[TheZee]

Ok, I was stoked to find that Unsanity, one of my favorite haxie and application developers, finally updated one of their best haxies: Xounds to work now with OS X 10.5.7 and so far it works flawlessly. Thank you Unsanity. However, I am bummed to find out that WindowShade 4.3, which they finally got to work with OS X 10.5.6, now does not work with OS X 10.5.7. Does anyone else know if Unsanity is working on fixing this? Does anyone have similar issues with Unsanity's WindowShade 4.3 not working with OS X 10.5.7 and if so does anyone have a fix for it? Still praying that Unsanity will someday soon update MightyMouse and ShapeShifter to work with OS X 10.5.7. Thanks one and all for sharing any and all knowledge.
Peace out,

[CharlesS]

The good:

???

The bad:

Haxies screw with application code in places that it's not supposed to be screwed with, using methods discouraged by Apple (which is what causes them to break every time the OS changes).

The ugly:

Haxies can cause all sorts of weird errors, crashes, and other undesirable behavior due to making applications behave out of spec. If you're unlucky they can even make the OS fail to start up (as they did with Leopard's launch). They generally make things unstable and insecure, and thus are not recommended.

[Chuckit]

Many people loved the windowshade feature of the classic Mac OS, and WindowShade restores that. That would be the good. I'd think that would be pretty obvious.

[Salty]

I personally enjoy living my life the way Apple says I should and coming up with straw man arguments as to why other people's preferences are morally wrong... it's like being in the conservative church only Steve Jobs is sooo much cooler than James Dobson.

[JKT]

It isn't a straw man argument if using APE and haxies actually causes problems, which they have done on several occasions over the years. Whether or not Windowshade or whatever addition you want is useful or not is completely irrelevant. The fact that APE has the potential to (and does) screw up your system and/or other people's apps is real and can't be ignored. If you want Windowshading then your SOL; either you use a hack that has a history of problems or you don't have windowshading at all and you get on with your life.

[msuper69]

I tried one of the Unsanity haxies and it screwed up my system so bad I had to archive and install.

No thanks!

(What CharlesS said).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

I tried one of the Unsanity haxies and it screwed up my system so bad I had to archive and install.

No thanks!

(What CharlesS said).

Somehow I have a feeling this is the opposite effect of what Charles complains about — something else screwed up your system and Unsanity got blamed for it. Haxies are runtime hacks — if you uninstall them, they don't do anything.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Somehow I have a feeling this is the opposite effect of what Charles complains about — something else screwed up your system and Unsanity got blamed for it. Haxies are runtime hacks — if you uninstall them, they don't do anything.

No. I know how to troubleshoot problems.

The system was fine before installing the haxie.
It was not fine after installing the haxie.
It was fine after I uninstalled the haxie.

This is exactly what CharlesS is referring to.

[Chuckit]

If simply uninstalling the haxie was sufficient, you didn't need to do an archive and install.

[CharlesS]

So things need to require an archive and install to qualify as problematic?

[JKT]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Somehow I have a feeling this is the opposite effect of what Charles complains about — something else screwed up your system and Unsanity got blamed for it. Haxies are runtime hacks — if you uninstall them, they don't do anything.

But haxies don't just install themselves. They also install APE and if you aren't aware of that, then removing just the haxie will not clean your system, APE is still loaded at every log-in and your system or app remains borked. The problem with haxies is that you must know what they do to the OS before you install and use them to be able to troubleshoot the problems they cause and there is a significant proportion of computer users who don't bother to get informed before they install "teh cool hack that makes your Mac better!"

[Spheric Harlot]

...or even "teh fcking driver that came with that cool new Logitech mouse!"

Now *that* was a total snafu.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

So things need to require an archive and install to qualify as problematic?

I said no such thing.

