Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Why must OS X applications be splattered about?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 12:51:39 AM10/23/05
to
For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X
have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications
folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and
who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious
UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the
application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
longer works.

It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application
resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one
where the application is used.

To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.
What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many
users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today.

I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend
or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring
order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think
of as order.

Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a
long, long day, somewhat of a grump. :-)

--
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Gnarlodious

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:03:32 AM10/23/05
to
Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages,

So, in your ideal OS then, every time you update your browser you lose all
your Favorite URLs...

-- Gnarlie

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:15:38 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:03:32 -0500, Gnarlodious wrote (in article
<BF8075C4.1615E%gnarl...@yahoo.com>):

Not at all. There is no reason why the updating of a browser, or any
application for that matter, needs to replace everything in a containing
package. Whether or not replacement of such as favorites in a browser should
or should not occur could be an option of the installer. Just because all of
the constituent files in an application are clustered into a single package
in no way prevents an application updater from selectively changing files.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:20:27 AM10/23/05
to
In article <BF8075C4.1615E%gnarl...@yahoo.com>, Gnarlodious
<gnarl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying. This
silliness started even back in Mac OS 9 with even updaters insisting
that applications were left where they were installed instead of where
I want them. :-(

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:30:47 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:20:27 -0500, Anybody wrote
(in article <231020051820275185%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>):

> I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
> place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying.

Say I have a single administrator account and several standard (user)
accounts. It would seem reasonable that there be a package for that
application in the administrator account and one in each user account. The
administrator package would contain all of the parts of the application
needed by any user. The standard (user) packages would contain those things
such as settings and such that are unique to that account. Documents created
by an application would still normally be kept in the appropriate documents
folders. My grump is that it is far too easy for a non-UNIX savvy person to
totally muddle up an application.

Jon Aalborg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:57:07 AM10/23/05
to
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:20:27 -0500, Anybody wrote
> (in article <231020051820275185%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>):
>
> > I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the
> > place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying.
>
> Say I have a single administrator account and several standard (user)
> accounts. It would seem reasonable that there be a package for that
> application in the administrator account and one in each user account. The
> administrator package would contain all of the parts of the application
> needed by any user. The standard (user) packages would contain those things
> such as settings and such that are unique to that account.

But that is what happens, really. The "package", i.e., the application,
sits in a place accessible by all and normally modifable only by admin.
OTOH; "those things such as settings and such that are unique to [each]
account" sit precisely where you want them; in the various users'
~/Library/Preferences. If there are templates, graphical themes, (music)
loops, etc., i.e., files that are used by the app but don't properly
belong to the app, they sit in /Library/Application support/<developer's
name>. They would normally /not/ belong to each user, but to all users
of the app, i.e., globally.

To me it is one of the more logical ways of doing things. I would hate
having to open the application packages and screw around inside them to
find stuff like that. And you'd still be stuck with having a number of
packages corresponding to the number of users + 1.

> Documents created
> by an application would still normally be kept in the appropriate documents
> folders. My grump is that it is far too easy for a non-UNIX savvy person to
> totally muddle up an application.

I don't see that (I'm not trying to troll you, I just don't?). And BTW -
what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
--
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal:
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:20:37 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
<1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):

> And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?

Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an
application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything for
a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in
several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after
problem.

Gnarlodious

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:33:04 AM10/23/05
to
Entity TaliesinSoft spoke thus:

> my position is that everything for
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package,

Well, I can imagine the bloated size of each download if you were replacing
components continually!
The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
longer be able to overwrite an application..

-- Gnarlie

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:39:20 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
<1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
>
> And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?

Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
"Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
it.

The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.

I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.

That's one of the points (or used to be!) in buying an easy to use,
freeflowing Mac and not the stubborn, do as it says Windoze. :-(

Jon Aalborg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:40:08 AM10/23/05
to
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
>
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
>
> Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an
> application unique to a user) belong!

I guess that remark (about keeping apps in /Applications) of mine was


actually more directed to "Anybody", who wrote:
> I can understand preference files being separate, but bits all over the

> place and the "don't move me" attitude is extremely annoying. This
> silliness started even back in Mac OS 9 with even updaters insisting
> that applications were left where they were installed instead of where
> I want them. :-(

Sorry about that.

I don't really see the point of moving apps any more. In OS 9 I did, too
- but no longer.

> But my position is that everything for
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in
> several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after
> problem.

See "Gnarlodious's" remarks. They cover my issues with your position.

Király

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 3:29:12 AM10/23/05
to
> Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an
> application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything for
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in
> several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after
> problem.

My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in
/Library/Fonts. The app simply will not run without them. Instead of
embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the
developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are
thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.

K.

Mark Shroyer

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 5:20:42 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:51:39 -0500, TaliesinSoft wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in
> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the
> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application
> support folder, and who knows where else.
>

> [...]


>
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than
> the resident one where the application is used.

I actually rather like the way that OS X deals with making application
preferences and such a multi-user affair, but maybe our difference in
opinions stems from our apparently different ideas of how multi-user
operating systems usually behave. You refer to the "account in which the
application resides", as opposed to the various non-administrator user
accounts. However, in OS X one wouldn't typically install an application
in a particular account; the app would likely have to be installed _using_
some administrative account, but the program copied to /Applications would
not actually be tied to that particular account in a special way after the
installation. So to say the application "resides" in some account isn't
usually accurate (unless I misunderstand where you keep applications on
your machine).

Administrative accounts, just like non-administrative accounts, need to
keep their application settings in ~/Library/. This allows different
users to have completely independent preferences and files for the same
applications, and allows us to, for example, preserve our Safari bookmarks
between updates. I like to look at this as a modern incarnation of the
tried-and-true Unix method of keeping global applications in some
administratively-protected system directory, and users' personal files and
settings always in a subdirectory of their respective home directories.

As for why a user's application settings are often kept in more than one
location under ~/Library/... well, maybe they could have done a better job
of that. But typically you'll find a user's application settings under
~/Library/Application Support/<AppName>/, and when this is not the case it
is more often due to a poor design decision by a third-party developer
than to any fault of Apple's. (Have you ever hunted down Windows Media
Player for Mac's settings!?)

> What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious UNIX
> underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> longer works.

Hey, be careful not to anger the Unix fans; there are more and more of us
using Macintoshes every day :). Actually, the only reason I even
considered switching from Linux to OS X for my personal computing was that
Apple decided to base OS X on NeXTStep (and thus gave it its BSD
underpinnings).

More to the point, though, do you have any particular examples of where
moving an application breaks personal settings? I tried moving Microsoft
Office's apps, Opera, iPhoto, and a few others to random subdirectories on
different volumes attached to my iBook, but never saw the application fail
to find its settings, which had stayed stationary. Or am I missing your
point?

Mark

--
Mark Shroyer
http://plaza.ufl.edu/mshroyer/


Andy Hewitt

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 5:52:34 AM10/23/05
to
Gnarlodious <gnarl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not true. I have tried this with Eudora updates, where I might have put
some extra plug-ins into the Package. If you drag and drop an updated
package onto the old one, all the existing plug-ins stay there. I
believe the same happened when I tried it with Mozilla/Thunderbird too.

