.6 saddens me). But if there really is a conflict, I hope they support realism over idealism.
There never was a conflict with OS X, Macs could always read anything, and understand the creator codes and also use the suffix - I'm not talking about OS 9 here, and again I guess I have to stress that I don't want OS X to be or behave like OS 9.

1. JPEG file "picture.jpg" with creator codes GKON would open in GC on the Mac and whatever opens JPGs on Windows.
2. JPEG file "picture.jpg" without creator codes would open in default app on Mac and default app on Windows.
3. JPEG file "picture" with creator GKON codes and type code JPEG would open in GC while Windows wouldn't do anything.
4. JPEG file "picture.xyz" with creator codes GKON and type code JPEG would open in GC while Windows would open in app that opens xyz.

5. The most important part: Mac OS X would always have the suffix .jpg for compatibility reasons - but hidden by default because it didn't have that much of a meaning to the Mac OS, that was still controlled by creator code and type code.

Now OS X is just as dumb as Windows. It wasn't necessary. Especially since OS X since 10.4 supports Uniform Type Identifier, which was supposed to be the successor of type and creator codes. But all that happened is that creator codes became ignored and UTI isn't used as it should be - the OS knows or should know very well what app created "example.jpg" but it always opens it in the default goddam app - even though that app applies creator code and UTI. Stealing files by the default app, effectively.

That's stupid, if anything is.

On the other hand, they found a way to work with zip files, they could have found a way to make it work with FAT32 usb drives.
Yeah, they probably can, but UTI is what they support now, so that's probably what they'd try to put on those FAT32 drives. Shame UTI isn't used as a proper replacement for the creator codes. GC is an app that supports both UTI and creator codes. OS X 10.7 still just opens everything in Preview.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:36 PM
 
voodoo is very much right about this, folks. I've gotten used to the dumber behavior, but I do miss the fact that the Mac was classically much smarter about file types. Now instead of expecting files to open using the apps I want with a simple double click, if there's any doubt about how they'll open I use the Open With command. Far less efficient.

And Apple's specific file extensions are obnoxiously long winded too now (been that way since the debut of OS X actually), I suppose for readabililty, but it just looks dumb.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Aug 17, 2011 at 12:45 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:36 PM
 
Cut out the dogma.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:41 PM
 
Zip presents no problem to metadata forks. In fact, it's the solution to transferring through real-world channels such as e-mail and USB sticks (none of which, as you say, are ever HFS+-formatted). But unzip it on a Windows machine, and you still get that construct of two files. ****ing Mac users and their proprietary crap. Why can't they just work with normal computers?

Been there twenty years; burned the t-shirt, thank you very much.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:45 PM
 
A quote from a review of Mac OS X 10.1.0 almost ten years old, still holds true today - I'm underlining this as it both pertains to the discussion on file type and creator codes, suffixes and why software sucks (and the Finder in particular)

 


TidBITS : Mac OS X 10.1: The Main Features
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Zip presents no problem to metadata forks. In fact, it's the solution to transferring through real-world channels such as e-mail and USB sticks (none of which, as you say, are ever HFS+-formatted). But unzip it on a Windows machine, and you still get that construct of two files. ****ing Mac users and their proprietary crap. Why can't they just work with normal computers?

Been there twenty years; burned the t-shirt, thank you very much.
I have a Mac formatted (HFS+) "USB stick", who are you trying to fool here?

I'm not alone.

my mac formatted USB memory stick in a PC ?
I have a Mac formatted USB 32 gb flash drive. How do I make it show up on my PC? - Yahoo! Answers

etc.

There must be some mental blockage going on with you.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I'm sorry, you'll have to be more clear - disproves what?
The claim that Apple is purposefully oblivious to "lingua franca"

if one doesn't need to format it in FAT32, its better not to.
I strongly disagree with this. The chances that you'll someday want to access that drive from Windows are just too high. Until Windows can read/write HFS or until you can reformat without losing data, choosing HFS over FAT32 for a non-boot removable drive is nothing more than nerd-angst. Remember we're not talking about Apple allowing it, we're talking about Apple requiring it wrt another core feature.

the Macs can read anything and one can just append the suffix if and when needed.
If you're suggesting the OS should automatically add a suffix as a file exits (every email, every removable media, etc), that's not a bad idea. If you're saying the user should take the time to rename everything they transfer, just for the joy of having their own incompatible internal naming party, I'm sorry but that is just stupid
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:08 PM
 
All of this consternation might be sort of misdirected since Apple has presumably been working on retiring HFS+ for years now. This entire conversation and just about every variable here is completely and utterly changed with a modern filesystem.

