[analogika]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Other stupid behaviour I see at lot in OS X is, if I click on something in an inactive window, that first click won't select any item but will *activate* the window first, then a second or third click are needed to finally do what I intended first. In the �Finder� it works for some things and not for others.

For example I have a small Safari window behind this one that is playing some Real streaming media (radio programming); it has a Mute button that I press all the time when someone comes into my office or if the phone rings, etc. When I click on it when it's in the background, instead of just using the same action to make the window active AND executing the intended action, no, it burns that click to bring the player to the front and only after I waste a second one it finally does what I wanted. Grrr....
In the Mac, the same action in Explorer does both actions at the same time.

I realize that you think you're criticizing the Mac (OS X) and praising user hell (OS 9), but you're wrong.

You will find that Explorer is one of only a few programs in OS 9 that does this, since it's clearly stated in Apple's HIG that clicks in inactive windows should NOT have an effect, rather, bringing forward the inactive window first, instead.

What *is* annoying (even though it does make sense) is that some applications respect this guideline, and some do not. I *hate* bringing a browser window to the front and inadvertently having clicked some link. Safari, thank God, doesn't do this. Play/stop controls only work with background-click in some apps - iTunes yes, Quicktime no. Why?

Of course, this is *far* less annoying now that only single windows are brought forward, and not the entire application's windows. THAT really sucked.

-s*

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Other stupid behaviour I see at lot in OS X is, if I click on something in an inactive window, that first click won't select any item but will *activate* the window first, then a second or third click are needed to finally do what I intended first. In the �Finder� it works for some things and not for others.

For example I have a small Safari window behind this one that is playing some Real streaming media (radio programming); it has a Mute button that I press all the time when someone comes into my office or if the phone rings, etc. When I click on it when it's in the background, instead of just using the same action to make the window active AND executing the intended action, no, it burns that click to bring the player to the front and only after I waste a second one it finally does what I wanted. Grrr....
In the Mac, the same action in Explorer does both actions at the same time.

All modern Macs have a mute button, that's what it's for.

I think your thread title is misleading, next time, call it criticism of MacOS X's GUI or something like this. Like it or not, but Apple considers this a feature, so this `mistake' will never be fixed.

[analogika]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
All modern Macs have a mute button, that's what it's for.

I think your thread title is misleading, next time, call it criticism of MacOS X's GUI or something like this. Like it or not, but Apple considers this a feature, so this `mistake' will never be fixed.

It *is* inconsistently implemented, though.

And my iMac runs Panther and does NOT have a mute button.

[JLL]

Originally posted by analogika:
It *is* inconsistently implemented, though.

And my iMac runs Panther and does NOT have a mute button.

Holding down the command key enables click through in most cases.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by analogika:
It *is* inconsistently implemented, though.

And my iMac runs Panther and does NOT have a mute button.

Hmmm, I forgot about the non-Pro keyboards, gomene
I'm used to mobile Macs mostly ... (and the non-Pro keyboards have long been replaced at work for the most part).

[chabig]

Originally posted by analogika:
Heck, on the pre-slot-loading iMacs, even the FAN stayed on.

The G3 iMacs never had fans. And I can confirm that my son's iMac CRT is off when the machine is asleep.

Chris

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
All modern Macs have a mute button, that's what it's for.

Of course, but because I always work my animations with some reference audio track I need to mute the radio to play them, not the computer.

[JLL]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Of course, but because I always work my animations with some reference audio track I need to mute the radio to play them, not the computer.

And I repeat:

Holding down the command key enables click through in most cases.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by analogika:
You will find that Explorer is one of only a few programs in OS 9 that does this, since it's clearly stated in Apple's HIG that clicks in inactive windows should NOT have an effect, rather, bringing forward the inactive window first, instead.

I don't know where in the AHIG is that stated but I think you're wrong. Think the Finder for example. In the Mac (and most of the time in OS X also) if you click on a item in an inactive window and start dragging it right away, it'll work. You don't need to click on the inactive window first and then drag the item: the first action will do both. This works even for renaming files or folders in inactive windows. Click on the name and when it comes to the front it will be ready to edit. Or double-click on it, it will open right away. This is the behaviour I expect to have system-wide but, typical OS X, it works in some places and not in others. Mail, Safari, Quicktime, iTunes, etc. don't seem to respect this norm but the �Finder� seems to do it most of the time, the way it used to be.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by JLL:
And I repeat:

Holding down the command key enables click through in most cases.