That is either a feature of OSX, or some damned fine programming by
Qualcomm.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Aug 28 2005)

Andy Hewitt

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 5:52:34 AM10/23/05
to
Mark Shroyer <maSPAMISB...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Snipped Text]

> > It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> > contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> > application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than
> > the resident one where the application is used.
>
> I actually rather like the way that OS X deals with making application
> preferences and such a multi-user affair, but maybe our difference in
> opinions stems from our apparently different ideas of how multi-user
> operating systems usually behave. You refer to the "account in which the
> application resides", as opposed to the various non-administrator user
> accounts. However, in OS X one wouldn't typically install an application
> in a particular account; the app would likely have to be installed _using_
> some administrative account, but the program copied to /Applications would
> not actually be tied to that particular account in a special way after the
> installation. So to say the application "resides" in some account isn't
> usually accurate (unless I misunderstand where you keep applications on
> your machine).

Absolutely, the standard procedure then is to create an alias to the app
in a User/Applications folder.

> Administrative accounts, just like non-administrative accounts, need to
> keep their application settings in ~/Library/. This allows different
> users to have completely independent preferences and files for the same
> applications, and allows us to, for example, preserve our Safari bookmarks
> between updates. I like to look at this as a modern incarnation of the
> tried-and-true Unix method of keeping global applications in some
> administratively-protected system directory, and users' personal files and
> settings always in a subdirectory of their respective home directories.

Yes, so what that Unix was invented in the 70's? Why reinvent the wheel?
I think it works very well, and has proven to be a very solid and also
highly flexible system. It offers users a power to do things like no
other OS can, it comes at a price - complexity - but I think Apple have
done a damned good job of making it fairly transparent to the average
user.

It only falls down when people that know bugger all about computers
start to think they know better than the software authors.

> As for why a user's application settings are often kept in more than one
> location under ~/Library/... well, maybe they could have done a better job
> of that. But typically you'll find a user's application settings under
> ~/Library/Application Support/<AppName>/, and when this is not the case it
> is more often due to a poor design decision by a third-party developer
> than to any fault of Apple's. (Have you ever hunted down Windows Media
> Player for Mac's settings!?)

Agreed, the system is fine as it is, the locations of files are logical,
and as far as well written software goes, you find everything where
you'd expect it. Poorly written software that puts files in strange
locations is not Apple's fault.

> > What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious UNIX
> > underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the
> > application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> > longer works.
>
> Hey, be careful not to anger the Unix fans; there are more and more of us
> using Macintoshes every day :). Actually, the only reason I even
> considered switching from Linux to OS X for my personal computing was that
> Apple decided to base OS X on NeXTStep (and thus gave it its BSD
> underpinnings).
>
> More to the point, though, do you have any particular examples of where
> moving an application breaks personal settings? I tried moving Microsoft
> Office's apps, Opera, iPhoto, and a few others to random subdirectories on
> different volumes attached to my iBook, but never saw the application fail
> to find its settings, which had stayed stationary. Or am I missing your
> point?

PhotoShop is one, if you move the app it won't run, and updates won't
work either. Indeed, many apps won't update properly if you move them
from the Applications folder.

I find that bunging everything into the ./Applications folder is great,
you know exactly where to find all your apps. I then create a set of
hierarchal folders of aliases, in my User/Applications folder, so I can
group the application types (i.e. Office, Graphics, Audio, Internet...
etc.)

Boris Harss

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:14:45 AM10/23/05
to
Hi!

> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a
> friend or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an
> effort to bring order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to
> what some persons think of as order.

As a newcomer to Apple, but as a fairly computer-sane person, I have to
say, that I am amazed how *tolerant* OS-X is if you decide to move
programs: The Shortcuts keep working, in the cases I tried, the
applications still work OK. I think, this is precisely the consequence
of what you critique: Because certain settings and Libraries are fixed
at certain positions (UNIX-style, I do not know what kind of environment
variables are used), the actual application can move easily (maybe
helped by some magic of the UI when executing the move).

Cheers,
B.

Gregory Weston

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 8:04:32 AM10/23/05
to
In article <231020051939200730%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>,
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
> >
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
>
> Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> it.
>
> The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.
>
> I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.

And, really, what prevents you from doing so? Very few apps require that
they be in /Applications in order to run. Those (few) apps are, simply,
broken. Similarly, I don't think I've run across anything yet that
forces you to use the default hierarchy that's created for a new user
account. You can create a folder in your home called "My Stuff" and keep
every file you create in there completely ignoring - and I think even
deleting - Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.

G

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

Sensei

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 8:29:55 AM10/23/05
to
On 2005-10-23 06:51:39 +0200, TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> said:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in
> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the
> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application
> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone
> not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire
> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be
> taken aback when the application no longer works.


You're making a big confusion between applications and their accessory data.

An application under osx/next is a directory and must (should) be self
contained. All the needed data is in ApplicationName.app/ which is a
directory. It contains binaries, frameworks, libraries, whatever is
needed. Application Support and Preferences are PER-USER accessory
data, like history, plugins, settings. This must be per-user as I don't
want to share my data with others.


>
> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other
> than the resident one where the application is used.


The application is a package. Settings are for user's sake.


>
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.


Unix has been always the same actually. That's why we still have /usr,
/usr/local, /usr/share and there's no need at all for them.


> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by
> many users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today.
> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a
> friend or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an
> effort to bring order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to
> what some persons think of as order.


Actually, I see more confusion in classic unix, with so many
directories for libraries, and parts of applications scattered in the
file system.


--
Sensei <sens...@mac.com>

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its
limits. (A. Einstein)

Gnarlodious

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:19:44 AM10/23/05
to
Entity Andy Hewitt spoke thus:

>> The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
>> incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
>> longer be able to overwrite an application..
>
> Not true. I have tried this with Eudora updates, where I might have put
> some extra plug-ins into the Package. If you drag and drop an updated
> package onto the old one, all the existing plug-ins stay there. I
> believe the same happened when I tried it with Mozilla/Thunderbird too.
>
> That is either a feature of OSX, or some damned fine programming by
> Qualcomm.

It may be, yes. But more likely the Eudora app has copied the plugins to a
"Plugins" folder somewhere.
Another possibility is that overwriting packages uses some Unixy copy
procedure where files are not replaced unless they exist in the new package.

Would be interesting if someone more knowledgeable investigated these
possibilities...

-- Gnarlie

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:25:28 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 02:29:12 -0500, Király wrote (in article
<cZG6f.43375$S4.6423@edtnps84>):

> My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in
> /Library/Fonts. The app simply will not run without them. Instead of
> embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the
> developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are thoughtfully
> accessible to all my other apps.

If a font is to be available across a number of applications then it does
make sense to have them in a shared space.

As an aside, one can place a cluster of fonts into an appropriately named
folder and then place that folder inside a font library. This is a way that
the source of that cluster can be easily identified. If that folder contains
a variety of font families, some of which may involve multiple font objects,
exporting those fonts via Font Book will create a sub-folder for each family
and place within that folder all of the objects relevant to that family. That
folder can then replace the original folder. This is a way to greatly
facilitate the management of a large font collection.

Wes Groleau

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:26:14 AM10/23/05
to
TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
>>And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
>
> Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an
> application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything for
> a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not in
> several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after
> problem.

I'm not aware of any problems that has caused me. But finding
things in a huge pile of /Applications is what irritates me.
I'd like to divide them up by categories. Some installers will
find the app and update it wherever it is. Others will find it
and move it back to /Applications. Still others will say it
can't be updated because it's not installed.

Of course, I can make soft links to any of them, or Dock them,
so it's not major, but still .....

