Creating a Restore Disk Image
sub...@kaxy.com
I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
indicated a possible malware infection. I recently "rebuilt" my system
(in other words, re-installed the OS and such), then tried to create a
disk image of my entire hard drive so I wouldn't have to download the
OS (and other software) updates again. I intended to use this disk
image to restore my entire system files (or my Hard Drive) every time I
restart my Mac. After finding that the Disk Utility will not
succesfully create a disk image of the Hard Drive, I contacted Apple
for assistance and they are now telling me that this won't work because
you can't reliably mount or boot the OS using a disk image. Apple is
even trying to tell me that cloning my hardrive won't work (reliably).
Apple's explanation is that for some unexplainable reason it is not
sufficient to transfer the crucial OS files into RAM from an external
Hard Drive or other disk. Rather, the OS files MUST be loaded from the
original HD the system files were installed upon. One rep I spoke with
vaguely explained that the OS files must be loaded into RAM in a
certain sequence. I asked if the instructions which performed the
proper sequential installation of these files were stored in the NV-RAM
or somewhere other than the Hard Drive. His answer was "No". He
admitted that they are stored on the Hard Drive and are part of the OS.
I argued that a disk image or clone of the Hard Drive would also
contain these instructions and should therefore install the files in
the proper sequence. He continued to insist that the copy would not
load the files into RAM in the proper sequence, without offering any
explanation. I find this rather odd. I get the impression that someone
doesn't want me to create an indestructible system. Does anyone have
any information or advice to share on this subject? I could use all the
help I can get. Hopefully, this message will get posted. Because of the
problems I am having, I don't trust anything I send or receive to
remain intact and unaltered at this point.
-Phantasy
Warren Oates
sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
> Does anyone have
> any information or advice to share on this subject? I could use all the
> help I can get. Hopefully, this message will get posted. Because of the
> problems I am having, I don't trust anything I send or receive to
> remain intact and unaltered at this point.
http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html
That's the easy way. People have been cloning their drives for a number
of years now. I've successfully restored a cloned drive this way more
than once.
If you can use the command line, then
man asr
provides a really good set of instructions (from Apple) about how to do
your cloning that way.
--
W. Oates
Teal'c: He is concealing something.
O'Neil: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
sub...@kaxy.com
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1163272955.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have
> > any information or advice to share on this subject? I could use all the
> > help I can get. Hopefully, this message will get posted. Because of the
> > problems I am having, I don't trust anything I send or receive to
> > remain intact and unaltered at this point.
>
> http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html
>
> That's the easy way. People have been cloning their drives for a number
> of years now. I've successfully restored a cloned drive this way more
> than once.
>
> If you can use the command line, then
>
> man asr
>
> provides a really good set of instructions (from Apple) about how to do
> your cloning that way.
> --
Thank you. I am aware of this file and have been attempting to find the
time to study it in detail. Apple is telling me that if I restore my
entire hard drive as I intend, that my computer will no longer be under
warranty because what I am trying to do is not supported and will
result in a corruption of system files (a tragedy for which they have
no intention of offering tech support). I have also been informed that
I would be violating the copyright laws if I backed up the entire hard
drive since I will be creating a copy of the OS files beyond the
intended use permitted by Apple (for the record, I retaliated by
informing the rep of the Fair Use Act to which the rep conceded I had a
legitemate argument).
-Phantasy
matt neuburg
> I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
> indicated a possible malware infection
I'm skeptical. What are these problems? m.
--
matt neuburg, phd = ma...@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/
Tiger - http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/tiger-customizing.html
AppleScript - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102119
Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com
tacit
> I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
> indicated a possible malware infection.
There is, at this time, no malware that can affect or infect OS X which
is in circulation. Whatever your problem is, it is **NOT** malware.
> I recently "rebuilt" my system
> (in other words, re-installed the OS and such), then tried to create a
> disk image of my entire hard drive so I wouldn't have to download the
> OS (and other software) updates again. I intended to use this disk
> image to restore my entire system files (or my Hard Drive) every time I
> restart my Mac.
Do you mean you want to start the Mac from your hard drive, then restore
it from the image, or you want to boot from the image?
Neither one will work. You can not boot from a disk image, because you
can not mount a disk image until the computer has booted. You can not
restore a currently booted operating system from a disk image, because
you can not replace the system that is currently in use.
> After finding that the Disk Utility will not
> succesfully create a disk image of the Hard Drive, I contacted Apple
> for assistance and they are now telling me that this won't work because
> you can't reliably mount or boot the OS using a disk image. Apple is
> even trying to tell me that cloning my hardrive won't work (reliably).
They are correct on the first part, and incorrect on the second. You can
not do what you are trying to do from a disk image--but you CAN
successfully clone a hard drive, even a boot drive, to another hard
drive. I have done this many, many times. It is a standard part of my
backup strategy.
I use the shareware Carbon Copy Cloner from Bombich Software, which you
can download from Versiontracker and all the usual suspects. The program
SuperDuper! also works quite well for this.
> Apple's explanation is that for some unexplainable reason it is not
> sufficient to transfer the crucial OS files into RAM from an external
> Hard Drive or other disk. Rather, the OS files MUST be loaded from the
> original HD the system files were installed upon.
This is incorrect.
It is correct that you can not simply copy the files and expect them to
work; many of the files are invisible, have special permissions, or
both, and a Finder copy will not work. A cloning program, however,
copies even invisible files and preserves disk permissions.
> One rep I spoke with
> vaguely explained that the OS files must be loaded into RAM in a
> certain sequence.
True but irrelevant. The sequence they are loaded into RAM has nothing
to do with the way they were copied or the sequence in which they are
recorded on a hard disk.
> I asked if the instructions which performed the
> proper sequential installation of these files were stored in the NV-RAM
> or somewhere other than the Hard Drive. His answer was "No". He
> admitted that they are stored on the Hard Drive and are part of the OS.
> I argued that a disk image or clone of the Hard Drive would also
> contain these instructions and should therefore install the files in
> the proper sequence. He continued to insist that the copy would not
> load the files into RAM in the proper sequence, without offering any
> explanation.
He's a moron. Like I said, i do this all the time. I have created many,
many bootable clones of every OS X version from 10.0.0dp3 to 10.4.8
without difficulty.
> I find this rather odd. I get the impression that someone
> doesn't want me to create an indestructible system. Does anyone have
> any information or advice to share on this subject? I could use all the
> help I can get. Hopefully, this message will get posted. Because of the
> problems I am having, I don't trust anything I send or receive to
> remain intact and unaltered at this point.
Use Carbon Copy Cloner to clone to another hard disk--it's all good. :)
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
Mike Rosenberg
> Thank you. I am aware of this file and have been attempting to find the
> time to study it in detail. Apple is telling me that if I restore my
> entire hard drive as I intend, that my computer will no longer be under
> warranty because what I am trying to do is not supported and will
> result in a corruption of system files (a tragedy for which they have
> no intention of offering tech support).
There must be a major misunderstanding, as the warranty covers hardware,
not software.
> I have also been informed that
> I would be violating the copyright laws if I backed up the entire hard
> drive since I will be creating a copy of the OS files beyond the
> intended use permitted by Apple
There must be another major misunderstanding, since making a full,
bootable clone of one's entire hard drive is something a lot of us do on
a periodic basis, even daily, and is highly recommended to all. Now,
making that backup available to others is a whole 'nother story...
--
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
Mike Rosenberg
> > I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
> > indicated a possible malware infection
>
> I'm skeptical. What are these problems? m.
What, you don't believe he has problems due to non-existant software?
;-)
Mike Rosenberg
> I use the shareware Carbon Copy Cloner from Bombich Software, which you
> can download from Versiontracker and all the usual suspects. The program
> SuperDuper! also works quite well for this.
As does SilverKeeper, freeware from LaCie.
Warren Oates
sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
> Thank you. I am aware of this file and have been attempting to find the
> time to study it in detail. Apple is telling me that if I restore my
> entire hard drive as I intend, that my computer will no longer be under
> warranty because what I am trying to do is not supported and will
> result in a corruption of system files (a tragedy for which they have
> no intention of offering tech support). I have also been informed that
> I would be violating the copyright laws if I backed up the entire hard
> drive since I will be creating a copy of the OS files beyond the
> intended use permitted by Apple (for the record, I retaliated by
> informing the rep of the Fair Use Act to which the rep conceded I had a
> legitemate argument).
I've never heard such crap. Apple told you all that? That backing up
your entire hard drive violated _copyright_? That restoring your hard
drive voids your _warranty_? Which Apple were you talking to? Post the
name of the CSR here, please.
--
Warren.
G.T.
He's making it up, just like he's made up have the shit he's posted in
this thread. Or his lack of comprehension has twisted the words of the
rep in his mind so much that it came out like the above to him.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
sub...@kaxy.com
matt neuburg wrote:
> <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
> > indicated a possible malware infection
>
> I'm skeptical. What are these problems? m.