Command-Click on an inactive Safari window and it will open in a new Tab. See what I mean? It works for Open in a New Tab but not for the Mute button in the player! Inconsistency drives me nuts...

[cpac]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
This is an intentional behavior that is in line with the HIG.

Didn't this change completely with OS X?

I know you can click on a window's buttons in the background without bringing the window forward (the close/minimize/maximize stoplight buttons), and I know that certain programs at least (like iTunes) let you manipulate their controls without even being key.

By comparison though, I believe Omniweb does not follow a link if clicked on while that OW window was in the background, which is nice, since it may be hard to find a visible part of the window that isn't a link...

[chabig]

Originally posted by cpac:
Didn't this change completely with OS X?

It's up to the developer to enable click-through for specific controls. The operating system supports both ways. Here is what the human interface guidelines say:

CLICK-THROUGH

An item that provides click-through is one that a user can activate on an inactive window with one click, instead of clicking first to make the window active and then clicking the item. Click-through provides greater efficiency in performing such tasks as closing or resizing inactive windows, and copying or moving files. In many cases, however, click-through could confuse a user who clicks an item unintentionally.

Click-through is not a property of a class of controls; any control could support click-through in many contexts, but the same control could disable click-through when its use could be destructive in a particular context.

In an inactive window, an item that provides click-through should have its text or glyph (such as an arrow) in 100-percent black; if the item usually has color (such as a radio button), it should be colorless in its click-through state. Items that do not provide click-through should appear in their disabled state.

Don�t provide click-through for items or actions that:

Are potentially harmful (for example, the Delete button in Mail)

Are difficult to recover from, such as:

Actions that are difficult or impossible to cancel (the Send button in Mail)

Dismissing a dialog without knowing what action was taken (for example, it�s not easy to �unsave� a document)

Removing the user from the current context (selecting a new item in a column, for example, can change the target of the Finder window)

Clicking in any one of these situations should result in the window being brought forward but no action being taken.

In general, you can implement click-through for a command that provides confirmation feedback before executing�in other words, the user can cancel the action�such as deleting a user in Accounts preferences. If you want to implement click-through for an item that doesn�t provide confirmation feedback, consider how difficult it will be for the user to undo the action after it�s performed. For example, in Mail, it would be inadvisable to implement click-through for the Delete button, which deletes a message without providing feedback first, because its resulting action is harmful and difficult to undo. Click-through for the New button is OK because its resulting action is not harmful and is easy to undo.

Carbon: Click-through is off by default. You must explicitly enable click-through for specific controls.

Cocoa: Click-through is on by default. You must explicitly disable click-through for specific controls. Do not assume that the default behavior is the correct behavior. Make sure to apply the above guidelines.

Chris

[cpac]

So it's up to the developer to do click-through or not. (Which, in Maxximo's case, I think means he must complain to Real about it's plug-in interface).

[JLL]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Command-Click on an inactive Safari window and it will open in a new Tab.

Not on my Mac - command clicking on a link opens in a new tab as usual.

Command clicking on the Safari buttons in an inactive Safari window enables click through, but I don't know if it's the case regarding your player - Real seems to have turned off click through.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Thanks for proving my point on how much OS X sucks at usability. Having to go down to the Terminal and type arcane gibberish to accomplish the same things I used to do with a single button on the Mac says it all.

Well it's more ylike you have to go the Terminal for security flaws to me.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by cpac:

There is no noise generated by a sleeping system.

Not true. Tray-loading iMacs and Beige G3s under OS 9, at least, make lotts and lots of noise. I live with because I'm a heavy sleeper, but I could see why some could not.

[ryaxnb]

Do you keep your Mac in the bedroom? Sleep specialists say that using the bedroom for things other than sleeping can actually be harmful to a person's sleep cycle.