--
Wes Groleau

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming
intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared
from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with
the release of MS-DOS.
-- Larry DeLuca

Per Rønne

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:27:56 AM10/23/05
to
Andy Hewitt <hairy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I find that bunging everything into the ./Applications folder is great,
> you know exactly where to find all your apps. I then create a set of
> hierarchal folders of aliases, in my User/Applications folder, so I can
> group the application types (i.e. Office, Graphics, Audio, Internet...
> etc.)

Well, I use AliasMenu for that purpose, and QuicKeys for making keyboard
shortcuts to them. And even ASM to get back the pull-down menu with open
apps.

After all, the Dock is only a nuisance.
--
Per Erik Rønne

Wes Groleau

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:32:40 AM10/23/05
to
Király wrote:
> My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in
> /Library/Fonts. The app simply will not run without them. Instead of
> embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the
> developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are
> thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.

Unlike Microsoft Office, which when run for the first time
PER USER, installs all of its fonts somewhere in the user's
space that AppleWorks and other apps can't find. Not only
that, but Office won't use the OS X fonts.

Wes Groleau

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:40:01 AM10/23/05
to
Sensei wrote:
> On 2005-10-23 06:51:39 +0200, TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> said:
>> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be
>> taken aback when the application no longer works.
>
> You're making a big confusion between applications and their accessory
> data.

Actually, there are sometimes executables/scripts/plists that
stupidly code the full absolute pathname for something instead
of making it relative to the package or to '~' ($HOME)

This is not generally Apple's fault, though I think they have
done it occasionally.

--
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
-- Peg Bracken

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:47:21 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:20:42 -0500, Mark Shroyer wrote
(in article <pan.2005.10.23....@yahoo.com>):

> More to the point, though, do you have any particular examples of where
> moving an application breaks personal settings? I tried moving Microsoft
> Office's apps, Opera, iPhoto, and a few others to random subdirectories on
> different volumes attached to my iBook, but never saw the application fail
> to find its settings, which had stayed stationary. Or am I missing your
> point?

A good friend of mine ran tight on disk space and added an external drive.
She then moved a number of things, applications and otherwise, to the new
drive. Now things are really messed up to the point where clicking on a
document will attempt to open a totally unrelated application. What seems to
be the case is that applications got moved to the second drive but not the
related preference and support stuff.

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:51:32 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:52:34 -0500, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <1h4vsdl.1661jrb1baj83tN%hairy...@gmail.com>):

> PhotoShop is one, if you move the app it won't run, and updates won't
> work either. Indeed, many apps won't update properly if you move them
> from the Applications folder.

It seems that Adobe doesn't understand that one can have both administrative
and standard accounts. If you attempt to run one of the applications within
Adobe's Creative Suite 2 from a standard account things will fail until you
go in a fix the permissions in the associated application support files in
the administrator account.

Howard S Shubs

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:59:11 AM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a
> long, long day, somewhat of a grump. :-)

Well, you're welcome to feel grumpy, but acting stupid is, well, stupid.

--
A few minutes ago I attempted to give a flying fsck, but the best I
could do was to watch it skitter across the floor. (Anthony de Boer)

Andy Hewitt

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:06:56 AM10/23/05
to
Gnarlodious <gnarl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Entity Andy Hewitt spoke thus:
>
> >> The only other option would be an installer for each update which would
> >> incrementally update components of the application package. You would no
> >> longer be able to overwrite an application..
> >
> > Not true. I have tried this with Eudora updates, where I might have put
> > some extra plug-ins into the Package. If you drag and drop an updated
> > package onto the old one, all the existing plug-ins stay there. I
> > believe the same happened when I tried it with Mozilla/Thunderbird too.
> >
> > That is either a feature of OSX, or some damned fine programming by
> > Qualcomm.
> It may be, yes. But more likely the Eudora app has copied the plugins to a
> "Plugins" folder somewhere.
> Another possibility is that overwriting packages uses some Unixy copy
> procedure where files are not replaced unless they exist in the new package.

I would guess the second, Eudora stores all its plugins in the Package
file.

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:24:05 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:32:40 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote (in article
<caN6f.2163$Yn4.1185@trnddc03>):

> Unlike Microsoft Office, which when run for the first time PER USER,
> installs all of its fonts somewhere in the user's space that AppleWorks
> and other apps can't find. Not only that, but Office won't use the OS X
> fonts.

The installation of Office 2004 (at least in my case) resulted in a
collection of fonts in

Applications/Microsoft Office 2004/Office/Fonts

I copied these fonts into

Library/Fonts

where they are included (at least to my knowledge) in the font menus of all
of my installed applications.

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:25:16 AM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:59:11 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote
(in article <howard-1BE6C2....@news.supernews.com>):

> Well, you're welcome to feel grumpy, but acting stupid is, well, stupid.

And just how am I acting stupid? :-)

tacit

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 12:15:59 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and
> who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious

> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the

> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> longer works.

Applications in OS 9 kept their Preferences in the system Preferences
folder too. A preference file is not, in my opinion, a "part of the
application;" it's merely the user's particular settings. It does not
properly belong in the Applications folder, any more than the user's
documents do.

The files that may appear in Application Support for some applications
aren't properly parts of the application itself either; generally, this
folder is used for foles such as a spellchecking dictionary or other
data file that the application relies on.

Why not put those files in the Applications folder?

Because in a multiuser operating system like OS X, each user may have
set different preferences for the same application; keeping preferences
in the user's home folder means one application can have different prefs
for each user.

Also, remember that you can not assume a user has write access to the
Applications folder or to any other particular folder. Customizable
dictionaries, for example, should not be stored in the Applications
folder, because a user who is running on a limited-access account
without write access to the Applications folder would not be able to
change the dictionary.

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one
> where the application is used.

Preferences files and so on are not typically stored in packages, for
the simple reason that Apple's package management APIs were designed to
locate resources within the application's package but not in any
arbitrary package. Adding API-level support for dealing with other
packages would complicate the API in a way that makes many of the
advantages of packages (from the programmer's standpoint) less
compelling.

> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.

> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many
> users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today.

And OS X bears precious little resemblance to the Unix of yesteryear.
Unix today is about as close to Unix of the 1970s as a modern Ferrari is
to the first Ford.



> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend
> or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring
> order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think
> of as order.

Well, that's true in any operating system. No matter how cleanly
designed, any operating system will produce problems if users move files
around indiscriminately.

This is not a technical issue; it's a user education issue. People
should not move files whose purpose they do not know.

> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's been a
> long, long day, somewhat of a grump. :-)

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Hans Aberg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 12:53:29 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com>,
talies...@mac.com wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and
> who knows where else. What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the
> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> longer works.
>

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one
> where the application is used.
>

> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.
> What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe shared by many
> users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate today.

UNIX is still being developed, of course. You can read about it and its
history in books like Maurice J. Bach, "The Design of the UNIX Operating
System", and Leffler, MacKusick, Karels & Quarterman, "The Design and
Implementation of the BSD UNIX Operating System".

One reason as to why UNIX became what it is perhaps somewhat surprising:
although being proprietary at times, it has always been open source, thus
giving many talented programmers to experiment and alter it. By contrast,
Mac OS 9- is closed source, relying on only Apple's programmers for a fix.

UNIX has for the very beginning been a multiuser, multiprogrammer,
multifile OS, with the capacity to efficiently linking programs together.
So a good UNIX program should make use of those features. By contrast, on
Mac OS 9-, one should avoid those things, as it has its origin in a
one-process OS, where the use of many files slowing it down.