>
I don't believe you or anyone else needs to worry. If my suspicions are
right, it may be personal (perhaps even partly the consequence of
someone at Apple giving me a hard time for complaining so much). First
of all, at least one fully functional freeware title which I downloaded
(to complete a project) turned into limited/disabled demo version (I
know this sounds crazy, and you're probably laughing your guts out, yet
I am telling the truth). Second, an updater for my security software
isn't functioning properly. Furthermore, I am having serious problems
with video downloads. A website I visited previously and succesfully
downloaded music video's from (Yahoo's "Launchcast" website) a couple
weeks ago no longer works (supposedly because the media is not
compatible with Mac although I see no reason it shouldn't especially
considering that it worked a couple weeks ago). And the Window's Media
Player for Mac OS X will not install. Apparently, it is crashing while
decompressing. the Microsoft website suspiciously states that they do
not support third-part decompression software. So, I downloaded the
supposedly free Flip4Mac software which not only won't launch when I
click on links which should launch this app, the basic version I
supposedly downloaded has turned into a limited trial version (as
opposed to a basic version). I am also experiencing trouble with my
webmail (drafts which I have saved are not displaying, as though they
have been deleted although this is not the case since the file size
remains unchanged). The list goes on. That's just the software issues
I've been having. I've also caught people attempting to access my
computer hardware and CD's/DVD's (one individual actually had his hands
on my laptop backpack...when I caught him he quickly apologised as if
he were attempting to convince me he had somehow made a mistake, then
he ran off almost tripping himself). I'm not sure if they were
succesful in their attempts or not, but it is possible that they were.
-Phantasy
G.T.
> matt neuburg wrote:
>> <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
>>> indicated a possible malware infection
>> I'm skeptical. What are these problems? m.
>>
>
> I don't believe you or anyone else needs to worry. If my suspicions are
> right, it may be personal (perhaps even partly the consequence of
> someone at Apple giving me a hard time for complaining so much).
Seek help. Soon.
Mike Rosenberg
> I've also caught people attempting to access my
> computer hardware and CD's/DVD's (one individual actually had his hands
> on my laptop backpack...when I caught him he quickly apologised as if
> he were attempting to convince me he had somehow made a mistake, then
> he ran off almost tripping himself).
I'm confused. Is this the malware of which you spoke, or is it Apple's
henchmen out to get you? In either case, a tinfoil hat is in order.
sub...@kaxy.com
To be honest, I am suspicious that my OS DVD's that came with my
computer (and which I am installing the OS with) are not authentic
copies. I believe they are modified copies made to look legit. So, I
don't doubt that the Mac OS is one of the most secure systems you can
get. I just don't trust my OS. So, I went out and bought a copy of the
latest OS X DVD. Yet, after noticing some serious scratches in it, I
took it back and exchanged it. The replacement also had some
manufacturing defects in it so I took it back too. The third one also
had a defect and so I took it back as well. I discovered that the store
was all out of OS X DVD's. Yet, they ALWAYS have a rack full of OS X
DVD's (probably because one ever buys them). Apparently, they sold a
rack full of OS X DVD's in less than a week. I was told to wait while
they looked for a copy in the back (the employees only area).
Supposedly, they had one copy left in the back, which was given to me
by the store manager, who reprimanded me for returning the other two
(he told me they wouldn't accept a return of this copy even if it was
defective). Being "paranoid", it made me feel uncomfortable not being
able to randomly pick out a copy myself (as I insisted on doing
previously). I felt unsure of the authenticity of this disk as well. My
"paranoia" isn't helped by the fact that the store will not sell me
another copy. After all these months, they still have not restocked
their display shelves. All they have are these small plastic anti-theft
display cases with photocopies of the OS X DVD box. Yet, I called them
one day to find out if they had any copies in. They told me they did.
When I showed up, I noticed that the shelves were still empty (having
been replaced by those plastic anti-theft cases with a picture of the
OS X DVD in each) and one of he new employees told me they were in the
back. He went to get one but came back insisting that they didn't have
any copies left (perhaps as an attempt to force me to use the last copy
they gave me?). I get the feeling that they have plenty of OS X DVD's
in the back. The employees have just been ordered not to let me have a
copy. I'll bet they have a picture of me in the back next to the OS X
DVD's warning their employees not to let me have one...or they are
FIRED!!! If so, I wonder who is behind this scheme. I don't believe
it's the store. I think they are simply acting under orders from
someone pretending to have authority. The question is...WHO? The plot
thickens...
-Phantasy
sub...@kaxy.com
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > I've also caught people attempting to access my
> > computer hardware and CD's/DVD's (one individual actually had his hands
> > on my laptop backpack...when I caught him he quickly apologised as if
> > he were attempting to convince me he had somehow made a mistake, then
> > he ran off almost tripping himself).
>
> I'm confused. Is this the malware of which you spoke, or is it Apple's
> henchmen out to get you? In either case, a tinfoil hat is in order.
>
This was a very real person. I don't believe he was in any way
associated with Apple. Rather, he's probably just another one of the
many corporate spies on my tail end.
-Phantasy
Warren Oates
sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
> I get the feeling that they have plenty of OS X DVD's
> in the back. The employees have just been ordered not to let me have a
> copy. I'll bet they have a picture of me in the back next to the OS X
> DVD's warning their employees not to let me have one...or they are
> FIRED!!! If so, I wonder who is behind this scheme. I don't believe
> it's the store. I think they are simply acting under orders from
> someone pretending to have authority. The question is...WHO? The plot
> thickens...
Uh huh. Why don't you order a Tiger DVD from the online Apple Store?
What store is this? I can't believe you had that kind of bad luck -- 3
unusable DVDs?
Dave Balderstone
> Thank you. I am aware of this file and have been attempting to find the
> time to study it in detail. Apple is telling me that if I restore my
> entire hard drive as I intend, that my computer will no longer be under
> warranty because what I am trying to do is not supported and will
> result in a corruption of system files (a tragedy for which they have
> no intention of offering tech support). I have also been informed that
> I would be violating the copyright laws if I backed up the entire hard
> drive since I will be creating a copy of the OS files beyond the
> intended use permitted by Apple (for the record, I retaliated by
> informing the rep of the Fair Use Act to which the rep conceded I had a
> legitemate argument).
You've never been told these things by anyone representing Apple.
You're either a chronic liar or you have a mental disease.
In either case, you're full of shit.
sub...@kaxy.com
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1163279423.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > I get the feeling that they have plenty of OS X DVD's
> > in the back. The employees have just been ordered not to let me have a
> > copy. I'll bet they have a picture of me in the back next to the OS X
> > DVD's warning their employees not to let me have one...or they are
> > FIRED!!! If so, I wonder who is behind this scheme. I don't believe
> > it's the store. I think they are simply acting under orders from
> > someone pretending to have authority. The question is...WHO? The plot
> > thickens...
>
> Uh huh. Why don't you order a Tiger DVD from the online Apple Store?
>
Because I decided to take my chances and see if any problems arise
using the disks I have.
> What store is this? I can't believe you had that kind of bad luck -- 3
> unusable DVDs?
> --
The first 2 probably weren't unusable. I was just bothered by having
scratches on a new disk which I had taken good care of. To be honest,
the scratches may have been caused by some dust particulates lodged in
felt of the CD/DVD slot. I don't understand why optical disks aren't
protected by some sort of container like mini-disks are (and old laser
disks used to be). I realise that optical disks can take a lot of abuse
before the damage becomes noticeable (at least in the case of audio
CD's), yet that's no excuse in my opinion. In the case of audio CD's,
disk damage can have an effect on sound quality even if the disk plays
without skipping. That's because oversampling and interpolation can
only approximate the missing data. I would therefore expect that in the
case of data CD's/DVD's, disk damage could cause problems long before
the disk becomes completely unuseable.
By the way, the 3rd disk definitely had some manufacturing defects. It
had thousands of these tiny "speckles" on the surface of the disk, as
though some particulates had somehow become embedded in the surface of
the plastic during manufacture (while the plastic was liquid).
-Phantasy
Mark Conrad
...and I thought _I_ was paranoid.
I can't believe all the crap I am reading here.
Sic 'em, Greg.
(...now where did I put _my_ tinfoil hat)
Mark-
sub...@kaxy.com
I'm not making this up. Ultimately, this rep was telling me that what I
was trying to do with a disk image wasn't supported and wouldn't work.
This has been conformed by at least one other respondent to this
thread.
> In either case, you're full of shit.
You obviously have nothing of value to contribute to this thread. I
suggest you find someone else to pick on.
-Phantasy
Warren Oates
sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
> This was a very real person. I don't believe he was in any way
> associated with Apple. Rather, he's probably just another one of the
> many corporate spies on my tail end.
This could be fun. How do these people find Usenet so easily? Didn't
they used to collect stray cats and old newspapers?
I'm sensing this might be a woman, just from some of the phrasing. Also,
wait, my satellite connection tells me that she's from Washington
State, coming in on a Comcast link from Google Groups, and I think I can
read her thoughts, let me just fine tune this a bit, it's a bit clearer
now ... my God, not that!
sub...@kaxy.com
Corporate espionage is very real. Just because you may be a "nobody"
who doesn't have any reason to worry about protecting their data
doesn't mean everyone else is able to live as carefree a life as you.