I don't see much wrong with Apple adopting temporary sort of measures in the meantime.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The claim that Apple is purposefully oblivious to "lingua franca"


I strongly disagree with this. The chances that you'll someday want to access that drive from Windows are just too high. Until Windows can read/write HFS or until you can reformat without losing data, choosing HFS over FAT32 for a non-boot removable drive is nothing more than nerd-angst. Remember we're not talking about Apple allowing it, we're talking about Apple requiring it wrt another core feature.


If you're suggesting the OS should automatically add a suffix as a file exits (every email, every removable media, etc), that's not a bad idea. If you're saying the user should take the time to rename everything they transfer, just for the joy of having their own incompatible internal naming party, I'm sorry but that is just stupid


Not being a Windows guy I'm not sure here, but wasn't FAT32 retired along with Windows ME or something? Why is FAT32 still even in these sorts of discussions rather than NTFS?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:12 PM
 
What makes you think the current reliance on dumb file extensions will go away with a spiffier filesystem? I see no evidence of that. HFS and the metadata technology Apple has been building in the OS for the last few milestones already has more than enough support for a better solution, if Apple were going in that direction.

Aside from hard drives that may still be FAT32 formatted from the factory (probably quite a number of thumb drives, but I could be wrong about that), Mac users default to FAT32 for Windows compatibility because OS X doesn't naively write to NTFS.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Not being a Windows guy I'm not sure here, but wasn't FAT32 retired along with Windows ME or something? Why is FAT32 still even in these sorts of discussions rather than NTFS?
Probably because for Macs it is the lowest common denominator, Macs can't write to NTFS.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
All of this consternation might be sort of misdirected since Apple has presumably been working on retiring HFS+ for years now. This entire conversation and just about every variable here is completely and utterly changed with a modern filesystem.

I don't see much wrong with Apple adopting temporary sort of measures in the meantime.

For example, if Apple copies ZFS we would track checksums for each file, and file type metadata that can be associated with these checksums, making it pretty easy to determine the file type of a file regardless of file extension or whether it has touched a Windows system.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
voodoo is very much right about this, folks. I've gotten used to the dumber behavior, but I do miss the fact that the Mac was classically much smarter about file types.
They should do both, definitely. And as a 10.5 user, my perspective is that they do
But the fact is that when a user starts relying on extensionlessism, they're only putting the noose around their neck waiting for the day they have to interoperate. Interoperability is more important than ever, and you still might never have to do it, but you're just putting yourself in an unnecessary predicament by not using extensions from the start.

Actually I'm surprised that Windows hasn't come up with their own creator code system by now.

Now instead of expecting files to open using the apps I want with a simple double click, if there's any doubt about how they'll open I use the Open With command. Far less efficient.
The fact is, I was doing this in OS 9 too. I didn't know all the icons any better than today's stubborn mac users know all the extensions, so if I had an mp3 or something with lots of possible apps, I usually ended up dragging it to the tear-off app switcher (the proto-dock) rather than take a chance.

Flexibility is a two-edged sword. Sometimes you actually want a default app, and sometimes you don't. There's no possible way for the computer to guess what you want 100% of the time.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
What makes you think the current reliance on dumb file extensions will go away with a spiffier filesystem? I see no evidence of that. HFS and the metadata technology Apple has been building in the OS for the last few milestones already has more than enough support for a better solution, if Apple were going in that direction.


Very true, Apple has already in place all the metadata needed to safely ignore the suffixes and use the UTI - a new file system changes nothing in that regard.

Apple has already chosen and put into place the metadata system that it wanted, it's just not using it (and ignoring the old one, even though files do still have creator and type codes)
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Heh, yeah the answers in that link are exactly why it's better not to do that
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Not being a Windows guy I'm not sure here, but wasn't FAT32 retired along with Windows ME or something? Why is FAT32 still even in these sorts of discussions rather than NTFS?
At least through 10.5, OS X doesn't support writing to NTFS. One of the main uses of thumb drives is to read and write from other people's computers (where you can't just go around installing stuff willy nilly), so native support is the first priority and performance is secondary.