[TheZee]

Wow,
The haxie animosity in the room is reaching critical mass. My initial inquiry has nothing to do with whether or not haxies are "good" or "bad." I agree with you that they can be the culprits of many system and/or application issues. Knowing that, each and every user of any haxie has only themselves to blame if they use one without knowing exactly what they do and how, if need be, to get rid of one installed should a problem arise. I never use any haxie without knowing as much as I can about it first. That being said, I guess I am blessed because I have never had any issue arise that I could not easily discern if it was haxie related and if so, fix it. This is coming from an avid user of ShapeShifter, MightyMouse, Xounds, Windowshade, Visage, ChangeDesktop, and a myriad of others. When ShapeShifter & MightyMouse were still operable with OS X I created themes, cursors sets, and all that, used them, changed them, shared them with other GUI theming enthusiasts and never had a system crash or anything remotely similar. If you know what you are doing, you can use haxies safely and productively. As I did for years. Ok, now back to my original post topic, in case I wasn't clear. I didn't have any problems with WindowShade other than the fact that their most recent update worked like a charm when I was running OS X 10.5.6 and I was elated but after updating to OS X 10.5.7, it doesn't work at all. No problems with my system or any applications just bummed that WindowShade is no longer working and was hoping that someone might know why. Perhaps Unsanity needs to update the APE, which would make sense now that you mention it or it might be that WindowShade, itself, needs to be updated to be compatible with the latest OS X. Either way, I hope that the excellent developers at Unsanity will be addressing and repairing the glitch soon because I use their products both for creative as well as productive means. Very cool that their Xounds haxie is working superbly. So, please, dial it down a bit on the anti haxie rhetoric will ya?
Peace out,

[pendragon]

Before installing Leopard, I knew to uninstall all my Haxies. Ergo, a minute later, the Haxies were history.

Or so I thought. After installing Leopard, I had a few preferences to adjust/change. And that’s when the “oy-veh” moment occurred. A few of the preferences that need changing had been a result of an Unsanity application. Thus, I was unable to put things to right. Thanks to a backup and help here ’bouts, the problems were resolved---but what a pain.

The moral of this story is that if you need to uninstall a Haxie, be sure to revert all the settings/preferences back to the original Apple default state before removing the Unsanity app.

FWIW: Initially, I was a strong Unsanity supporter. Now, I avoid them like the plague.

Just my 2¢--YMMV.

[JKT]

I missed the part where your title said "Does Windowshade work with 10.5.7 yet?" rather than "Unsanity apps: the good, the bad and the ?" but perhaps that was just me.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by TheZee 

Knowing that, each and every user of any haxie has only themselves to blame if they use one without knowing exactly what they do and how, if need be, to get rid of one installed should a problem arise.

Well, not really, since as has already been mentioned, installing haxies can cause APE to get installed without a novice user realizing it, and completely innocuous-seeming things like Logitech drivers can surreptitiously install it. I know that I've seen "Smart" Crash Reports get installed in my home folder without my knowledge or approval a few times, with absolutely no indication that this was being done (and indeed, I never did find out what app was the culprit). These items rarely come with any sort of warning or disclaimer letting the end user know what he/she is getting into, leaving plenty of room for nasty little surprises later on.

As for the "anti-haxie rhetoric", not only does your thread title suggest a discussion on the merits of haxies, but your original question also asks why Unsanity is having so much trouble updating their software to work with new OS X versions, and the reason for that is simply that what they are doing is something that Apple is trying to disallow - the reason it keeps breaking is because what they are doing is hacking around Apple's protections which are designed to disallow this sort of thing, and each time Apple adds protection to keep it from working, Unsanity has to find a new way to hack around it. This should tell you something about the kind of software that haxies are, and how good an idea it is to rely on their working all the time.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, not really, since as has already been mentioned, installing haxies can cause APE to get installed without a novice user realizing it, and completely innocuous-seeming things like Logitech drivers can surreptitiously install it. I know that I've seen "Smart" Crash Reports get installed in my home folder without my knowledge or approval a few times, with absolutely no indication that this was being done (and indeed, I never did find out what app was the culprit). These items rarely come with any sort of warning or disclaimer letting the end user know what he/she is getting into, leaving plenty of room for nasty little surprises later on.

Surreptitiously installing unwanted software is a whole different question. It wouldn't have been any more OK if the software had decided to install a bad kernel extension or patch part of AppKit on-disk.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, not really, since as has already been mentioned, installing haxies can cause APE to get installed without a novice user realizing it, and completely innocuous-seeming things like Logitech drivers can surreptitiously install it. I know that I've seen "Smart" Crash Reports get installed in my home folder without my knowledge or approval a few times, with absolutely no indication that this was being done (and indeed, I never did find out what app was the culprit). These items rarely come with any sort of warning or disclaimer letting the end user know what he/she is getting into, leaving plenty of room for nasty little surprises later on.