In UNIX, there is such no need to put things in specific place, expect for
conventions: The programs need to find the other parts it may access. But
in UNIX, this can often be done by setting suitable environment variables,
such as lookup paths.

So one can put a program in say ~/bin, if one does not want other users
accessing it, or in /usr/bin if it comes with the OS, or /usr/local/bin/
if it is a program to be accessed by all users, a program which is not a
part of the original installation. But that is all conventions.

Now Apple has decided to make use of that underlying UNIX structure,
making its own conventions of where to put the stuff. But that is Apple
conventions, which in itself are not requirements imposed by the
underlying UNIX.

One reason for doing is these changes is that the underlying UNIX does not
have the limitations that Mac OS 9- has. For example, one reason to put a
lot of fonts of an application within the application package is that
putting them accessible to all programs would slow the OS down. By
contrast, UNIX is designed from the very beginning to be able to handle
many small files. So you can put them all together, accessible to all
applications.

--
Hans Aberg

Dave Balderstone

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:16:15 PM10/23/05
to
In article <tacitr-BAD5EE....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:

> The files that may appear in Application Support for some applications
> aren't properly parts of the application itself either; generally, this
> folder is used for foles such as a spellchecking dictionary or other
> data file that the application relies on.

And under OS 9 would probably have been installed in "Extensions".

> Because in a multiuser operating system like OS X, each user may have
> set different preferences for the same application; keeping preferences
> in the user's home folder means one application can have different
> prefs
> for each user.
>
> Also, remember that you can not assume a user has write access to the
> Applications folder or to any other particular folder. Customizable
> dictionaries, for example, should not be stored in the Applications
> folder, because a user who is running on a limited-access account
> without write access to the Applications folder would not be able to
> change the dictionary.

Prezactly.

> Well, that's true in any operating system. No matter how cleanly
> designed, any operating system will produce problems if users move
> files
> around indiscriminately.
>
> This is not a technical issue; it's a user education issue. People
> should not move files whose purpose they do not know.

Hear, hear!

djb

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Davoud

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:29:51 PM10/23/05
to
TaliesinSoft:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications
> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and
> who knows where else...

Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
folder.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Robert Love

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:43:18 PM10/23/05
to
In <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft
wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications
> in OS X have their parts splattered into several different places,
> the applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the
> application support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is
> that someone not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (
> and the satire is fully intended) will move the application itself
> and will then be taken aback when the application no longer works.

So much wrong with this premise. And Unix hating by the Mac faithful
has been over for years. You should be made to work in the terminal
only until you wise up.

First, an "applications" directory and an "applications support"
directory are not standard Unix. Apple has freed us from standard
layouts and path variable concerns so you DONT have to worry about them.

Your basic premise is false: You don't have to put an application in a
standard location. I just moved TextEdit to my Music folder and it
launched fine. But it sure would be difficult for other users to know
that. In fact I routinely put all non Apple apps in a directory I have
called "Third Party Apps" to separate them from Apple's apps.

As far as Application Support or Library directories, that provide
common services, why on earth would you want to move them? Let the
Installer do its thing and just don't touch what you don't understand.

Preferences live where they do because it is now a multi user system.
Each user of the machine can have different needs so the preferences
live in a personal directory. Again, this was hard for old Maccies to
grasp. Get used to it.

Hans Aberg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 3:08:54 PM10/23/05
to
In article <20051023134...@news.airmail.net>, Robert Love
<rbl...@airmail.net> wrote:

> You don't have to put an application in a
> standard location.

This is application dependent. For example, LilyPond must be put in
Applications, I think if it should be accessed from UNIX functions. But
this is something that the developers of the program decided: that it
should be like that.

> Preferences live where they do because it is now a multi user system.
> Each user of the machine can have different needs so the preferences
> live in a personal directory. Again, this was hard for old Maccies to
> grasp. Get used to it.

The best way to get some appreciation of the usefulness of this is to
create a few more accounts. But again, I do not think an application has
to work like that. One can make programs where the preferences of one user
influences that of another. Sometimes this can even be useful, if it has
to do with system-wide settings. But mostly this would not be desirable.

--
Hans Aberg

Message has been deleted

TaliesinSoft

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 3:51:48 PM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:43:18 -0500, Robert Love wrote (in article
<20051023134...@news.airmail.net>):

> Subject: Re: Why must OS X applications be splattered about? From: Robert
> Love <rbl...@airmail.net> Date: Today 1:43 PM Newsgroups:
> comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc, comp.sys.mac.system

>
> In <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft
> wrote:
>> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in
>> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the
>> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application
>> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone
>> not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X ( and the satire
>> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be
>> taken aback when the application no longer works.
>
> So much wrong with this premise. And Unix hating by the Mac faithful has
> been over for years. You should be made to work in the terminal only
> until you wise up.

I'm not sure why my complaint about application components being strewn about
in different places is somehow "wrong". Someone needs to explain to a good
friend of mine that one has to be very careful in Mac OS X about where
application components can be moved so as to not break the application.



> First, an "applications" directory and an "applications support" directory
> are not standard Unix. Apple has freed us from standard layouts and path
> variable concerns so you DONT have to worry about them.

Thanks for the clarification that the "applications" and "applications
support" directories are not part of standard Unix. But, the fact still
remains that things sometimes break if parts of an application are not in the
right directory.



> Your basic premise is false: You don't have to put an application in a
> standard location. I just moved TextEdit to my Music folder and it
> launched fine. But it sure would be difficult for other users to know
> that. In fact I routinely put all non Apple apps in a directory I have
> called "Third Party Apps" to separate them from Apple's apps.

I should have clarified that I'm aware that you shouldn't have to place an
application in a standard place. My grump is the splattering of applications
into many disjoint folders.

> As far as Application Support or Library directories, that provide common
> services, why on earth would you want to move them? Let the Installer do
> its thing and just don't touch what you don't understand.

Say, as in the case of my friend a hard drive becomes full and she opts to
move it to another hard drive in order to create space. Instead of moving one
containing folder she may have to move several folders. It seems that
complexity is created when complexity can be avoided.

> Preferences live where they do because it is now a multi user system.
> Each user of the machine can have different needs so the preferences live
> in a personal directory. Again, this was hard for old Maccies to grasp.
> Get used to it.

But so often the user (standard) account has not just a preference file for
an application hosted in say an administrative account, but the user will
perhaps have something in, for example, application support. It would seem
far preferable to have the entirety of what is unique to that user account be
in a single folder.

Tom Stiller

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 4:29:52 PM10/23/05
to
In article <231020051429514089%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:

Suppose you had several applications from the same vendor installed and
suppose those applications shared a sizable fraction of the same code
modules. Where would you locate the shared modules so all the
applications could find them and there wouldn't be redundant copies?

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

Hans Aberg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 4:39:19 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF815404...@news.supernews.com>,
talies...@mac.com wrote:

> Say, as in the case of my friend a hard drive becomes full and she opts to
> move it to another hard drive in order to create space. Instead of moving one
> containing folder she may have to move several folders. It seems that
> complexity is created when complexity can be avoided.

This might be a case of Mac OS X not being close enough to UNIX, because
to is common to chain UNIX computers so that it becomes hard to know
exactly where the stuff is put. :-) With AFS, "Andrew File System" even
hooks up the filesystem over the Internet. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_file_system>.