Edit: oops I didn't see it was answered already
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The claim that Apple is purposefully oblivious to "lingua franca"
Apple supports and supported the suffixes, it just also supported type and creator codes that superseded the suffixes on the Mac (until 10.6) when it introduces UTI to ostensibly replace the creator/type codes (which are still supported, as per Apple's own recommendations for some reason) but hasn't implemented the UTI support to anything equivalent to the type/creator codes on files.

So Apple was never oblivious to suffixes and had quite a reasonable solution with Mac OS X until 10.6.

I strongly disagree with this. The chances that you'll someday want to access that drive from Windows are just too high. Until Windows can read/write HFS or until you can reformat without losing data, choosing HFS over FAT32 for a non-boot removable drive is nothing more than nerd-angst. Remember we're not talking about Apple allowing it, we're talking about Apple requiring it wrt another core feature.
Well, works fine for me and the Mac writes way slower to FAT32 files and for users of OS X 10.5 and earlier, it doesn't support the creator/type codes, so I prefer to have the USB drives HFS+ formatted. If that doesn't work for you, of course have them FAT32 formatted, but it's still pretty annoying if one interacts exclusively with Macs.

If you're suggesting the OS should automatically add a suffix as a file exits (every email, every removable media, etc), that's not a bad idea. If you're saying the user should take the time to rename everything they transfer, just for the joy of having their own incompatible internal naming party, I'm sorry but that is just stupid
I'm suggesting the former.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
For example, if Apple copies ZFS we would track checksums for each file, and file type metadata that can be associated with these checksums, making it pretty easy to determine the file type of a file regardless of file extension or whether it has touched a Windows system.
Even easier would be to leave things the way they were in 10.5. But since they apparently didn't want that, then ease of implementation is not going to make it happen.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Heh, yeah the answers in that link are exactly why it's better not to do that
Yeah, my point was that Spheric was full of it regarding USB thumb drives not being able to be formatted in HFS+ ... and sure in a world where one wants to be 200% safe that one is always compatible, then yes it's better to format the thing in FAT32, but in other cases one might prefer performance over compatibility.

I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
I have a Mac formatted (HFS+) "USB stick", who are you trying to fool here?

I'm not alone.

my mac formatted USB memory stick in a PC ?
I have a Mac formatted USB 32 gb flash drive. How do I make it show up on my PC? - Yahoo! Answers

etc.
You're linking to two threads with people who are UNABLE TO USE their USB sticks for their intended purpose as proof that I'm making stuff up?

I'll repeat: NONE (does slight hyperbole really blow your top?) of the USB sticks I've seen in daily use are EVER (does slight hyperbole really blow your top?) HFS+-formatted.

Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
There must be some mental blockage going on with you.
Insult #5 or #6 (#7?)— I'm losing track, since I'm not reading most of your posts anymore.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Probably because for Macs it is the lowest common denominator, Macs can't write to NTFS.

Well, I don't understand that, because yes you can write to NTFS via FUSE.

Why has Apple been so weird about supporting NTFS?
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'll repeat: NONE (does slight hyperbole really blow your top?) of the USB sticks I've seen in daily use are EVER (does slight hyperbole really blow your top?) HFS+-formatted.
That's a FAR cry from the claim you made that USB sticks CAN'T be HFS+ formatted EVER. Nice moving of goalposts (and honestly it's really telling about the level of discussion when you claim that someone disagreeing with you is insulting you)

...and USB sticks (none of which, as you say, are ever HFS+-formatted).
So this is either meaningless hyperbole (likely) or a claim that they can't be HFS+ formatted, which is just a load of crock.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
What makes you think the current reliance on dumb file extensions will go away with a spiffier filesystem? I see no evidence of that. HFS and the metadata technology Apple has been building in the OS for the last few milestones already has more than enough support for a better solution, if Apple were going in that direction.

I've answered that below, but in case you missed it, checksum tracking.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post


Very true, Apple has already in place all the metadata needed to safely ignore the suffixes and use the UTI - a new file system changes nothing in that regard.

Except there is no way to tell if the metadata has been manipulated without tracking checksums.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
So this is either meaningless hyperbole (likely) or a claim that they can't be HFS+ formatted, which is just a load of crock.
Simmer down, boys.

Voo: "aren't" is not the same as "can't," and you brought up HFS as a solution for everybody, not an unusual option. Just sayin'
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, I don't understand that, because yes you can write to NTFS via FUSE.