Ouch. It sounds like you need a UPS more than anything else, if that's the case. Are these power-downs announced in advance, like some kind of rationing, or is it an actual problem with the power grid?

Sleep specialists are useless if all you have is a studio, a dorm, or a hotel room.

UPSes are costly - great if you can afford them, but they're not so great otherwise.

[Detrius]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
Not true. Tray-loading iMacs and Beige G3s under OS 9, at least, make lotts and lots of noise. I live with because I'm a heavy sleeper, but I could see why some could not.

I hate to rain on your parade, but since we're talking about OS X, that example doesn't count. Also, the beige G3 doesn't even count as an example under X because it isn't supported by 10.3. The iMac is questionable, as it won't be supported under 10.4. You are talking about ancient machines that don't support deep sleep. Any machine that supports deep sleep should be silent while sleeping.

[analogika]

Originally posted by Detrius:
The iMac is questionable, as it won't be supported under 10.4.

what!?

is this true? can somebody verify/clarify this?

[Craig R. Arko]

Originally posted by analogika:
what!?

is this true? can somebody verify/clarify this?

I believe the assumption is, since tray loading G3 iMacs didn't have built-in FireWire (and the associated firmware level), they will not be supported in Tiger. Seems plausible.

Of course, G4 iMacs are tray loading and do have built-in FireWire. They'll probably work with 10.4 just fine, don't you think?

[analogika]

Originally posted by Craig R. Arko:
I believe the assumption is, since tray loading G3 iMacs didn't have built-in FireWire (and the associated firmware level), they will not be supported in Tiger. Seems plausible.

Ah - so this probably only affects the tray-loading iMacs, not the slot-loaders? (though the 350MHz slot-loaders came without FW)

I can't find any documentation on machines supported by Tiger - any takers?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by analogika:
what!?

is this true? can somebody verify/clarify this?

Tiger will work on CRT iMacs (at least those with more than 400 MHz and FireWire). But honestly, you don't want to run X on anything slower than this for serious work.

[analogika]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Tiger will work on CRT iMacs (at least those with more than 400 MHz and FireWire). But honestly, you don't want to run X on anything slower than this for serious work.

I'm running Panther on a 400 MHz DV with 768MB. I'm obviously not going to be doing any more audio work with this thing.

But for home use, it's a great machine, and I'd be a little annoyed if Tiger didnae work.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by analogika:
I'm running Panther on a 400 MHz DV with 768MB. I'm obviously not going to be doing any more audio work with this thing.

But for home use, it's a great machine, and I'd be a little annoyed if Tiger didnae work.

If it has FireWire (= DV if I remember correctly), like the one I use at work, you'll be alright. I use one of them at work, and it is quite usable for simple tasks.

I'm honestly surprised that you can still run OS X decently on such `old' machines (try running XP on a P3 800 or something ... not fun) if you have enough RAM, each generation seems to get faster. I have a TiBook 667 from work (my iBook 800 is in repair), and it runs Panther quite well. It has a Quartz Extreme-capable graphics card, so Expos� and all those other features are fun, too. And honestly, I fell in love with the screen (The thing that annoys me most with the iMac is the screen which is quite blurry now.)

[alphasubzero949]

I guess it would also be safe to assume that the original iBooks will also be left out in the cold?

[mbryda]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
UPSes are costly - great if you can afford them, but they're not so great otherwise.

You can get a UPS that will power your Mac for a while (5-30 mins) for $30-$40
http://www.officemax.com/max/solutio...kOID=536957249

Hardly something "not to afford" if it keeps your computer up and running through the power blips.

Heck, I filled the tank on my car this AM and it was $37.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
(try running XP on a P3 800 or something ... not fun)

It works fine provided you have enough RAM. My only PC (And my last) which I was using up until I bought my G4 iMac and a PC I still use occasionally is a Duron/700 (slightly slower than a P3) with 512MB and a 7200RPM Drive. Runs XP perfectly fine and is still a decent performer for everyday tasks.