As for the "anti-haxie rhetoric", not only does your thread title suggest a discussion on the merits of haxies, but your original question also asks why Unsanity is having so much trouble updating their software to work with new OS X versions, and the reason for that is simply that what they are doing is something that Apple is trying to disallow - the reason it keeps breaking is because what they are doing is hacking around Apple's protections which are designed to disallow this sort of thing, and each time Apple adds protection to keep it from working, Unsanity has to find a new way to hack around it. This should tell you something about the kind of software that haxies are, and how good an idea it is to rely on their working all the time.

Eh. I've never had a problem with Unsanity haxies themselves. Apple specifically allows people to do what they're doing (runtime patching of methods. It's built into the OS, no point denying that.) It stops working because Unsanity specifically has code to not allow haxies to run when the system is updated, just in case it's not compatible with the latest OS version. ShapeShifter was a whole different can of worms, and I hate the current theming system, because you can totally break your system if something goes wrong during the patching system. I know you dislike Application enhancer, but these hacks are going to happen one way or another, and runtime patching is WAY safer than on disk patching. Startup then hold shift down, and BAM, no more third party stuff loaded and you can fix the offending piece of software. Way nicer than trying to patch an offset.

[Curiosity]

If Apple had supplied an easy-to-use interface to change the colour scheme for the desktop, nobody would have to hack at the operating system to do so. Microsoft realized that and made it easy to change the colour scheme for Windows. Why could Apple not see that and do the same thing for Macs?
Even Linux supplies a way to change the colours and the cursors. Why not Mac?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Eh. I've never had a problem with Unsanity haxies themselves.

Try developing software sometime. After getting a slew of support e-mails from users complaining about your app crashing and/or doing weird things because they have a bunch of haxies installed that are messing with it, you'll change that assessment.

Apple specifically allows people to do what they're doing (runtime patching of methods. It's built into the OS, no point denying that.)

This is simply not true. It was true in OS 9, but in OS X, patching is always done by getting into an application via unorthodox means - the debugging APIs, fake Input Managers, etc. It is not a supported mechanism. Additionally, Apple has lately been implementing methods to prevent APE from working - Leopard has some, which have been worked around by now, but not completely. For example, I believe that the 64-bit runtime removes a lot of the functionality that APE has been using to do its thing, which means that as more applications move to 64-bit, APE will stop working with them. Additionally, Input Managers have been deprecated since Leopard's release with a warning that the IM system is going to be removed eventually, which I would expect to be soon since Leopard's been out for a while and a new OS version is nearing release.

Here is a mailing list post which should give you an idea of how Apple views haxies.

It stops working because Unsanity specifically has code to not allow haxies to run when the system is updated, just in case it's not compatible with the latest OS version.

That must be why they take so long to update their haxies to new OS versions, and why they don't get all their haxies updated at the same time.

ShapeShifter was a whole different can of worms, and I hate the current theming system, because you can totally break your system if something goes wrong during the patching system.

Theming is dead. Steve killed it. Like it or not, Apple doesn't want you to be using themes, and as a result they are going to make it difficult to use them.

I expect as Apple gets stricter with code signing, on-disk patching will be rendered impossible as well.

I know you dislike Application enhancer, but these hacks are going to happen one way or another

Based on the direction that Apple seems to be going, I am afraid that you are going to be proven wrong on this point in the coming years.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Curiosity 

Even Linux supplies a way to change the colours and the cursors.

What the hell sort of an argument is that?

Linux supplies a way to change EVERYTHING, since it's completely open-source.

It comes from a history of complete roll-your-own.

You can change cursors and colours because you used to have to BUILD THEM YOURSELF.

[Brien]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Try developing software sometime. After getting a slew of support e-mails from users complaining about your app crashing and/or doing weird things because they have a bunch of haxies installed that are messing with it, you'll change that assessment.