Why has Apple been so weird about supporting NTFS?
Who knows, Apple is weird about a great many things. And yes with the help of 3rd party apps one can write to NTFS, I was referring to the plain default Apple Mac. Which can't, thus FAT32 has become the "lingua franca", i.e. the lowest common denominator.

As to why Apple doesn't support NTFS natively, your guess is as good as mine - or alternatively you can ask one of the volunteers for the Apple Ministry of Information and Truth™.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Even easier would be to leave things the way they were in 10.5. But since they apparently didn't want that, then ease of implementation is not going to make it happen.

I still think that checksums would be far more bulletproof.

The last thing Apple wants to deal with is some malware maker manipulating the file type of some file that appears to be something other than it is. With checksum tracking this discussion goes away.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, I don't understand that, because yes you can write to NTFS via FUSE.
If it's not standard then it's not good enough. I'm not going to install software on friends' or work computers just to use a thumb drive.

Why has Apple been so weird about supporting NTFS?
I thought it was finally built in now? But for compatibility with older macs, your best bet is still FAT32

I might never upgrade from 10.5 (it's pretty solid), which means there are others like me, and to be compatible with them I will probably keep using FAT32 indefinitely.

And really, who cares between FAT32 and NTFS for such a small and temporary drive?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Who knows, Apple is weird about a great many things. And yes with the help of 3rd party apps one can write to NTFS, I was referring to the plain default Apple Mac. Which can't, thus FAT32 has become the "lingua franca", i.e. the lowest common denominator.

As to why Apple doesn't support NTFS natively, your guess is as good as mine - or alternatively you can ask one of the volunteers for the Apple Ministry of Information and Truth™.

Leaving this debate aside, can anybody tell me why Apple didn't support NTFS from day one and even skipped supporting FAT32? When OS X became the default OS were there more Windows XP users or Windows ME users? Wouldn't it have made sense to support the current and future tech rather then yesterday's tech?
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Simmer down, boys.

Voo: "aren't" is not the same as "can't," and you brought up HFS as a solution for everybody, not an unusual option. Just sayin'
"aren't ever" is pretty darn close to can't, especially in conjunction with mentioning the email attachments which can't be "Mac formatted" and will always hose Mac specific metadata or in the good ol' days, resource forks.

All I wrote was "if one doesn't need to format it in FAT32, its better not to." and perhaps should have been more accurately written (to convey my meaning) "if one doesn't need to format it in FAT32, it has advantages not to."

The qualifier is of course that one doesn't need to format the thing in FAT32, while if one needs to at any time because of compatibility, it's better to use FAT32.

I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I still think that checksums would be far more bulletproof.

The last thing Apple wants to deal with is some malware maker manipulating the file type of some file that appears to be something other than it is. With checksum tracking this discussion goes away.
I guess I don't understand this. How does a checksum prevent lying?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And really, who cares between FAT32 and NTFS for such a small and temporary drive?

Because there are probably a myriad of other cases where being able to write to NTFS drives would be useful? For instance, writing to NTFS formatted iSCSI drives?

Why do people install the NTFS FUSE module?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why do people install the NTFS FUSE module?
To work around problems, like encountering NTFS drives. That's why you wouldn't want to create a problem in the first place which you would later have to work around, like _choosing_ NTFS.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I guess I don't understand this. How does a checksum prevent lying?

As far as I understand the following mechanisms are in place to recognize file type:

- some file header or something injected into the file so that the file type is recognizable with Unix "file" commands. This command exists on non-Mac Unix systems too

- old school OS 9 type and creator codes (whatever their status is, I've lost track and don't really care)

- xattr metadata

- file extensions


Of these 4 things, if you were to change any of these bits of information the only one that would not result in the checksum being modified is the file extension change, but of course trusting file extensions is a bad thing. IIRC OS X uses each of these mechanisms and file extensions as its last resort.

With a database of checksums you can do whatever you want to the file, but if there is a mismatch of file type in comparison to the xattr (or whatever file system level metadata) record of that file, the OS can be aware of this.

There are probably a whole lot of possible scenarios to account for here, and there is the problem of ascertaining and recording the correct file type to compare against, but my point is that the whole checksum thing will probably be a very important tool that would be incorporated into this matrix, and one that would render some older methods obsolete.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:50 PM
 




HFS+ thumb drives.