-Phantasy
Bible John
In article <1hon4mo.1yifg4z1vo7qgwN%thi...@totally.invalid>,
thi...@totally.invalid (Mark Conrad) wrote:
--
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
Heb. 4:12-For the word of God is living and
active. Sharper than any double-edged sword,
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints
and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes
of the heart.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warren Oates
Bible John <ohn.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
> Your right, this is nuts.
Gawdhepus, talk about the pot calling the kettle a utensil of colo[u]r.
--
W. Oates
Dave Balderstone
<sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> I'm not making this up.
Any Apple employee that spewed this nonsense would be fired. You're
either making it up or telling us selective bits. In any event, you're
full of it.
Mike Rosenberg
> my satellite connection tells me that she's from Washington State
My sources, which must remain undislosed, say specifically in or near
Spokane.
Sue Rodgers
> My sources, which must remain undislosed, say specifically in or near
> Spokane.
I am afraid you have already revealed too much, and we must now
terminate you. I am truly sorry.
--
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see...
Mike Rosenberg
> I am afraid you have already revealed too much, and we must now
> terminate you. I am truly sorry.
Oh my god, what have I done?!! Shit, there's someone at my door
already! Gotta go out through the hidden door...
sub...@kaxy.com
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you. I am aware of this file and have been attempting to find the
> > time to study it in detail. Apple is telling me that if I restore my
> > entire hard drive as I intend, that my computer will no longer be under
> > warranty because what I am trying to do is not supported and will
> > result in a corruption of system files (a tragedy for which they have
> > no intention of offering tech support).
>
> There must be a major misunderstanding, as the warranty covers hardware,
> not software.
>
He didn't actually say it violated the "warranty". He said something
along the lines of attempting to restore my system any other way than
installing the OS with the OS X Installation DVD's would void the Apple
care plan (which I thought to be an extension of the warranty).
> > I have also been informed that
> > I would be violating the copyright laws if I backed up the entire hard
> > drive since I will be creating a copy of the OS files beyond the
> > intended use permitted by Apple
>
> There must be another major misunderstanding, since making a full,
> bootable clone of one's entire hard drive is something a lot of us do on
> a periodic basis, even daily, and is highly recommended to all. Now,
> making that backup available to others is a whole 'nother story...
>
I was essentially told that attempting to boot from or mount a restore
disk image would not work. This is supposedly true according to another
respondent. A clone of the hard drive is apparently another subject,
and a strategy which Apple does not support. They are telling me that
you can't just transfer files from a clone to my laptop's internal
hardrive and expect it to work. They now refuse to explain why it won't
work, by hiding behind the fact that what I'm trying to do isn't
something they offer support for.
-Phantasy
sub...@kaxy.com
Believe it or not, he was very friendly in his demeanor. Nevertheless,
I didn't like what I was hearing either.
-Phantasy
Dave Balderstone
<sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
And your story is already morphing.
You're pathetic.
sub...@kaxy.com
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <45563d3b$0$7052$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I get the feeling that they have plenty of OS X DVD's in the back.
> > > The employees have just been ordered not to let me have a copy.
> > > I'll bet they have a picture of me in the back next to the OS X
> > > DVD's warning their employees not to let me have one...or they are
> > > FIRED!!! If so, I wonder who is behind this scheme. I don't believe
> > > it's the store. I think they are simply acting under orders from
> > > someone pretending to have authority. The question is...WHO? The
> > > plot thickens...
> >
> > Uh huh. Why don't you order a Tiger DVD from the online Apple Store?
> >
> > What store is this? I can't believe you had that kind of bad luck --
> > 3 unusable DVDs?
>
> He never indicated that actually tried to use any of them.
>
> Further, I have never seen an Apple store where they didn't have the
> actual boxes of Mac OS X DVDs on the shelves, but had those tamper proof
> boxes with a picture of the DVD in them.
>
It wasn't an Apple store.
-Phantasy
sub...@kaxy.com
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <1163283192....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > > In article <1163281895.2...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not making this up.
> > >
> > > Any Apple employee that spewed this nonsense would be fired. You're
> > > either making it up or telling us selective bits. In any event, you're
> > > full of it.
> >
> > Believe it or not, he was very friendly in his demeanor. Nevertheless,
> > I didn't like what I was hearing either.
>
> And your story is already morphing.
>
How so?
-Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg
> He didn't actually say it violated the "warranty".
Oh, well, that's what I get for reading the actual words you used and
expecting them to be correct.
> He said something along the lines of attempting to restore my system any
> other way than installing the OS with the OS X Installation DVD's would
> void the Apple care plan (which I thought to be an extension of the
> warranty).
When you buy a Mac, you get a one-year warranty for the hardware and 90
days of phone support. AppleCare extends both to three years. It
sounds like they're not going to provide support to a non-standard
installation, which makes perfect sense.
> A clone of the hard drive is apparently another subject,
> and a strategy which Apple does not support.
"Does not support" means they won't provide any technical support.
> They are telling me that you can't just transfer files from a clone to my
> laptop's internal hardrive and expect it to work.
No, you cannot expect it to work and, in fact, it won't.
> They now refuse to explain why it won't work
Things like permissions and symbolic links won't be correctly
transferred.
> by hiding behind the fact that what I'm trying to do isn't
> something they offer support for.
Again, that means they won't provide tech support for it. You can do
it, without their help. As explained to you already, any one of a
number of freeware and shareware programs can do it.
Warren Oates
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Again, that means they won't provide tech support for it. You can do
> it, without their help. As explained to you already, any one of a
> number of freeware and shareware programs can do it.
You can also do it with Apple-supplied software, including Disk Utility
(in the GUI) and diskutil(8), hdid(8), hdiutil(1), and of course asr(8).
This is a goodly bunch of very useful software to support an
"unsupported" feature.
Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > He didn't actually say it violated the "warranty".
>
> Oh, well, that's what I get for reading the actual words you used and
> expecting them to be correct.
>
> > He said something along the lines of attempting to restore my system any
> > other way than installing the OS with the OS X Installation DVD's would
> > void the Apple care plan (which I thought to be an extension of the
> > warranty).
>
> When you buy a Mac, you get a one-year warranty for the hardware and 90
> days of phone support. AppleCare extends both to three years. It
> sounds like they're not going to provide support to a non-standard
> installation, which makes perfect sense.
>
> > A clone of the hard drive is apparently another subject,
> > and a strategy which Apple does not support.
>
> "Does not support" means they won't provide any technical support.
>
> > They are telling me that you can't just transfer files from a clone to my
> > laptop's internal hardrive and expect it to work.
>
> No, you cannot expect it to work and, in fact, it won't.
>
> > They now refuse to explain why it won't work
>
> Things like permissions and symbolic links won't be correctly
> transferred.
>
I see. Thank you for explaining this to me.
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1honeoa.cf0me51lsvqiqN%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>
> > Again, that means they won't provide tech support for it. You can do
> > it, without their help. As explained to you already, any one of a
> > number of freeware and shareware programs can do it.
>
> You can also do it with Apple-supplied software, including Disk Utility
> (in the GUI) and diskutil(8), hdid(8), hdiutil(1), and of course asr(8).
> This is a goodly bunch of very useful software to support an
> "unsupported" feature.
> --
I am familiar with Disk Utility and asr. I wasn't aware of the others.
Thank you for the leads.
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Here's another interesting issue which has surfaced: Yesterday I spoke
to Apple about the issue of permissions errors being revealed by Disk
Utility when verifying permissions. The rep I spoke to told me that I
needed to run the Disk Utility by booting from the OS X install disk.
Not only that, but she e-mailed some links to support pages which
provided instructions to boot from the install disk and run the disk
utility as opposed to from within the OS. Then later today I am told
that I shouldn't repair permissions by booting from the install disk
because the receipt (for all the correct permission settings) which is
on the install disk is not correct after you install the OS X updates
(since the install disk is a read only file and can't be updated).
Unfortunately, I deleted the e-mail that rep sent me because I didn't
want those messages making their way onto my computer via Mail (I was
using my .mac webmail at the time) so I can't go back and read them
again to be sure that I actually read what I thought I read. Yet, I'm
sure that the instructions for repairing permissions stated that you
are supposed to boot from the installation disk. In fact, I was
complaining to a rep earlier today about the fact that I had been
instructed to do boot from the installation disk when that isn't what
you should do and he acknowledged that the instructions did say that
and apologised. Perhaps someone can verify whether the support page
instructions have been modified (or updated) since I last spoke to
Apple about this (by having omitted the instructions to boot from the
installation disk). Or did someone direct me to a website containing
incorrect information in an attempt to weaken my security/defenses? I
know some of you will probably insist that repairing permissions with
the Disk Utility after booting from the installation disks would not
have weakened my security. Yet, I'm not so sure of that. I'm not even
sure why this problem with permissions exists in the first place. From
what I understand the receipt (in the .bom file) is generated during
installation (of OS X, Apple originated software, and any updates) and
so there shouldn't be any discrepancies. So why are the permissions
changing? Who or what is changing the permissions?