--
Hans Aberg

Jon Aalborg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 4:53:14 PM10/23/05
to
Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:

> It would be possible to have, within the
> Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> folder.

If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
templates, etc.
--
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal:
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc

Howard S Shubs

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 5:29:55 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF81158C...@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> And just how am I acting stupid? :-)

By saying silly stuff. You've got to know better by now about why
things are the way they are.

Hans Aberg

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 5:41:00 PM10/23/05
to
In article <1h4wq1c.1hfzot319613nmN%na...@mac.com.invalid>,
na...@mac.com.invalid (Jon Aalborg) wrote:

> If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
> scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
> You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
> user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
> templates, etc.

One practial use of this separation can be seen if the user directories
are being backed up, and the system crashes. Then the setup can be
restored by reinstalling the OS and applications, plus the backupped user
directories. If the user preferences are tucked into the application
directories, which is not computationally impossible, this restoration
process will not be possible. In fact, it is hard under Mac OS 9- to
figure out which directories to back up, if one does not want to back up
the whole installation, but only the user stuff.

--
Hans Aberg

Matthew Russotto

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:19:58 PM10/23/05
to
In article <231020051429514089%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.com> wrote:
>
>Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
>Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
>would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
>sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
>named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
>file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
>folder.

Or, you could just mark that folder as a package, and let the Finder treat
it as one.

The same things (whether justified or not) that prevent Adobe from
putting all of Photoshop's stuff in the Photoshop package prevent them
from putting it in a single folder under Applications.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Davoud

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:21:23 PM10/23/05
to
Davoud:

> > Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
> > Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> > would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> > sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> > named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> > file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> > folder.

Tom Stiller:

> Suppose you had several applications from the same vendor installed and
> suppose those applications shared a sizable fraction of the same code
> modules. Where would you locate the shared modules so all the
> applications could find them and there wouldn't be redundant copies?

This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.

I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
present no great challenge to a programmer.

If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
disks on my new Mac.

Davoud

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:23:56 PM10/23/05
to
Davoud:

> > It would be possible to have, within the
> > Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> > would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> > sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> > named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> > file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> > folder.

Jon Aalborg:


> If you read about half the other posts here, you will see why that
> scheme is not possible as long as you have a mulituser OS like Mac OS X.
> You /need/ to separate user preferences from the actuall app, as well as
> user-specific (or /possibly/ user-specific) files like dictionaries,
> templates, etc.

"Not possible" is pretty strong language. My scheme would have all
users' preferences in the same folder. The app would say "Ah, Davoud
has logged out and Jon has logged in. I will now load Jon's
personalized pieces."

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:36:39 PM10/23/05
to
In article <cZG6f.43375$S4.6423@edtnps84>, s...@m.sucks.email.invalid
(Király) wrote:

> > Absolutely nothing! That's where an application (or the components of an
> > application unique to a user) belong! But my position is that everything
> > for
> > a particular account that relates to a given application, other than the
> > documents managed by that application, should be in a single package, not
> > in
> > several different locations, the cause of problem after problem after
> > problem.


>
> My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in
> /Library/Fonts. The app simply will not run without them. Instead of
> embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the
> developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are
> thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.

There are some things that should be in certain locations, although Mac
OS X even spreads fonts through about four different locations. :-(

But there's no reason at all that all applications or user documents
should HAVE to go in certain locations. You can't even move some
applications to a sub-folder of Applications without updaters
complaining.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:39:40 PM10/23/05
to
In article <uce-8E1F73.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <231020051939200730%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
> > >
> > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
> >
> > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > it.
> >
> > The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.
> >
> > I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.
>
> And, really, what prevents you from doing so? Very few apps require that
> they be in /Applications in order to run. Those (few) apps are, simply,
> broken. Similarly, I don't think I've run across anything yet that
> forces you to use the default hierarchy that's created for a new user
> account. You can create a folder in your home called "My Stuff" and keep
> every file you create in there completely ignoring - and I think even
> deleting - Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.

Some applications will run from anywhere, some won't. Some updaters
will find applications anywhere, other refuse.

The problem is that Mac OS X is trying to be too fancy / comlicated for
it's own good. Most computers are probably single-user so they don't
need all the twiddly nonsense for multiple users, home folders, etc.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:41:52 PM10/23/05
to
In article <caN6f.2163$Yn4.1185@trnddc03>, Wes Groleau
<grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Király wrote:
> > My favourite music notation software installer puts some special fonts in
> > /Library/Fonts. The app simply will not run without them. Instead of
> > embedding the fonts within the app, I really like the fact that the
> > developer opts to have them in /Library/Fonts, where they are
> > thoughtfully accessible to all my other apps.
>

> Unlike Microsoft Office, which when run for the first time
> PER USER, installs all of its fonts somewhere in the user's
> space that AppleWorks and other apps can't find. Not only
> that, but Office won't use the OS X fonts.

What do you expect? It *is* Microsloth. They are always trying to do
things their own way and ignoring any standards. :-(

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 6:44:12 PM10/23/05
to
In article <231020051216152959%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <tacitr-BAD5EE....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The files that may appear in Application Support for some applications
> > aren't properly parts of the application itself either; generally, this
> > folder is used for foles such as a spellchecking dictionary or other
> > data file that the application relies on.
>
> And under OS 9 would probably have been installed in "Extensions".

Mac OS 9 (and 8 I think) has an "Application Support" folder inside the
"System Folder" as well.

Gregory Weston

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 7:06:30 PM10/23/05
to
In article <241020051139409614%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>,
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-8E1F73.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <231020051939200730%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>,
> > Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> > > <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
> > > >
> > > > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
> > >
> > > Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> > > "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> > > way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> > > through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> > > it.
> > >
> > > The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.
> > >
> > > I want to put them where I want, not where the OS thinks they should go.
> >
> > And, really, what prevents you from doing so? Very few apps require that
> > they be in /Applications in order to run. Those (few) apps are, simply,
> > broken. Similarly, I don't think I've run across anything yet that
> > forces you to use the default hierarchy that's created for a new user
> > account. You can create a folder in your home called "My Stuff" and keep
> > every file you create in there completely ignoring - and I think even
> > deleting - Documents, Pictures, Music, etc.
>
> Some applications will run from anywhere, some won't.

And those that won't are broken.

> Some updaters will find applications anywhere, other refuse.

And those that won't are broken.

But neither of these misbehaviors came to the Mac with OS X. I've been
using Macs since 1985 and seeing rare apps that make assumptions about
where they are for the whole 20 years. But they _are_ rare, both now and
historically.

G

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

Tom Stiller

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 7:10:48 PM10/23/05
to
In article <231020051821237457%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:

> Davoud:
> > > Indeed. I agree completely. It would be possible to have, within the
> > > Applications folder, a folder named, say, Adobe Photoshop. That folder
> > > would contain /everything/ that Photoshop required, in packages or
> > > sub-folders. In some cases it might be necessary to have a sub-folder
> > > named, say, "Important Stuff." Such a folder might contain a "Read Me"
> > > file explaining why one should not tamper with the files in that
> > > folder.
>
> Tom Stiller:
> > Suppose you had several applications from the same vendor installed and
> > suppose those applications shared a sizable fraction of the same code
> > modules. Where would you locate the shared modules so all the
> > applications could find them and there wouldn't be redundant copies?
>
> This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
> folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
> Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
> Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
> Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
> Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.

What about all the stuff in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/"?


>
> I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
> Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
> present no great challenge to a programmer.
>
> If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
> my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
> folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
> disks on my new Mac.