Even Apple disagrees with those who think they don't ever have HFS+ formatting.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
To work around problems, like encountering NTFS drives. That's why you wouldn't want to create a problem in the first place which you would later have to work around, like _choosing_ NTFS.

How would this be different than people choosing FAT32?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
"aren't ever" is pretty darn close to can't,
Uh, people around here "aren't ever" speaking Esperanto, and it's not because they "can't"

All I wrote was "if one doesn't need to format it in FAT32, its better not to." and perhaps should have been more accurately written (to convey my meaning) "if one doesn't need to format it in FAT32, it has advantages not to."
And if one doesn't need to speak in English, then there are advantages to speaking Esperanto instead

The real point of this of course, is that offering Esperanto as a solution to a common problem, is no solution at all (sorry I don't know what's supposed to be better about Esperanto, so I can't extend the metaphor).
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
- old school OS 9 type and creator codes (whatever their status is, I've lost track and don't really care)
Besson3c, they are now called UTI and you should care, for indeed they are ostensibly the successor of type and creator codes.

Technically UTI is even more advanced than type/creator codes and can handle much more than files. Apple "supports" this but doesn't use it in that capacity. It doesn't trump the three letter suffix. Which is bad.

Checksums don't really matter much in this, though they can surely help to increase safety and reliability. Heck anything is safer and more reliable than a three letter arbitrary suffix.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How would this be different than people choosing FAT32?
Native compatibility
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
As far as I understand the following mechanisms are in place to recognize file type:

- some file header or something injected into the file so that the file type is recognizable with Unix "file" commands. This command exists on non-Mac Unix systems too

- old school OS 9 type and creator codes (whatever their status is, I've lost track and don't really care)

- xattr metadata

- file extensions


Of these 4 things, if you were to change any of these bits of information the only one that would not result in the checksum being modified is the file extension change, but of course trusting file extensions is a bad thing. IIRC OS X uses each of these mechanisms and file extensions as its last resort.

With a database of checksums you can do whatever you want to the file, but if there is a mismatch of file type in comparison to the xattr (or whatever file system level metadata) record of that file, the OS can be aware of this.

There are probably a whole lot of possible scenarios to account for here, and there is the problem of ascertaining and recording the correct file type to compare against, but my point is that the whole checksum thing will probably be a very important tool that would be incorporated into this matrix, and one that would render some older methods obsolete.
I still don't get it. How do all those settings get to be "right" in the first place? Are we assuming that the hacker doesn't know how to make a file from scratch? Or is it part of a system that outlaws any documents that don't come from the mothership?

It seems like this would only perpetuate a false sense of security.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Uh, people around here "aren't ever" speaking Esperanto, and it's not because they "can't"
In my case it is because I can't

And if one doesn't need to speak in English, then there are advantages to speaking Esperanto instead
I reckon so.. (though I'm not sure either how many in the example speak Esperanto)

The real point of this of course, is that offering Esperanto as a solution to a common problem, is no solution at all (sorry I don't know what's supposed to be better about Esperanto, so I can't extend the metaphor).
I've really lost the thread in the Esperanto analogy, as I mentioned before to it's instigator, it wasn't any good to begin with.

I've seen HFS+ formatted USB drives in the wild, it makes a certain sense to the people who use them and it doesn't make sense if they want to use them for file transfers to a Wintel. I understand why you don't think it is "stupid" to do this, and I agree with you. If I was in your situation (for example) I'd format a thumb drive in FAT32 - but in my situation, that's not necessary and I prefer the faster write speed. My Mac is not just a few seconds faster to fill a 4 GB HFS+ thumb drive, it's 5-7 minutes faster, depending on the size and quantity of files.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Besson3c, they are now called UTI and you should care, for indeed they are ostensibly the successor of type and creator codes.
What happened to xattr?

Technically UTI is even more advanced than type/creator codes and can handle much more than files. Apple "supports" this but doesn't use it in that capacity. It doesn't trump the three letter suffix. Which is bad.
Meh, I think it is just a stopgap measure. The whole playing board will have changed with a new file system.

Checksums don't really matter much in this, though they can surely help to increase safety and reliability. Heck anything is safer and more reliable than a three letter arbitrary suffix.
Anything is safer than relying on UTI as well, or anything that can be manipulated with primitive tools.

To me, all this conversation is about the best way to polish a read.
     
 
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 11:08 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.,