-Phantasy
Phantasy
David Empson
> Here's another interesting issue which has surfaced:
It would help if you broke your article into paragraphs. Reading a whole
page of solid text is difficult.
> Yesterday I spoke to Apple about the issue of permissions errors being
> revealed by Disk Utility when verifying permissions. The rep I spoke to
> told me that I needed to run the Disk Utility by booting from the OS X
> install disk.
That is true if you are repairing the disk, but repairing permissions is
supposed to be done while booted from the hard drive, not the install
CD/DVD.
> Not only that, but she e-mailed some links to support pages which
> provided instructions to boot from the install disk and run the disk
> utility as opposed to from within the OS. Then later today I am told
> that I shouldn't repair permissions by booting from the install disk
> because the receipt (for all the correct permission settings) which is
> on the install disk is not correct after you install the OS X updates
> (since the install disk is a read only file and can't be updated).
I think it is more a case that the install CD/DVD looks at its own
Receipts folder and pays no attention to the one on the hard drive,
which may have system updates and other installations which have
modified the permissions since the original system installation. The
install disk only knows about the original permissions, not the modfied
ones.
> [Snip - lost the links]
>
> Perhaps someone can verify whether the support page instructions have been
> modified (or updated) since I last spoke to Apple about this (by having
> omitted the instructions to boot from the installation disk).
I did a search for "permissions" on www.apple.com/support and can't find
anything explaining how to use Repair Permissions.
Disk Utility's own help specifically says you must boot from another
disk in order to repair your startup disk, but that is repairing the
disk, not the permissions.
There is also a page titled "Testing and repairing disk permissions"
which explains how to do this. It says nothing about booting from
another disk.
> Or did someone direct me to a website containing incorrect information in
> an attempt to weaken my security/defenses?
No, only to feed your paranoia.
> I know some of you will probably insist that repairing permissions with
> the Disk Utility after booting from the installation disks would not have
> weakened my security.
Actually, it might have. The install CD/DVD has out of date information
regarding the file permissions, so using its Repair Permissions might
have resulted in some system files/folders on your hard drive having the
wrong permissions. You should run Disk Utility while booted from your
hard drive and do another Repair Permissions to get everything back to
where it should be.
> Yet, I'm not so sure of that. I'm not even sure why this problem with
> permissions exists in the first place. From what I understand the receipt
> (in the .bom file) is generated during installation (of OS X, Apple
> originated software, and any updates) and so there shouldn't be any
> discrepancies. So why are the permissions changing? Who or what is
> changing the permissions?
Later system updates, security updates, and application/component
updates from Apple might change the permissions which were used on some
files when the system was originally installed. These are recorded in
the receipts package for the later installation, and override the ones
specified in the receipts package for the original system install.
For example, the original system install might have used incorrect
permissions for a particular file, which was later found to be a
security hole and was fixed by a security update.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Matt Broughton
sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
> matt neuburg wrote:
> > <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have been having some serious problems with my Mac lately which have
> > > indicated a possible malware infection
> >
> > I'm skeptical. What are these problems? m.
> >
>
> I don't believe you or anyone else needs to worry. If my suspicions are
> right, it may be personal (perhaps even partly the consequence of
> someone at Apple giving me a hard time for complaining so much).
<snip of litany of problems>
Most installations are to serve man. Others are To Serve Man.
Mat
--
Matt Broughton
Only relatives are absolute.
Wes Groleau
> There is, at this time, no malware that can affect or infect OS X which
> is in circulation. Whatever your problem is, it is **NOT** malware.
Yes, the problem IS malware. But the malware is
not in the computer--it's between the ears.
--
Wes Groleau
You're all individuals!
Yes, we're all individuals!
You're all different!
Yes, we are all different!
I'm not!
("Life of Brian")
Phantasy
David Empson wrote:
> Phantasy <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's another interesting issue which has surfaced:
>
> It would help if you broke your article into paragraphs. Reading a whole
> page of solid text is difficult.
>
Sorry. You're right. I should have. I didn't notice that it ran un for
such a length for some reason. I must have been going into a trance
from surfing the web since dawn.
> > Yesterday I spoke to Apple about the issue of permissions errors being
> > revealed by Disk Utility when verifying permissions. The rep I spoke to
> > told me that I needed to run the Disk Utility by booting from the OS X
> > install disk.
>
> That is true if you are repairing the disk, but repairing permissions is
> supposed to be done while booted from the hard drive, not the install
> CD/DVD.
>
> > Not only that, but she e-mailed some links to support pages which
> > provided instructions to boot from the install disk and run the disk
> > utility as opposed to from within the OS. Then later today I am told
> > that I shouldn't repair permissions by booting from the install disk
> > because the receipt (for all the correct permission settings) which is
> > on the install disk is not correct after you install the OS X updates
> > (since the install disk is a read only file and can't be updated).
>
> I think it is more a case that the install CD/DVD looks at its own
> Receipts folder and pays no attention to the one on the hard drive,
> which may have system updates and other installations which have
> modified the permissions since the original system installation. The
> install disk only knows about the original permissions, not the modfied
> ones.
>
Yes. That is what I was trying to say (I sometimes find it difficult to
put such technical jargon into words...especially when I am not
familiar with the mechanics).
> > [Snip - lost the links]
> >
> > Perhaps someone can verify whether the support page instructions have been
> > modified (or updated) since I last spoke to Apple about this (by having
> > omitted the instructions to boot from the installation disk).
>
> I did a search for "permissions" on www.apple.com/support and can't find
> anything explaining how to use Repair Permissions.
>
There are a couple, but after pulling them up today I couldn't find any
mention of booting from the OS installation disk to repair permissions.
So either I'm remembering it wrong or somebody has modified (or
updated) those pages. I was hoping somebody might know for sure
considering that I was discussing these very webpages yesterday (before
it may have been updated).
> Disk Utility's own help specifically says you must boot from another
> disk in order to repair your startup disk, but that is repairing the
> disk, not the permissions.
>
Precisely.
> There is also a page titled "Testing and repairing disk permissions"
> which explains how to do this. It says nothing about booting from
> another disk.
>
Just as I would expect.
> > Or did someone direct me to a website containing incorrect information in
> > an attempt to weaken my security/defenses?
>
> No, only to feed your paranoia.
>
I hope you're right.
> > I know some of you will probably insist that repairing permissions with
> > the Disk Utility after booting from the installation disks would not have
> > weakened my security.
>
> Actually, it might have.
Really? Apple reps tell me otherwise. Not to say that I believe them.
> The install CD/DVD has out of date information
> regarding the file permissions, so using its Repair Permissions might
> have resulted in some system files/folders on your hard drive having the
> wrong permissions.
I know (now). That's why I'm worried.
> You should run Disk Utility while booted from your
> hard drive and do another Repair Permissions to get everything back to
> where it should be.
>
I already have.
> > Yet, I'm not so sure of that. I'm not even sure why this problem with
> > permissions exists in the first place. From what I understand the receipt
> > (in the .bom file) is generated during installation (of OS X, Apple
> > originated software, and any updates) and so there shouldn't be any
> > discrepancies. So why are the permissions changing? Who or what is
> > changing the permissions?
>
> Later system updates, security updates, and application/component
> updates from Apple might change the permissions which were used on some
> files when the system was originally installed. These are recorded in
> the receipts package for the later installation, and override the ones
> specified in the receipts package for the original system install.
>
> For example, the original system install might have used incorrect
> permissions for a particular file, which was later found to be a
> security hole and was fixed by a security update.
>
I have some security software installed. It looks for suspicious
activity which may indicate an intrusion or attack. Do you know if that
would have protected me if there were any holes? Or could the holes
also have compromised the security software, as well (by compromising
the OS it is built atop)?
-Phantasy
David Empson
File permission problems aren't likely to be accessible to external
attacks - they tend to be exploitable only by software already installed
on your computer (or a trojan horse which tricks you into installing
it).
"Intrusion detection" software will protect you from attempts to connect
to the computer externally, but won't help to protect against local
exploits, so in this case it wouldn't have made any difference.
It might allow you to detect the presence of bad software already on
your computer, if that software attempts to "phone home".
> Or could the holes also have compromised the security software, as well
> (by compromising the OS it is built atop)?
If malicious software manages to gain root-level control over your
computer, it can do anything it likes (including bypass any methods used
by security software on your computer), but I think you are worrying too
much.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Jolly Roger
> I have some security software installed. It looks for suspicious
> activity which may indicate an intrusion or attack.
...if you believe that...
Personally, without knowing specifics, I'd feel no safer with it than
without it.
--
JR
Mark Conrad
> Corporate espionage is very real. Just because you may be a "nobody"
> who doesn't have any reason to worry about protecting their data
> doesn't mean everyone else is able to live as carefree a life as you.
Look, if you are really telling the truth, people here would be much
more inclined to believe you if you dislosed the name of the place that
sold the DVDs to you.
The mere fact that you don't disclose the name makes everyone here
suspect that you are spinning a tale.