Does that mean that all my other Adobe applications get trashed too?

Király

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 7:27:27 PM10/23/05
to
In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> There are some things that should be in certain locations, although Mac
> OS X even spreads fonts through about four different locations. :-(

There shouldn't be a sad face there... that's a good thing!

/System/Library/Fonts is for fonts that are required for the system to
run. They are located in the System folder with all the other stuff that
makes the Mac run, all grouped together. Leave this folder alone.

/Library/Fonts is where you can add new fonts and they are accessible to
all the user accounts on your Mac.

~/Library/Fonts is for when you want to hog a new font all to yourself and
not let any other user accounts use it. This is also the only place
non-administrators can add fonts. I never use this location because I
like to share any new fonts with my wife and kids.

[Classic] System Folder/Fonts is for Classic apps, if you even have a
Classic System Folder at all.

What's the problem here?

K.

Paolo Cordone

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 7:46:26 PM10/23/05
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:57:07 +0100, Jon Aalborg wrote
(in article <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):

> what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?

I like to create subfolders for the various categories of Apps I have (text,
sound, graphics, development, etc.) and detest the notion that I have to keep
a single Application folder with dozens of programs in it. Mind you, I don't
do this, and have had very few problems with applications that insist on
being in /Applications. In fact, I keep my Comms apps in a totally separate
folder with no ill effects :-)

Paolo

Anybody

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 9:38:32 PM10/23/05
to
In article <z%U6f.49017$S4.43903@edtnps84>, s...@m.sucks.email.invalid
(Király) wrote:

Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if
they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one
application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the
application package. Once they're there the user can forget about them,
at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.

Applications and user documents should be where the user wants them,
not in one big pile where the OS says so.

Madhusudan Singh

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 9:51:57 PM10/23/05
to
TaliesinSoft wrote:


> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone not

> versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully


> intended) will move the application itself and will then be taken aback

And grossly misplaced.

> when the application no longer works.
>

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than
> the resident one where the application is used.
>
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have changed.

And inaccurate. Unix (ca. 1970) bears little resemblance to any OS in
existence today unless you fire up the command line interface. In which
case you would find a lot in common between BSD*s (a superset that includes
Mac) and Linux.

Btw. what made you think that Mac's GUI choices have anything to do with
Unix (1970's or otherwise) ?

I use Linux exclusively, and in the short time I was exposed to an
officemate's Mac, I could find little in common between my favorite KDE and
Mac's GUI.

Message has been deleted

sbt

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:41:23 PM10/23/05
to
In article <michelle-E9C540...@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <241020051438327229%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>,


> Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
> > Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if
> > they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one
> > application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the
> > application package. Once they're there the user can forget about
> > them, at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.
>

> Let me chime in.
>
> /system/library/fonts is for fonts that the users should not mess
> with--they are fonts that the OS and related items (e.g., the Finder)
> require. They are accessible by *all* applications, and by all users.
>
> /library/fonts is for all other fonts that are accessible by all users,
> with *all* applications; they can be installed or removed by any user
> with admin privileges.
>
> ~/library/fonts is for all fonts that *only one user* can access with
> *all* applications; they can be installed or removed only by that user
> (and maybe by root).
>
> You are postulating something else entirely: A font that *only one
> application* can access, and that is denied to all other applications.
>
> I don't know why someone would want to limit a font to a specific
> application to the exclusion of all other applications; can you explain
> to me why there might be such a case?
>
> I can see why certain fonts should not be messed with, and why certain
> fonts should be restricted to only one user. Can you explain to me why
> this shouldn't be the case?

Well, Michelle, one example of where this occurs is with Adobe
Illustrator. It creates a folder full of OpenType fonts as
/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Fonts. These fonts aren't accessible
except from CS (or CS2) applications as they aren't in the "normal"
font search path. Interestingly, kerning control and some other
higher-end typographic features work really well in Illustrator when
the fonts are where Illustrator places them, but not if you move them
into /Library/Fonts.

Also, note that you left out one source of fonts in your list (or two,
if you're running in an OS X Server environment): the Classic Fonts
folder (and /Network/Library/Fonts)

--
Spenser

Davoud

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:52:35 PM10/23/05
to
Davoud:

> > This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
> > folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
> > Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
> > Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
> > Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
> > Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.

Tom Stiller:

> What about all the stuff in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/"?

What's so hard about this? That stuff would be in the master folder to
which I referred -- the folder that contains the applications that use
the items in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/."

> > I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
> > Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
> > present no great challenge to a programmer.
> >
> > If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
> > my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
> > folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
> > disks on my new Mac.
>
> Does that mean that all my other Adobe applications get trashed too?

No, it means what it says: All of your Adobe Creative Suite 2
applications would be deleted. What other Adobe apps do you have?

(One may only have CS 2 installed on two computers. If one already has
it activated on two machines, it must be deactivated by Internet or
telephone on one of those machinese before one may install it on a
different machine.)

Eric Lindsay

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:50:21 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in OS X
> have their parts splattered into several different places, the applications

> folder itself, the preferences folder, the application support folder, and
> who knows where else.

Perhaps if you check what Apple say about their decisions about where
they put applications by default?

> What happens is that someone not versed in the glorious
> UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire is fully intended) will move the

> application itself and will then be taken aback when the application no
> longer works.

Unix as I saw it a decade ago did not have application folders,
preferences folders, application folders, nor a library folder like the
Apple one. These all seem to be Apple ideas (and not bad ones at that).

Also, you are at liberty to put most applications, including these from
Apple, in your own personal Applications folder in your non-system level
account folder. They work just fine. That is how I run both iPhoto 5
and iPhoto 4 (since iPhoto 5 is broken for photos from my brand of
camera).

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the application
> resides, and one package for each of the accounts other than the resident one
> where the application is used.

That seems to me to be exactly how it works right now. Most
applications are packages that live in the system Applications folder.
Each account that uses the application may have something in their
personal Library folder, and/or preferences.

Given current disk capacity, who cares that these are not cleaned out
when you throw out an application? Indeed, it can be very handy. I let
Apple's Migration assistant move my stuff from a Powerbook to an iMac.
Naturally it didn't bring my applications over (although it did bring
Dashboard), so I had to reinstall some applications. They all started
up as if they had always been installed, without ever risking a newer
applications being overwritten by an older version. Very convenient,
for those applications I bothered to update.

> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a friend
> or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an effort to bring
> order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to what some persons think
> of as order.

Perhaps if they were to use smart folders instead?

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Davoud

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:58:05 PM10/23/05
to
Matthew Russotto:

> The same things (whether justified or not) that prevent Adobe from
> putting all of Photoshop's stuff in the Photoshop package prevent them
> from putting it in a single folder under Applications.

I'm sure that is true. But I'm also sure that the "things" that prevent
that are reversible decisions. Such a practice may $ave programming
time, e.g. Valid reason, but not a technical requirement.

Wes Groleau

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:13:59 PM10/23/05
to

Anybody wrote:
> What do you expect? It *is* Microsloth. They are always trying to do
> things their own way and ignoring any standards. :-(

And then if you complain that Acme Widget doesn't work
with M$ Whatsit, they say it's because Acme is non-standard.