Lukcilly the only app that's keeping that PC alive will be going away soon (stamps.com postage) as they are raising their rates and I'll be cancelling it. Then it's probably going to be a Linux box.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by mbryda:
It works fine provided you have enough RAM. My only PC (And my last) which I was using up until I bought my G4 iMac and a PC I still use occasionally is a Duron/700 (slightly slower than a P3) with 512MB and a 7200RPM Drive. Runs XP perfectly fine and is still a decent performer for everyday tasks.

Lukcilly the only app that's keeping that PC alive will be going away soon (stamps.com postage) as they are raising their rates and I'll be cancelling it. Then it's probably going to be a Linux box.

Well, Win 2k runs considerably faster and XP has very few features that makes it worth to upgrade if you use it for regular stuff (internet, e-mail, office, etc.). Lots of RAM (at least 256 MB) makes it usable, but Win 2k works much better in my experience (sister + parents). Even my brother, a hard-core gamer, upgraded to XP just when he had to.

[Detrius]

The reports from pre-release builds a while ago were that Tiger requires a machine with a FireWire port and DVD-ROM drive. I don't know how strictly the firewire port rule applies, due to some of the slot-load iMacs... but we'll find out in the not-to-distant future.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Detrius:
The reports from pre-release builds a while ago were that Tiger requires a machine with a FireWire port and DVD-ROM drive. I don't know how strictly the firewire port rule applies, due to some of the slot-load iMacs... but we'll find out in the not-to-distant future.

If you have FireWire, you can always connect a DVD drive to the iMac.

[chris v]

Originally posted by cpac:
I know you can click on a window's buttons in the background without bringing the window forward (the close/minimize/maximize stoplight buttons), and I know that certain programs at least (like iTunes) let you manipulate their controls without even being key.

You'll note that with iTunes, this is only true when the app is in the controls-only small-window mode. With the full app displayed, playlists and all, the behavior changes. I think this is good UI on the part of iTunes, but it's obviously something that's up to the individual program engineer, and not an os-level thing. It's bad UI in Logic, where clicking on an inactive Arrange window will draw a new automation node if you have automation enabled. Drives me nuts.

I'm very happy myself that the traffic light buttons work without having to bring a window front-most. It's one of the little differences between 9 & X that makes life subtly better.

[Queer Boy]

Originally posted by jamil5454:
If you know your way around in MS-DOS you can recover anything. On a mac, you delete a file only to realize you needed it. So you run to the store and pick up a copy of Norton Utilities for Mac, run back, only to have Norton go, "you idiot! you own a Mac, your file is fcuking gone!" Arghh!

On the Macintosh we have this crazy thing called the "Trash Can". It's a place to store your junk files until you are sure they need to be deleted. If you're emptying your Trash before you are sure you don't need it, that sounds like a user error. BTW Windows XP is based on NT and no longer includes DOS or DOS tools.

[OptimusG4]

Is it possible that like iWork and iLife, Apple may offer Tiger on DVD or CD?

[Chuckit]

It's not impossible.

[resuna]

Originally posted by -Q-:
How about moving the default browser settings out of Safari Preferences and into a System Preference as it should be?

How about moving the Proxy Preferences out of System Preferences and into Safari Preferences as it should be?

What I'd really like them to do in prefs is put the login items preference back at the top level instead of burying it in accounts. Unless you're going to let me change ANYONE's login items through the accounts page, it should be put up at the top in personal preferences.

[jamil5454]

Originally posted by Queer Boy:
On the Macintosh we have this crazy thing called the "Trash Can". It's a place to store your junk files until you are sure they need to be deleted. If you're emptying your Trash before you are sure you don't need it, that sounds like a user error. BTW Windows XP is based on NT and no longer includes DOS or DOS tools.

You must have not seen that funny Mac spoof video.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here it is:

http://www.thehoucks.com/happynowher...arody_DivX.avi

(3.2MB)

[unregistered]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Password authentications are great i.e. before installing an application. For shutting down my computer they should definitely be optional.

I wouldn't normally go advocating this, but since you don't seem to be concerned with security or data integrity, why not just create an AppleScript app to force the shutdown with a single click. Create the following AppleScript, save it in the App file format and make sure to uncheck "Startup Screen".