If it was me who was the victim, I would shout the name of the store
loud and long. Last thing everyone needs is a store that sells
defective Apple DVDs.
Mark-
Mark Conrad
> Your right, this is nuts.
Good Grief, that's all I need, for a religious nut like you to agree
with me.
I am about the most non-religious person here.
Peddle your religious crap in a NG more suited to it, there are plenty
of them around.
Mark-
Mark-
Phantasy
As I suspected. Thanks for the confirmation. I suppose I will just have
to reinstall the OS and start from the beginning again. Oh well.
Although I'm probably just being paranoid (as a former "PC" user), it's
always better to be safe than sorry.
By the way, could someone check out the Yahoo!Music website and see if
they have any problems watching music videos? I can't watch music
videos anymore, although I was able to a few weeks ago (the website
Help page now says that their site does not work with Macs, although it
used to work just fine a week or two ago). I'm not sure if it's because
I no longer have Windows Media Player WiMP) installed or not (I do have
Flip4Mac and VLC installed though). I tried to reinstall the WiMP but
it won't decompress for some reason. Perhaps someone could try
downloading the WiMP for Mac OSX file and decompressing it as well (to
see if they have the same problem or not). I'd appreciate it.
-Phantasy
tacit
> I don't believe you or anyone else needs to worry. If my suspicions are
> right, it may be personal (perhaps even partly the consequence of
> someone at Apple giving me a hard time for complaining so much). First
> of all, at least one fully functional freeware title which I downloaded
> (to complete a project) turned into limited/disabled demo version (I
> know this sounds crazy, and you're probably laughing your guts out, yet
> I am telling the truth).
This will happen if the software stores its registration information in
a preference file or a secret file somewhere, and you do something that
changes, deletes, or makes inaccessible that secret file. Things which
can turn a registered program back into an unregistered program include
logging in as a different user, changing the contents of the user's home
folder, deleting the user's home preferences files, logging in as a
different user, or re-installing OS X.
> Second, an updater for my security software... [snip]
These remaining problems may indicate permissions problems (have you
repaired permissions?), or problems with your operating system.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
Warren Oates
"Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> I tried to reinstall the WiMP but
> it won't decompress for some reason. Perhaps someone could try
> downloading the WiMP for Mac OSX file and decompressing it as well (to
> see if they have the same problem or not). I'd appreciate it.
I have the same problem with WMP; the problem may have to do with the
Intel Mac, or the archive may just be broken. I installed the flip4mac
thing, and it works with Safari and Firefox, it seems. Try to play the
stuff at
http://www.windowsmedia.com/MediaGuide/Home
which I reckon is a good place to test it. Relaunch the browser.
You'll need the Firefox ActiveX plugin to play stuff from some sites
(notably that site with the movie trailers); they don't seem to have a
plugin for Firefox 2.0 yet.
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm#download
Don't install it if it makes you nervous. I run Parallels to see the
ActiveX stuff via IE.
Phantasy
tacit wrote:
> In article <1163276860....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> sub...@kaxy.com wrote:
>
> > I don't believe you or anyone else needs to worry. If my suspicions are
> > right, it may be personal (perhaps even partly the consequence of
> > someone at Apple giving me a hard time for complaining so much). First
> > of all, at least one fully functional freeware title which I downloaded
> > (to complete a project) turned into limited/disabled demo version (I
> > know this sounds crazy, and you're probably laughing your guts out, yet
> > I am telling the truth).
>
> This will happen if the software stores its registration information in
> a preference file or a secret file somewhere, and you do something that
> changes, deletes, or makes inaccessible that secret file. Things which
> can turn a registered program back into an unregistered program include
> logging in as a different user, changing the contents of the user's home
> folder, deleting the user's home preferences files, logging in as a
> different user, or re-installing OS X.
>
Thanks for the advice, yet I didn't do anything like you've specified
to cause this problem. I merely decompressed and ran the installer for
the apps about a week after I downloaded them all (some from Apple's
website and some from the publisher). When I downloaded them a week
prior, they were supposed to be fully functional and without any time
limits on most (some did have time limits). But when I installed them,
they were not fully functional. They were very limited (and therefore
useless) demos. I know I'm not delusional because Apple's (third-party)
download pages still list many of them as shareware and freeware, as
opposed to demo's. Yet, they are definitely demos.
> > Second, an updater for my security software... [snip]
>
> These remaining problems may indicate permissions problems (have you
> repaired permissions?), or problems with your operating system.
>
> --
You might be right about that. The permissions were not correctly set
for a day or two since I had repaired the permissions incorrectly by
booting from the installation disks and runninng Disk Utility. Yet, I
don't feel any better knowing this was probably what was wrong, since
this could mean system security was compromised until I correctly
repaired the permissions.
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1163310154....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > I tried to reinstall the WiMP but
> > it won't decompress for some reason. Perhaps someone could try
> > downloading the WiMP for Mac OSX file and decompressing it as well (to
> > see if they have the same problem or not). I'd appreciate it.
>
> I have the same problem with WMP; the problem may have to do with the
> Intel Mac, or the archive may just be broken.
Interesting. I don't have an Intel Mac myself. How is your Intel Mac
working out for you? Are you noticing anything unusual (instabilities,
etc.)? I was watching a demo model play some video and it was
performing beautifully for the most part, yet the video would
occasionally glitch up in parts of the screen (very rarely). I am very
leary of the Intel Mac's because I had some serious problems with an
Intel based workstation (a Compaq) which I built my studio around and
lost about $25,000 in the end as a result because the Intel chips had
defects in them, which were not well publicised (although they were
revealed on Intel's "erratums" page, as legally required, since the law
requires them to publish a public notice about any defects). The
defects could have been worked around in the motherboard, yet Intel did
not inform many computer manufacturers of the defects, resulting in
computers which were afflicted with a floating point error which would
not generate an error message (due to the "flag erratum"). I eventually
got half my money back on that workstation a couple years later (after
I had lost virtually everything, including my reputation). I wanted to
get a Mac but I decided to get a PC again because the thousands upon
thousands of dollars worth of software I had was all PC software. I
ended up building a computer using a Pentium II and an Intel
motherboard, believing that Intel would know how to properly build a
motherboard for their chips.
How did it work out, you ask? Aside from having the same computational
problems with my 3D graphics software (which a friend has recently
explained was due to a parsing error which afflicted the lower end
Intel chips leading me to believe that I should have went with a Xeon
based system after all if I intended to do serious work with 3D
graphics), there was an occasional drive "a" error message upon system
initialisation. After replacing the drive, without success, I found out
that the drive "a" error was actually generated as a result of the
computer becoming confused because I was using a USB keyboard. Although
Windows '98 was USB compatible, when the system was loading Windows 98
it was actually running DOS only and DOS is not USB compatible. DOS was
attempting to find a keyboard and couldn't. The USB keyboard was
somehow confusing it into thinking there was a problem with drive "a".
Replacing the keyboard fixed the problem, but it seemed to me that my
system had been "damaged" by a defective floppy drive that I had
installed when attempting to resolve the drive "a" error. You see, my
system reported a problem with the POST (Power-On Self Test). I figured
it was just a conflict (since I didn't understand what the POST was,
having never seen it generate an error before) so I continued to
proceed so I could resolve the conflict. I ended up seriously crashing
the system and it seemed as though my computer was never the same after
that. The beautifully fluid video was no longer quite as fluid (such as
when loading [2D] animations which played when launching certain apps)
and my system did not seem to be quite as fast as before. It still
worked though. Possibly because of fault tolerances which kept it
running, albeit with a decrease in performance?
In the end, this computer (my only computer aside from an old damaged
Commodore 64) was destroyed after having it shipped via UPS when I
moved. Although everything was insured, UPS wouldn't take the blame
because they said it was improperly packaged and told me to take up the
issue with. I had STAPLES package it for me, but they wouldn't take the
blame either, claiming that I gave them permission to use non-standard
boxes (because they were all out of the big boxes), which was
true...yet they didn't tell me I was forfeiting my rights to be
compensated (if the contents should be damaged during shipment) when I
paid them for the insurance. I was without a computer for 6 years after
that. I could have bought another computer, but I needed some time away
from computers to heal. I swore I'd never buy another Intel system
again. Rather, I was intent upon getting a Mac the next time around
(and I have). Thus, you can imagine my shock when learning that Apple
was going to begin using only Intel chips. Why not AMD, I asked? Of
course, times have changed. I heard a while back that Intel was bought
by Hewlett-Packard or Compaq (which have also merged). Hopefully they
will eventually begin using AMD or perhaps even the upcoming (massively
parallel) Cell processor from IBM (which will make it's debut in the
Playstation 3...which I hear will actually be a PC as opposed to a mere
video game system [if one purchases the appropriate software, such as
multi-media production software which it has been said Sony eventually
intends to release] although it will initially be marketed only as a
video game system).
> I installed the flip4mac
> thing, and it works with Safari and Firefox, it seems. Try to play the
> stuff at
>
> http://www.windowsmedia.com/MediaGuide/Home
>
> which I reckon is a good place to test it. Relaunch the browser.