--
Wes Groleau
Genealogical Lookups:
http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml

Eric Lindsay

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:03:32 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF810DA4...@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:52:34 -0500, Andy Hewitt wrote
> (in article <1h4vsdl.1661jrb1baj83tN%hairy...@gmail.com>):
>
> > PhotoShop is one, if you move the app it won't run, and updates won't
> > work either. Indeed, many apps won't update properly if you move them
> > from the Applications folder.
>
> It seems that Adobe doesn't understand that one can have both administrative
> and standard accounts. If you attempt to run one of the applications within
> Adobe's Creative Suite 2 from a standard account things will fail until you
> go in a fix the permissions in the associated application support files in
> the administrator account.

Adobe appear to have made some peculiar decisions about installing and
using some of their applications.

I would have thought the security problems inflicting many Windows users
would encourage people moving to Macintosh to avoid using Administrative
accounts for day to day purposes, and instead use Standard accounts.
Having people like Adobe break this does not help any.

I realise that long time Mac users who haven't encountered security
problems would perhaps find the distinction annoying, and the additional
protection not worth the effort.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Eric Lindsay

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:10:51 PM10/23/05
to
In article <0001HW.BF808A37...@news.supernews.com>,
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> wrote:

> Say I have a single administrator account and several standard (user)
> accounts. It would seem reasonable that there be a package for that
> application in the administrator account and one in each user account. The
> administrator package would contain all of the parts of the application
> needed by any user. The standard (user) packages would contain those things
> such as settings and such that are unique to that account. Documents created
> by an application would still normally be kept in the appropriate documents
> folders. My grump is that it is far too easy for a non-UNIX savvy person to
> totally muddle up an application.

How does the standard user account person manage to muddle up an
application without giving an administration password? I can see they
can muddle up applications they have installed in their own
~/Applications but they don't have permission to muddle up applications
installed by an administrator. One of the best possible reasons for
running as a standard user is so that you don't stuff up things by
accident. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that
stuff. If the system suddenly pops up asking for an administration user
and password, you have to ask yourself whether you should really be
doing whatever you are trying to do.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Tom Stiller

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:15:41 PM10/23/05
to
In article <231020052252354008%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:

> Davoud:
> > > This is exactly the case with Adobe CS. It consists of the following
> > > folders, all located in the Applications folder: Adobe Acrobat 7.0
> > > Professional, Adobe Bridge, Adobe Creative Suite 2, Adobe GoLive CS2,
> > > Adobe Illustrator CS2, Adobe InDesign CS2, Adobe Photoshop CS2, and
> > > Adobe Version Cue CS2. In addition, Adobe Help Center.app and Adobe DNG
> > > Converter.app are lying loose in the Applications folder.
>
> Tom Stiller:
> > What about all the stuff in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/"?
>
> What's so hard about this? That stuff would be in the master folder to
> which I referred -- the folder that contains the applications that use
> the items in "/Library/Application Support/Adobe/."
>
> > > I would put all of those folders in a master folder named, say, "Adobe
> > > Creative Suite 2," along with all of their shared modules. This would
> > > present no great challenge to a programmer.
> > >
> > > If for some reason I wanted to delete Adobe Creative Suite 2 (upgrading
> > > my Mac, e.g.) I could run a de-registration utility, drag the master
> > > folder to the trash and empty it, and then install from the original
> > > disks on my new Mac.
> >
> > Does that mean that all my other Adobe applications get trashed too?
>
> No, it means what it says: All of your Adobe Creative Suite 2
> applications would be deleted. What other Adobe apps do you have?

I only have Reader and Photoshop Elements, but in my original comment, I
didn't specify the vendor. I still think it's reasonable to have a
folder of vendor specific modules in a known place (e.g.
"/Library/Application Support") for use by any application the vendor
might publish.


>
> (One may only have CS 2 installed on two computers. If one already has
> it activated on two machines, it must be deactivated by Internet or
> telephone on one of those machinese before one may install it on a
> different machine.)
>
> Davoud

--

Steven Fisher

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:59:23 PM10/23/05
to
Anybody wrote:
> Fonts are fonts. There only needs to be one place to put them, if
> they're for use by all applications. If they're just for one
> application (e.g. games "sprites") then they should be in the
> application package. Once they're there the user can forget about them,
> at least until they play up and then they're easy to find.

Hogwash. The /System/Library vs. /Library distinction allows files to be
manages in a sane way, instead of a mysterious "This font suitcase is
required by the operating system" protecting some fonts. ~/Library vs
/Library allows users without admin rights to install and use fonts *at
all.*

-- Steve

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 12:07:35 AM10/24/05
to
In article <XjY6f.10556$i31.2057@trnddc08>, Wes Groleau
<grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > What do you expect? It *is* Microsloth. They are always trying to do
> > things their own way and ignoring any standards. :-(
>
> And then if you complain that Acme Widget doesn't work
> with M$ Whatsit, they say it's because Acme is non-standard.

Plus if anyone tries to do the same thing Microsloth have been doing
for years, Microsloth complains bitterly about it being
"anti-competitive", etc. :-\

Jerry Kindall

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 3:18:11 AM10/24/05
to
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
> >

> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
>
> Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> it.

1) Open Applications folder.
2) Start typing the name of the application.
3) There is no step 3. There's no step 3!

Not so hard, is it?

Nobody has 2000 applications. I am a complete nerd and I only have 250
items in the Applications folder. 125 of which I could probably safely
delete (shareware trials and the like that I ended up using).

If you put applications in different folders all over your hard disk,
then you have to remember what folder you put them in. If you just
leave them in /Applications, then you only have to remember which
folder is for which application. Or rather let the Finder remember it
for you.

Or just get LaunchBar/Butler/QuickSilver and stop worrying about it
entirely.

> The same goes for the silly "Documents", "Pictures", "Music", etc.

The OS doesn't enforce the use of these folders, however.

--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

Jeffrey Goldberg

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 1:55:33 PM10/24/05
to

One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security
until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user"
machines, with single user operating systems. Unix was multi-user from
the start and so had a notion of restrictions and privileges built
deeply into the OS. Distinguishing what is the "user's" from what is
the "system's" is a very important to security. XP (I believe) and OS X
which are multi-user do try to conceal much of that from the user, but
there are very very good reasons why underlyingly these are multi-user
systems.

-j

Ray Laughton

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 3:43:51 PM10/24/05
to
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:57:07 -0500, Jon Aalborg wrote (in article
> <1h4vkdz.iya7jf1dw8ccaN%na...@mac.com.invalid>):
> >
> > And BTW - what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
>
> Except it's MY computer and I don't want my copy of GreatestAppEver in
> "Applications", I want it in "Games" or maybe "GooberSoft Apps". That
> way I know where it is and can easily find it, instead of trawling
> through a general "Applications" folder with 2,000 different files in
> it.

Sure, but the 'games' or similar folds also belong in the 'Applications'
folder. You subgroup your apps into folders like games, text, databank,
graphics, budget, utilities, internet, etc dont you? No-one has the time
to sift through all that stuff in one folder.


RL

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 3:56:13 PM10/24/05
to
In article <11lq80r...@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:

The reason, as always, is "money".

Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
only mentally).

aaJoe

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 4:17:08 PM10/24/05
to

Nobody could care less about font location (at least 99% of us). Its
programs the original poster was discussing. And the fact that OSX
Applications is a jumbled (but accurately alphabetical) mess of apps
where nothing is grouped by function, form or use. Its absurd.

aaJoe

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 4:18:26 PM10/24/05
to
>> what is wrong with keeping apps in /Applications?
>
> I like to create subfolders for the various categories of Apps I have
> (text, sound, graphics, development, etc.) and detest the notion that I
> have to keep a single Application folder with dozens of programs in it.
> Mind you, I don't do this, and have had very few problems with
> applications that insist on being in /Applications. In fact, I keep my
> Comms apps in a totally separate folder with no ill effects :-)

Why doesn't Apple listen to logic like this??? Well said!