This is simply not true. It was true in OS 9, but in OS X, patching is always done by getting into an application via unorthodox means - the debugging APIs, fake Input Managers, etc. It is not a supported mechanism. Additionally, Apple has lately been implementing methods to prevent APE from working - Leopard has some, which have been worked around by now, but not completely. For example, I believe that the 64-bit runtime removes a lot of the functionality that APE has been using to do its thing, which means that as more applications move to 64-bit, APE will stop working with them. Additionally, Input Managers have been deprecated since Leopard's release with a warning that the IM system is going to be removed eventually, which I would expect to be soon since Leopard's been out for a while and a new OS version is nearing release.

Here is a mailing list post which should give you an idea of how Apple views haxies.

That must be why they take so long to update their haxies to new OS versions, and why they don't get all their haxies updated at the same time.


Theming is dead. Steve killed it. Like it or not, Apple doesn't want you to be using themes, and as a result they are going to make it difficult to use them.

I expect as Apple gets stricter with code signing, on-disk patching will be rendered impossible as well.


Based on the direction that Apple seems to be going, I am afraid that you are going to be proven wrong on this point in the coming years.

Not to sound paranoid, CharlesS, but you sound like you believe Apple is headed in the direction of locking down OS X ala the iPhone/App Store.

(Although that would kill hacks.)

[goMac]

They're all going to majorly break in 10.6 anyway...

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Brien 

Not to sound paranoid, CharlesS, but you sound like you believe Apple is headed in the direction of locking down OS X ala the iPhone/App Store.

(Although that would kill hacks.)

No, actually what I said has absolutely nothing to do with that. Try reading my post again. What I said is that Apple has been removing attack vectors that hacks use to infiltrate other applications for some time now, and that that is likely to continue.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Try developing software sometime. After getting a slew of support e-mails from users complaining about your app crashing and/or doing weird things because they have a bunch of haxies installed that are messing with it, you'll change that assessment.


This is simply not true. It was true in OS 9, but in OS X, patching is always done by getting into an application via unorthodox means - the debugging APIs, fake Input Managers, etc. It is not a supported mechanism. Additionally, Apple has lately been implementing methods to prevent APE from working - Leopard has some, which have been worked around by now, but not completely. For example, I believe that the 64-bit runtime removes a lot of the functionality that APE has been using to do its thing, which means that as more applications move to 64-bit, APE will stop working with them. Additionally, Input Managers have been deprecated since Leopard's release with a warning that the IM system is going to be removed eventually, which I would expect to be soon since Leopard's been out for a while and a new OS version is nearing release.

Here is a mailing list post which should give you an idea of how Apple views haxies.

That must be why they take so long to update their haxies to new OS versions, and why they don't get all their haxies updated at the same time.


Theming is dead. Steve killed it. Like it or not, Apple doesn't want you to be using themes, and as a result they are going to make it difficult to use them.

I expect as Apple gets stricter with code signing, on-disk patching will be rendered impossible as well.


Based on the direction that Apple seems to be going, I am afraid that you are going to be proven wrong on this point in the coming years.

I have developed software, and I still do some work on a few applications in my spare time. Method Swizzling has been is OS X for basically, ever, as have loadable bundles, so for Cocoa Applications (That's where Apple is pushing everyone, even if it's kicking and screaming), it would take a serious overhaul of the runtime (as I stated earlier). They'd have to fix it so that Cocoa objects are not a simple C structs according to the runtime. I've honestly only seen a limited number of crash logs that are Unsanity's fault, I even have had to go in and correct crash logs when people blame haxies when it's a bug that they just don't want to deal with.
I'm honestly looking for a crashlog that it is completly Unsanity's fault. (Overriding a published method or function and returning an invalid result.)

[Brien]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

No, actually what I said has absolutely nothing to do with that. Try reading my post again. What I said is that Apple has been removing attack vectors that hacks use to infiltrate other applications for some time now, and that that is likely to continue.

Oh, I totally misread your post. Whoops.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

I have developed software, and I still do some work on a few applications in my spare time. Method Swizzling has been is OS X for basically, ever, as have loadable bundles

Loadable bundles are voluntary on the app's part. They only get loaded if an app decides to load them in itself. Most Cocoa apps don't load bundles. Most hacks operate by exploiting back doors to get into the application's memory space, back doors which Apple has been closing.