Don't come knocking on my door if someone steals you PW, but you can now launch the app and have your machine come crashing down.


tell application "Terminal"
do shell script �
"sudo shutdown -h now" password "YourPW" with administrator privileges
end tell

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by jamil5454:
You must have not seen that funny Mac spoof video.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, here it is:

http://www.thehoucks.com/happynowher...arody_DivX.avi

(3.2MB)

Mac killed my inner child.

[ashtoash]

Insecurity IS not a choice is actually a poor answer. I spend 3 hours at a "nameless" *nix security convention, with the guest speaker talking about properly and securely encrypting your PGP mail to keep it from prying eyes. Everyone was so caught up in it. At the end of it he took questions. I stood up and asked "Specifically why should I encrypt my mail in PGP, and who I should be worried about reading it." Nobody could give me a single logical reason why I should do this. It's just a bunch of geeks trying to be "cool" or "in". Security is VERY important, but often it's just used in place of innovation. or throw in as required. I don't need my emails encrypted? So what if a hacker steals them all, (somebody is sitting around now packet sniffing the line, to get the juice tidbit about my stock picks....) I just get really annoyed with the whole culture who insist on there encryption and there ultra-secure this and that computer, but who use there visa to buy a burger at a local hamburger stand without thinking twice about the encryption on the terminal....

Please a password to install something? Why shouldn't I be able to force it into the keychain to never prompt me? Wasn't that the idea of the keychain? Isn't that the idea behind login? My password is authorization. It's not like it's secure. After all a simple boot from a CD on 95% of all Mac OS X computers will let you do anything....

Making it so a USER doesn't enter a password every 5 seconds (as an option in sys prefs) doesn't make the computer more valuable to outside attacks. IF anything it's more secure because the guy next to me didn't witness it getting typed over and over again.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because those of us who know security know that it should not be an option, precisely because people who don't know what they're doing (e.g. yourself) will turn it off. Insecurity is not a valid choice.

You really are a fool, to believe that. Stop thinking that your Mac is invincible, or that it's useless to hackers and spammers. It's not. If you get your wish, you'll find that out in the worst way, and to make matters worse, you'll come crying to us about it.

I used to think the way you do. I didn't think it could happen to me, and so I went around disabling security options. Guess what? I was hacked; no one got my personal data, but within two days my machine was hijacked for use as a warez server. Here's a hint: Windows has all the options you've asked for, and look what happened to that platform. It will happen to us as well, if your attitude is taken for anything other than the ignorance it is. Macs are not invincible, but there are entire categories of hacks and other mischief that are just plain not possible on the Mac, and this kind of security is why that is so.

You mean minor inconveniences that kept the machine safe while in no way impeding what users could do? You have yet to explain exactly what about passwords isn't perfectly usable. If they were requiring several levels of multifactor authentication that might be different, but we're talking about a single password, for crying out loud.

[ashtoash]

10.4 still requires a passwood for shutdown with another user logged in. However it got smart and hilighted the Shutdown button. So entering password and hitting return shuts it down immediately.

Originally posted by unregistered:
I wouldn't normally go advocating this, but since you don't seem to be concerned with security or data integrity, why not just create an AppleScript app to force the shutdown with a single click. Create the following AppleScript, save it in the App file format and make sure to uncheck "Startup Screen".

Don't come knocking on my door if someone steals you PW, but you can now launch the app and have your machine come crashing down.


tell application "Terminal"
do shell script �
"sudo shutdown -h now" password "YourPW" with administrator privileges
end tell

[Detrius]

Originally posted by ashtoash:
Please a password to install something? Why shouldn't I be able to force it into the keychain to never prompt me? Wasn't that the idea of the keychain? Isn't that the idea behind login? My password is authorization. It's not like it's secure. After all a simple boot from a CD on 95% of all Mac OS X computers will let you do anything....

Making it so a USER doesn't enter a password every 5 seconds (as an option in sys prefs) doesn't make the computer more valuable to outside attacks. IF anything it's more secure because the guy next to me didn't witness it getting typed over and over again.