>
> You'll need the Firefox ActiveX plugin to play stuff from some sites
> (notably that site with the movie trailers); they don't seem to have a
> plugin for Firefox 2.0 yet.
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm#download
>
> Don't install it if it makes you nervous. I run Parallels to see the
> ActiveX stuff via IE.
> --
Perhaps that is why Flip4Mac wouldn't launch for me when I click on
links which should launch it? I don't have Firefox. I just use Safari
(partly because it looks nicer). I'm not sure Safari is capable of
responding properly due to compatibility issues (with Active X controls
and such). On top of that, my security software hides info about my
browser and computer, which may be causing additional problems. Well,
thanks for the help. Now I know I'm not alone with the Microsoft WiMP
failing to decompress. I suspect that Microsoft is just trying to steer
people into downloading (and purchasing) Flip4Mac by disabling the
WiMP. Note the disclaimer on Microsoft's WiMP download page which
states that they don't support third party decompression software. They
recommend only Stuffit and that's what I am using. I know it's not a
problem with Stuffit since I am able to properly decompress everything
else. What is your opinon? Could this possibly be a virus that's
causing the problem?
-Phantasy
Warren Oates
"Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> Perhaps that is why Flip4Mac wouldn't launch for me when I click on
> links which should launch it? I don't have Firefox. I just use Safari
> (partly because it looks nicer). I'm not sure Safari is capable of
> responding properly due to compatibility issues (with Active X controls
> and such). On top of that, my security software hides info about my
> browser and computer, which may be causing additional problems. Well,
> thanks for the help. Now I know I'm not alone with the Microsoft WiMP
> failing to decompress. I suspect that Microsoft is just trying to steer
> people into downloading (and purchasing) Flip4Mac by disabling the
> WiMP. Note the disclaimer on Microsoft's WiMP download page which
> states that they don't support third party decompression software. They
> recommend only Stuffit and that's what I am using. I know it's not a
> problem with Stuffit since I am able to properly decompress everything
> else. What is your opinon? Could this possibly be a virus that's
> causing the problem?
No, it's not a virus. We don't have viruses, not really.
Hmm, let me try something ...
There's something wrong with the GUI version of Stuffit Expander, it
seems. I can open that .bin file with the command line unstuff; it's on
my other Mac (ssh is your man here), and I disremember where I got the
command-line tools. They don't seem to be packaged with the free version
of Stuffit, but they must have been at one time, or I wouldn't have
them. If you can run OS9, there used to be something called MindExpander
that opened most stuff.
Anyway, it unstuffs to a "Windows Media Installer" that I probably won't
bother installing, I don't trust MS, and flip4mac seems to work and
anyway, I've got Parallels.
Jolly Roger
> There's something wrong with the GUI version of Stuffit Expander, it
> seems. I can open that .bin file with the command line unstuff; it's on
> my other Mac (ssh is your man here), and I disremember where I got the
> command-line tools. They don't seem to be packaged with the free
> version of Stuffit, but they must have been at one time, or I wouldn't
> have them. If you can run OS9, there used to be something called
> MindExpander that opened most stuff.
The command-line "stuff" and "unstuff" tools are included with certain
pay versions of Stuffit (Deluxe mainly). Maybe in the past you
installed a "try out" of Deluxe or something.
--
JR
Mike Rosenberg
> That is true if you are repairing the disk, but repairing permissions is
> supposed to be done while booted from the hard drive, not the install
> CD/DVD.
It doesn't matter whether you're booted from the hard drive, a CD/DVD
drive, or another hard drive. In all cases, Disk Utility uses the
receipts on the drive whose permissions are being repaired. Anyone who
doubt this can see for themselves by verifying, rather than repairing,
permissions and seeing that you get the same list in all cases.
Phantasy
Sn!pe wrote:
> Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
>
> > Sue Rodgers <soo...@bellnotnorth.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I am afraid you have already revealed too much, and we must now
> > > terminate you. I am truly sorry.
> >
> > Oh my god, what have I done?!! Shit, there's someone at my door
> > already! Gotta go out through the hidden door...
>
> Formosa's Law. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa's_law>
>
> --
> ^Ï^
I don't consider having an imagination (perhaps an over-active
imagination) a mental illness. It can only be considered a mental
illness if the afflicted individual is adversely affected by their
mental function. And not in other people's eyes. Rather, the
(potentially) afflicted individual must be the one to determine whether
they are adversely affected. No one else has a right to determine
whether an individual is adversely affected or not (unless they are
truly harmed). Others can only determine whether they themselves are
adversely affected by someone's mental function and/or consequent
behavior. And unless they are truly harmed, people have no basis for
diagnosing someone else as mentally ill for exercising their freedoms
to live and think as they so desire. I should also point out that the
mental health profession is not a true science (for the most part).
Rather, it is more akin to a religious faith...which threatens the
freedoms of individuals (just as so many religions do). If someone
doesn't agree with the way you live or think, they label you as
mentally ill. Yet, there is no proof of mental illness, no scientific
tests which are able to detect the presence or absence of a pathogen.
Rather, individuals are properly diagnosed as suffering from mental
illness only if they FEEL that they are suffering. If a person is
content with themselves and their life, and harms no one, no one has
any right to interfere and force a person to change their way of life
and/or thinking simply because they find the way a person lives or
thinks to differ from theirs.
-Phantasy
Jolly Roger
Rosenberg) said:
> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> That is true if you are repairing the disk, but repairing permissions is
>> supposed to be done while booted from the hard drive, not the install
>> CD/DVD.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you're booted from the hard drive, a CD/DVD
> drive, or another hard drive. In all cases, Disk Utility uses the
> receipts on the drive whose permissions are being repaired. Anyone who
> doubt this can see for themselves by verifying, rather than repairing,
> permissions and seeing that you get the same list in all cases.
Thanks for clearing the air about that, Mike.
--
JR
Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > That is true if you are repairing the disk, but repairing permissions is
> > supposed to be done while booted from the hard drive, not the install
> > CD/DVD.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you're booted from the hard drive, a CD/DVD
> drive, or another hard drive. In all cases, Disk Utility uses the
> receipts on the drive whose permissions are being repaired. Anyone who
> doubt this can see for themselves by verifying, rather than repairing,
> permissions and seeing that you get the same list in all cases.
>
> --
You may be right about this. If I remember correctly, a while back I
compared the lists resulting from running just a permissions verify
both ways and they were the same, both before and after being repaired
either way (just to see if there were any differences in function).
Yet, that is not what an Apple rep told me today and I seemed to be
getting different results earlier today. I'm not sure why. I'll try
this again jus to see. Thanks for pointing this out. Yet, the question
of how the permissions are getting changed remains unanswered (in my
opinion). Who or what is changing the permissions? They should (always)
be the same as they were when the permissions receipt was created.
-Phantasy
Jolly Roger
> Yet, the question
> of how the permissions are getting changed remains unanswered (in my
> opinion). Who or what is changing the permissions? They should (always)
> be the same as they were when the permissions receipt was created.
It's only unanswered in *your mind* because you apparently refuse to
believe anything anyone tells you. People here have already explained
to you that software installers can change folder permissions to ones
that conflict with other installers. In that case you might have two
receipts with conflicting ideas about what the proper permissions are
for said folder(s). Also keep in mind not all applications have
receipts - some apps are drag and drop, but apps may still set
permissions on certain folders if the author of the app sees fit to do
so.
--
JR
Mike Rosenberg
> > It doesn't matter whether you're booted from the hard drive, a CD/DVD
> > drive, or another hard drive. In all cases, Disk Utility uses the
> > receipts on the drive whose permissions are being repaired. Anyone who
> > doubt this can see for themselves by verifying, rather than repairing,
> > permissions and seeing that you get the same list in all cases.
>
> Thanks for clearing the air about that, Mike.
You're welcome. I got fed up a while back with reading all these
conflicting reports on the topic and spent a little time seeing for
myself.
Phantasy
Then why is it that Disk Utility is reporting permissions errors even
when I haven't performed any additional installations? I could
understand if one installed an update. Yet, Disk Utility is reporting
permission errors immediately after an install of the OS. If I had not
installed any updates since installing the OS, there shouldn't be any
other receipt which is causing Disk Utility to report a problem.
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Phantasy wrote:
> Sn!pe wrote:
> > Mike Rosenberg <mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sue Rodgers <soo...@bellnotnorth.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am afraid you have already revealed too much, and we must now
> > > > terminate you. I am truly sorry.
> > >
> > > Oh my god, what have I done?!! Shit, there's someone at my door
> > > already! Gotta go out through the hidden door...
> >
> > Formosa's Law. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa's_law>
> >
> > --
> > ^Ï^
>
> I don't consider having an imagination (perhaps an over-active
> imagination) a mental illness. It can only be considered a mental
> illness if the afflicted individual is adversely affected by their
> mental function. And not in other people's eyes. Rather, the
> (potentially) afflicted individual must be the one to determine whether
> they are adversely affected. No one else has a right to determine
> whether an individual is adversely affected or not (unless they are
> truly harmed). Others can only determine whether they themselves are
> adversely affected by someone's mental function and/or consequent
> behavior. And unless they are truly harmed, people have no basis for
> diagnosing someone else as mentally ill for exercising their freedoms
> to live and think as they so desire.
In other words, those who would dare to diagnose someone as mentally
ill and try to take away their freedom for living and thinking
differently than they do (when the one's they diagnose have harmed no
one and do not feel las though they are suffering), those judging
others as such are the one's whom are adversely affecting or harming
others. The one's labelling others as mentally ill are often the one's
causing suffering as a result of their inability to live harmoniously
amongst others. In other words they are the one's who should be
labelled mentally ill rather than the one's whom they have diagnosed as
mentally ill, since they are a threat to the welfare of others.
> I should also point out that the
> mental health profession is not a true science (for the most part).
> Rather, it is more akin to a religious faith...which threatens the
> freedoms of individuals (just as so many religions do).
Ironically, if someone diagnoses themselves as having any sort of an
illness because they have all the symptoms, yet no hard evidence (such
as the results of a lab test), they are labelled a hypochondriac. Yet,
(so-called) mental health professionals diagnose people every day as
having diseases for which there is no hard evidence (in other words, no
lab test) to prove exist other than in the minds of those whom believe
they exist. In other words, practitioners and others whom invest faith
in the mental health profession are projecting hypochondriacs (as the
professionals would probably call it).
-Phantasy
Warren Oates
"Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> Then why is it that Disk Utility is reporting permissions errors even
> when I haven't performed any additional installations? I could
> understand if one installed an update. Yet, Disk Utility is reporting
> permission errors immediately after an install of the OS. If I had not
> installed any updates since installing the OS, there shouldn't be any
> other receipt which is causing Disk Utility to report a problem.
I know you don't like giving out information, but could you tell us what
system you're running? For a long time "repair permissions" would give
you line after line of informational messages that had nothing to do
with anything that needed repair. We don't see that now; I don't know
what OS revision tidied it up. If you see a bunch of "we are using
special permissions" messages, that's okay, they don't mean that
anything needs repairing.
The only thing that seems to need repairing on a regular basis is
/var/log/secure.log, which seems to wind up with admin group privileges
it's not supposed to have.
Phantasy
Allow me to rephrase that. I used the word "one's" when I should have
used the word "ones".
The ones labelling others as mentally ill are often the ones causing
suffering as a result of their inability to live harmoniously amongst
others. In other words they are the ones who should be labelled
mentally ill rather than the ones whom they have diagnosed as mentally
Phantasy
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1163347481....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > Then why is it that Disk Utility is reporting permissions errors even
> > when I haven't performed any additional installations? I could
> > understand if one installed an update. Yet, Disk Utility is reporting
> > permission errors immediately after an install of the OS. If I had not
> > installed any updates since installing the OS, there shouldn't be any
> > other receipt which is causing Disk Utility to report a problem.
>
> I know you don't like giving out information, but could you tell us what
> system you're running?
My "paranoid" security defenses prevent me from freely disclosing such
information. Sorry.
> For a long time "repair permissions" would give
> you line after line of informational messages that had nothing to do
> with anything that needed repair. We don't see that now; I don't know
> what OS revision tidied it up. If you see a bunch of "we are using
> special permissions" messages, that's okay, they don't mean that
> anything needs repairing.
>
I see.
> The only thing that seems to need repairing on a regular basis is
> /var/log/secure.log, which seems to wind up with admin group privileges
> it's not supposed to have.
> --
That seems as though it should be cause for concern to me.
-Phantasy
Jolly Roger
>> The only thing that seems to need repairing on a regular basis is
>> /var/log/secure.log, which seems to wind up with admin group privileges
>> it's not supposed to have.
>> --
>
> That seems as though it should be cause for concern to me.
Why should that be cause for concern for you?
Do you have other user accounts on your machine in the "admin" group?
--
JR
Warren Oates
"Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> My "paranoid" security defenses prevent me from freely disclosing such
> information. Sorry.
Well, that information is the only way you'll get any real help from
Usenet or any other forum.
Bye now.
Phantasy
In other words, the ones whom should be diagnosed as mentally ill are
the ones diagnosing others as mentally ill, since it is they whom are a
threat to the welfare of the harmless individuals they diagnose.
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1163349201.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > My "paranoid" security defenses prevent me from freely disclosing such
> > information. Sorry.
>
> Well, that information is the only way you'll get any real help from
> Usenet or any other forum.
>
I don't see why providing that sort of information is necessary to
answer the question of why permissions are changing, such as the
permissions for that log file, in the absence of any additional
installations or updates. If you can convince me that providing such
information is necessary then I might.
-Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg
> In other words, the ones whom should be diagnosed as mentally ill are
> the ones diagnosing others as mentally ill, since it is they whom are a
> threat to the welfare of the harmless individuals they diagnose.
What about people who carry on long conversations with themselves in
newsgroups, sometimes responding to their own posts four times in a row?
Mike Rosenberg
> I don't see why providing that sort of information is necessary to
> answer the question of why permissions are changing, such as the
> permissions for that log file, in the absence of any additional
> installations or updates. If you can convince me that providing such
> information is necessary then I might.
Look, this newsgroup is called comp.sys.mac.system, and it exists for
the purpose of discussing Mac OS issues. If someone asks which OS
version you're using in a group devoted to, say, politics or religion,
of course you'd have every reason not to disclose it, but it's
absolutely on topic and standard operating procedure here to provide
that information here.
Phantasy
Not that I know of. Yet, since the permissions are changing on that log
file...who knows? Can you trust the log if the permissions are
changing? I'll have to run some tests to find out if the permissions
are changing in a manner which should be of concern just to be sure
(after a fresh install of the OS and without any updates). I'll let you
know if I find anything of interest.
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> Phantasy <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > In other words, the ones whom should be diagnosed as mentally ill are
> > the ones diagnosing others as mentally ill, since it is they whom are a
> > threat to the welfare of the harmless individuals they diagnose.
>
> What about people who carry on long conversations with themselves in
> newsgroups, sometimes responding to their own posts four times in a row?
>
> --
I don't see any harm in elaborating upon what one has said. Some people
have something to say, and there's no reason they shouldn't share what
they have to say. After all, I would not call posting to newsgroups
talking to oneself. It wouldn't be a private conversation even if it
was.
-Phantasy
Jolly Roger
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2006-11-12 10:33:21 -0600, "Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> said:
>>
>>>> The only thing that seems to need repairing on a regular basis is
>>>> /var/log/secure.log, which seems to wind up with admin group privileges
>>>> it's not supposed to have.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> That seems as though it should be cause for concern to me.
>>
>> Why should that be cause for concern for you?
>>
>> Do you have other user accounts on your machine in the "admin" group?
>
> Not that I know of.
It's either "yes" or "no". Go find out. A quick trip to
/Applications/Utilities/NetInfo Manager will tell you which user
accounts are in the "admin" group.
> Yet, since the permissions are changing on that log
> file...who knows? Can you trust the log if the permissions are
> changing?
But the log's permissions have nothing to do with what user accounts
actually currently exist in the system. If an account on your system
did have access to the log, the worst that could happen is a change is
made to the log - it wouldn't magically allow that account access to
anything but the log file.
--
JR
Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> Phantasy <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see why providing that sort of information is necessary to
> > answer the question of why permissions are changing, such as the
> > permissions for that log file, in the absence of any additional
> > installations or updates. If you can convince me that providing such
> > information is necessary then I might.
>
> Look, this newsgroup is called comp.sys.mac.system, and it exists for
> the purpose of discussing Mac OS issues. If someone asks which OS
> version you're using in a group devoted to, say, politics or religion,
> of course you'd have every reason not to disclose it, but it's
> absolutely on topic and standard operating procedure here to provide
> that information here.
>
> --
Sorry. I thought Warren was asking me what computer I was using. I
didn't see how that was relevant, since this is an issue with the OS
which shouldn't be affected by the type of computer I'm using. So, to
answer the question, I am using OS X version 10.4.8...
-Phantasy
Jolly Roger
Can I ask you something? Why do you post here?
I ask because it's all-too obvious that you don't trust any of the
people offering you help. You are aware of your own actions, right? If
you know you don't trust anyone here, and you know you won't accept the
help they give to you, why do you even bother to post here?
--
JR
Jolly Roger
...though with all your hemming and hawing, I'm sure he's completely
forgotten why he wanted to know what version Mac OS X you are running
by now.
; )
--
JR
Phantasy
By the way, what about them? Are you suggesting that they should be
labelled as mentally ill and stripped of their freedom of speech just
because you don't like what they have to say (or how they say it)? If
so, it is you who should be stripped not only of your dignity and
freedom but also executed as an enemy of freedom.
-Phantasy
Jolly Roger
I think he's suggesting that you are extremely paranoid and show signs
that you refuse to accept reality as reality.
--
JR
Mike Rosenberg
> If so, it is you who should be stripped not only of your dignity
Oh, I readily strip myself of all dignity every time I attempt to dance
a samba. I'm fine with most all of the other ballroom and Latin dances,
but that one...