This was one of the ideas behind Kerberos, which is used by OS X Server. If I log into an account that is hosted on my server, I can then open my e-mail client, connect via AFP to shares, etc... all without having to enter another password. I'm still prompted for admin tasks, like deleting a folder that isn't mine, but I don't have to type the password again for anything connected to the server that I have rights to access.

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by ashtoash:
10.4 still requires a passwood for shutdown with another user logged in. However it got smart and hilighted the Shutdown button. So entering password and hitting return shuts it down immediately.

Bravo.
By 10.6 I may be getting my �Don't Ask for Passwords on Shut Down, Come Hell or High Water� option in System Preferences. Or not...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Bravo.
By 10.6 I may be getting my �Don't Ask for Passwords on Shut Down, Come Hell or High Water� option in System Preferences. Or not...

Maybe not.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
bunch of crap!

Sorry, but this image was so funny that I couldn't just not use it!

[mAxximo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Sorry, but this image was so funny that I couldn't just not use it!

Wrong thread.
The �trolls� ( ) are derailing this one now. Go post it there.
Oh...forget it.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by mAxximo:
Wrong thread.
The �trolls� ( ) are derailing this one now. Go post it there.

Actually... you're right. Hang on a sec...

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Detrius:
I hate to rain on your parade, but since we're talking about OS X, that example doesn't count. Also, the beige G3 doesn't even count as an example under X because it isn't supported by 10.3. The iMac is questionable, as it won't be supported under 10.4. You are talking about ancient machines that don't support deep sleep. Any machine that supports deep sleep should be silent while sleeping.

The iMac will too, using Xpostfacto! I mean seriously, Apple needs to STOP abandoning perfectly good machines. Hello? These are not "Ancient". A Quadra is "Ancient," and even it still makes a decent note taker.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Detrius:
The reports from pre-release builds a while ago were that Tiger requires a machine with a FireWire port and DVD-ROM drive. I don't know how strictly the firewire port rule applies, due to some of the slot-load iMacs... but we'll find out in the not-to-distant future.

I suspect the final build will not require a DVD drive (Mac's without DVD drives were sold 17 months ago,) and if they do this I will kill them, run XPostFacto, done. If they just require a external DVD drive, it's not a big deal, though; even USB Macs can do that.

[Gavin]

I'm going to take the position of mAxximo's advocate here. This turned into a personality contest, but I think he does have a point, if not necessarily for the reasons he gives. The fact is that typing in a password IS kind of a hassle, not huge, but annoying. The 'there are good security reasons' arguments, while very true, are also a cop out. To me "that's the way it is now, just live with it" is never the right answer. And no, I don't like taking my shoes off at the airport either.

The thing is, you can have security but also not have it in your face all the time. That's as irritating as having the clerk follow you around in a store. Nobody wants to feel like mom is holding your hand all the time. That just makes people want to remove the security entirely. The best way is to have security that is not bothersome or even visible.

With a little creativity we can all win here. The most Mac-like solution would be to get the 'computery' stuff out of your way and take care of things for you in a safe and elegant way. You can have the security and the respect for others and still loose that bit of itchy hassle.

The answer is to save state. Store the other user's open docs and applications as a session.

When the power comes back on the apps and docs come right back to where they were. No lost work. No password required to shut down. It's still your computer, as evidenced by the fact that you have a shut down button in the first place, so a single click does the trick, but nobody lost their work and erring on the side of caution is still maintained. Everybody's happy and I get my royalty check enforced by my 'one click shutdown' patent!

This could be part of a larger 'workspace' system. Save everything you are working on right now in every application to a workspace. Switch instantly to the project you were working on yesterday, open files and all.

As to other bugs and features:

I think the 'preview in the drawer' is a good idea. I've thought this for a while but my version didn't come with an animated character. It would add also add preview to the other views solving the need for things like sorting in column view (for me anyway).

I also want to be able to hit a non default button with a keystroke without turning the full keyboard access thing on. You used to be able to click the 'No' button by hitting n or the Don't button with d. I miss that.

What about using shift-return as a standard way to click the non-default button?

I want the finder not go into la la land when a remote server I'm logged into goes off line.

[cc_foo]

I wish Apple fixed �Repairing permissions� so that users don�t need to do it regularly to keep their machines running smoothly.