> and freedom but also executed as an enemy of freedom.
Uh huh. And when, exactly, did I try to prevent you, or anyone else,
from posting? However, it's part of _my_ freedom to respond to another
post as I see fit.
Mike Rosenberg
> I think he's suggesting that you are extremely paranoid and show signs
> that you refuse to accept reality as reality.
I think he's suggesting that, too, but, hey, what do I know?
Phantasy
How can you be sure what's really going on if the permissions on the
log file are changing? If you ask me, you certainly can't trust your
log to tell you what's been going on. As I've said before, there could
be some surveillance code (with administrator priveleges) running in
the background, collecting and transmitting data while it covers it's
tracks by editing the log.
-Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg
> Why is anyone wasting any more time with this guy?
Oh, don't worry, I'm using only time I have specifically budgeted to
posts like this. <g>
Phantasy
Reality is in the mind of the beholder. What YOU mean when you say
reality may not agree with other people's experience of reality. For
example, years ago...anyone who questioned that the Earth was the
center of the universe was considered to be a demon inspired heretic
and properly persecuted. Everyone knew that the world was not only
flat, it was the center of the universe. That was the obvious reality
and anyone who dared to suggest otherwise was obviously deluded.
Furthermore, the concept of spacecraft would have seemed like pure
fantasy to someone a hundred or so years ago. Anyone who attempted to
build a spacecraft and talked of building a colony on the moon or mars
would have been probably been considered mentally ill. In fact, to this
day...a person would be viewed as either mentally ill or simply not
being "realistic" if they devoted their life to building space craft
and spoke often with conviction of leading a mission to colonise the
moon and mars within the next year or so (unless they worked for NASA,
in which case they would mysteriously be respected by most...ignoring
the fact that NASA has failed to accomplish the mission of colonising
the moon and mars as promised approximately 50 years ago). And what of
physicists whom speak of the reality of "time-travel" and alternate
universes. Despite the supposed reality of such things, anyone who told
you that they were either working on a time machine, were in fact a
time traveler, or had met a time traveler...would probably be
considered mentally ill and out of touch with reality (even though they
might be telling the truth) because that requires a very different view
of reality than most people have or are capable of comprehending. The
same is true for individuals such as myself whom declare that you can't
be sure of what may or may not be lurking around within the unseen and
invisible processes going on inside your computer. The faithful
adherents of the "Macintosh church" especially remind me of religious
fanatics not only because they believe and trust what they can't see
with faith and unquestioning devotion (despite the fact that
permissions are mysteriously changing on their log files) but also
because they persecute those whom question their idea of reality (in
which Apple is love and peace...never mind the fact that the founders
of Apple have a history of phone phreaking and tapping, as well as
playing mind games with people). "Oh, Apple would never violate
anyone's privacy or play mind games with people like you think they
are...you're just suffering from paranoid delusions", you say? Well,
the REALITY is that they have. They brag about it in the books they've
written and in interviews. If you believe otherwise then you are the
one who is refusing to accept reality. Wake up people! The house is on
fire!
-Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg
> Yeah, but the more people keep engaging him, the more he'll stick around.
Sure, but I always let you have your fun when you're acting like I am
now. :-)
Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@null.org> wrote:
>
> > I think he's suggesting that you are extremely paranoid and show signs
> > that you refuse to accept reality as reality.
>
> I think he's suggesting that, too, but, hey, what do I know?
>
> --
A former employee of Apple tells me that Steve Jobs is also extremely
"paranoid". He believed he was being followed and it supposedly turned
out to be true after he had the people that were following him
followed. I have also been informed that he has quit working for Apple
several times after he repeatedly found out that they had entered into
an agreement to share customer "information" with the government.
Apparently he quit in an attempt to manipulate them into backing out of
their deals with the government. Apple kept trying to make deals
without him knowing about it and he kept finding out about it. I wonder
if there's anything that he hasn't heard about? And does Steve Jobs
still work for Apple?
-Phantasy
G.T.
>
> In the end, this computer (my only computer aside from an old damaged
> Commodore 64) was destroyed after having it shipped via UPS when I
> moved. Although everything was insured, UPS wouldn't take the blame
> because they said it was improperly packaged and told me to take up the
> issue with.
That's one thing you've written that I can believe. We switched from
UPS to FedEx for computer shipments to branch offices and our damage
rate went down from 72% to 3%. The last month that we used UPS EVERY
SINGLE computer we shipped was damaged, 12 out of 12.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
Mark Conrad
> > > Why is anyone wasting any more time with this guy?
> >
> > Oh, don't worry, I'm using only time I have specifically budgeted to
> > posts like this. <g>
>
> Yeah, but the more people keep engaging him, the more he'll stick around.
I kinda hope he does stick around.
He is an extreme version of me, so I get to study myself remotely :)
Ya gotta consider his background, he comes from the Wintel ranks, where
paranoia is normal.
He will settle down, eventually.
Mark-
Warren Oates
"Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> By the way, what about them? Are you suggesting that they should be
> labelled as mentally ill and stripped of their freedom of speech just
> because you don't like what they have to say (or how they say it)? If
> so, it is you who should be stripped not only of your dignity and
> freedom but also executed as an enemy of freedom.
You are free to say anything you want, anywhere, even in Usenet, even
here. And I am free not to listen. That's what kill-files are for.
Mike Rosenberg
> He is an extreme version of me, so I get to study myself remotely :)
That may just be the single best line I've ever read in a Usenet post!
> Ya gotta consider his background, he comes from the Wintel ranks, where
> paranoia is normal.
It's just my own, decidely non-professional, opinion, but I believe
anyone who thinks he's bought OS installer discs that have been doctored
(and not just once but twice) has, um, issues.
Phantasy
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> Mark Conrad <thi...@totally.invalid> wrote:
>
> > He is an extreme version of me, so I get to study myself remotely :)
>
> That may just be the single best line I've ever read in a Usenet post!
>
> > Ya gotta consider his background, he comes from the Wintel ranks, where
> > paranoia is normal.
>
> It's just my own, decidely non-professional, opinion, but I believe
> anyone who thinks he's bought OS installer discs that have been doctored
> (and not just once but twice) has, um, issues.
>
> --
Actually, I am only suspicious of one disk I bought and that would be
the last one I was given (which I was not able to randomly pick out
myself but was instead given). I am also suspicious that the disks
which came with my FREE Mac may have been doctored, but I did not pay
for those. I admit it's possible that I'm just being paranoid, yet I
can't ignore the pecularities of receiving a FREE computer or the
situation with that computer store (which won't allow me to randomly
pick out a copy of OS X myself). Ya gotta admit, it's somewhat peculiar
(if not suspicious).
-Phantasy
Phantasy
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1hoozj8.1ovo43p7uh7g7N%mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, but the more people keep engaging him, the more he'll stick
> > > around.
> >
> > Sure, but I always let you have your fun when you're acting like I am
> > now. :-)
>
> troll; did you see his "Does Steve Jobs still work for Apple?" bit of
> idiocy?
Hey now, what I shared in that post is just what a friend told me. I'm
not absolutely sure the guy who told me is telling the truth. But I for
one don't doubt it. The question "Does Steve Jobs still work for
Apple?" was just sarcasm. As far as I know, he does. But if what my
friend told me is true, who knows. One day he does. The next day he has
a hissy fit 'cause he finds out that it was decided by majority vote
(or whatever) to share customer "information" with the government and
it's "I QUIT!". Then later that day he's back again, after Apple lures
him back by promising not to share customer information with the feds.
Or so I hear. If this is true, I gotta say I like what I hear. 'Cause
here is an individual (Steve Jobs) who is taking a stand against the
feds and defending our privacy. That takes courage because if he truly
is the only one keeping such an information sharing program between
Apple and the feds from happening then he is making himself a target. I
can understand why he'd be paranoid. The friend who told me about this
told me that Apple is the only computer company left which doesn't
share customer information with the government. Yet, I'm not sure Apple
itself can be trusted to respect our privacy (even if they don't share
collected information with anyone else). As I said earlier, the
founders of Apple were notorious hackers, phone phreakers/tappers, and
played mind games with people (for a laugh). But I don't believe Steve
(Jobs) was one to tap phone lines or violate people's privacy in any
way. I believe that was Woz (and perhaps others). Not Steve.
-Phantasy
Warren Oates
"Phantasy" <sub...@kaxy.com> wrote:
> Actually, I am only suspicious of one disk I bought and that would be
> the last one I was given (which I was not able to randomly pick out
> myself but was instead given). I am also suspicious that the disks
> which came with my FREE Mac may have been doctored, but I did not pay
> for those. I admit it's possible that I'm just being paranoid, yet I
> can't ignore the pecularities of receiving a FREE computer or the
> situation with that computer store (which won't allow me to randomly
> pick out a copy of OS X myself). Ya gotta admit, it's somewhat peculiar
> (if not suspicious).
You know, I think you're really fucken nuts. Do you have any friends?
You must be a real joy to spend time with.
Although, yeah, it's possible that Apple is out to get you. Steve Jobs
probably knows where you live.