Robert L. Haar

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 4:36:55 PM10/24/05
to
On 2005/10/24 3:56 PM, "Anybody" <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac.

They are not "bits of nonsense." Those design features are what makes a
robust secure OS. I *have* to use Windows at work, but I choose OS X for my
personal machine because of its UNXI heritage and resistance to viruses and
other malware.

> None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

Then they deserve to be wiped out by loosing their business critical data -
or pay the price in terms of higher risk and support costs.

Jeffrey Goldberg

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 4:38:39 PM10/24/05
to
Anybody wrote:
> In article <11lq80r...@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
> <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:


>> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security
>> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user"

>> machines, with single user operating systems. [...]

> The reason, as always, is "money".
>
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.

> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. [...]

It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically grounded,
will change your view on this matter.

-j

aaJoe

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 4:50:06 PM10/24/05
to
>>> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security
>>> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user"
>>> machines, with single user operating systems. [...]
>
>> The reason, as always, is "money".
>>
>> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
>> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. [...]
>
> It is clear that nothing I say, no matter how well technically
> grounded, will change your view on this matter.

Well it would be nice if one could tell OS X at the point of
installation that Yes, there is only one user, and there will never,
ever be more than one user EVER. Then I can set the permissions so I
can do anything I want (after entering my password of course) without
constantly being told that I don't have "permision" to do this or that.

aaJoe

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 4:51:12 PM10/24/05
to
>>> The problem is that Mac OS X is trying to be too fancy / comlicated for
>>> it's own good. Most computers are probably single-user so they don't
>>> need all the twiddly nonsense for multiple users, home folders, etc.
>>
>> One of the reasons that PCs (including Apples) had such poor security
>> until recently is that they were always conceived of as "single user"
>> machines, with single user operating systems. Unix was multi-user from
>> the start and so had a notion of restrictions and privileges built
>> deeply into the OS. Distinguishing what is the "user's" from what is
>> the "system's" is a very important to security. XP (I believe) and OS
>> X which are multi-user do try to conceal much of that from the user,
>> but there are very very good reasons why underlyingly these are
>> multi-user systems.
>
> The reason, as always, is "money".
>
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.
>
> What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
> us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
> anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
> only mentally).

EXACTLY!

Jeffrey Goldberg

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 5:55:46 PM10/24/05
to

> Well it would be nice if one could tell OS X at the point of
> installation that Yes, there is only one user, and there will never,
> ever be more than one user EVER. Then I can set the permissions so I
> can do anything I want (after entering my password of course) without
> constantly being told that I don't have "permision" to do this or that.


Because you are the *first* user, you automatically are an admin user.

And you do have permission to do *anything*.

But you still have to type in your password for various reasons at
various times to perform various administrative tasks. Let me give you
some "extreme" examples why.

Once you've logged in should anyone who approaches your machine (I guest
in your house who snoops around while looking for the bathroom) be able
to change your password if you've left yourself logged on? Obviously,
no. So for changing passwords, the system requires the old password.
Now suppose this person simply wants to create an account for himself.
Should he be able to do that in system settings without first providing
an admin password? No. Should he be able to replace the Systems
Settings software with something that will allow him to set up an
account without knowing an admin password? No.[1]

Now should every script or program or installer or anything you might
click on be able to do those things without you giving an admin
password? No.


Secure systems (among other things) make a distinction between what is
"owned" by the system and what is "owned" by the user. If you want to
return to the security model of single-user systems, be my guest (but
keep your machine off the public net since it becomes a danger to
everyone else).

Security requires some inconvenience. Apple has done, IMO, an
impressive job of reducing that inconvenience, but it can't eliminate it.

-j

Note: [1] Yes I know that anyone who has physical access to the machine
can more or less do whatever they want (eg, install their own version of
the operating system, etc). But I used this kind of example to make
things clear. More technically correct examples would have been harder
to present.

Hans Aberg

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 6:02:37 PM10/24/05
to
In article <251020050856133272%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> The reason, as always, is "money".
>
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
eventually became powerful enough.

> What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
> us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
> anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
> only mentally).

One needs an advanced OS in order to keep the programmers happy, which are
after all, those making the computers working. Mac OS 9- isn't programmer
firendly, quite simply -- try it!

--
Hans Aberg

Message has been deleted

Király

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:10:58 PM10/24/05
to
> The reason, as always, is "money".
>
> Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.

Are you kidding? I have a family Mac at home that we use for e-mail,
iPhoto, iMovie, word processing, web browsing, etc. The multi-user
environment means that my wife and kids and I all get our own completely
customizable desktop, dock, application preferences, screen saver,
browser bookmarks, iTunes library, e-mail account and folders, etc etc etc.
When I'm done, my wife sits down, fast-user-switches into her account,
and all her apps and preferences are exactly the way she left them. I
can give the kids their own accounts, and they can do absolutely anything
they want on the computer and not mess up anything unless they learn the
admin password.

Under single user OSes like Mac OS 9 and earlier, there was only one
account that everyone had to share, with all users having to reset their
preferences every time they sat down, and with the kids able to trash
all my apps and my backups. OS X is a huge improvement in user
friendliness and security.

Yes, when running a multi-user Mac like this, permissions issues do come up
which cause headaches when we try to share files with each other. But
it's really a small price to pay for the huge improvement over the old
single-user days.

K.

Dave Balderstone

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:33:17 PM10/24/05
to
In article <6Sd7f.30555$y_1.6672@edtnps89>, Kir·ly
<s...@m.sucks.email.invalid> wrote:

> Under single user OSes like Mac OS 9 and earlier, there was only one
> account that everyone had to share, with all users having to reset their
> preferences every time they sat down, and with the kids able to trash
> all my apps and my backups.

OS 9 supports multiple users.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:43:09 PM10/24/05
to
In article <1h4yc21.15yawygobtyi7N%rlau...@invalid.com>,
rlau...@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
to work and/or be updated.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:45:18 PM10/24/05
to
In article <2005102415170827544%aaaBuddy@noemailplease>, aaJoe
<aaaB...@noemail.please> wrote:

Actually the original person was talking about applications that
splatter bit 'n' pieces all over the place - one bit in Applications,
one bit in Librairs, one bit in preferences, one bit in ...

I was the one complaining about "everything" NEEDING to be plonked in
one silly folder.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:47:59 PM10/24/05
to
In article <11lqhih...@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:

That's because the over-complicated technology, no matter how good it
may be for big business, is NOT what small businesses and individuals
need or want. One example: NONE of the Macs I deal with are
"multi-user" or have any need to ever be.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:52:32 PM10/24/05
to
In article <haberg-2510...@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
hab...@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <251020050856133272%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
> <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason, as always, is "money".
> >
> > Apple wants these fancy, multi-user, mulitaksing, "hyper-secure", etc.
> > nonsense bits t try enticing big buisness into switching to Mac. None
> > of the small businesses and individuals I deal with are remotely
> > interested or have any need for these over-the-top abilities of the OS.
>
> The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
> eventually became powerful enough.

"Powerful enough" for what?!?!? To run UNIX - whoop-de-doo, most user
couldn't care less about UNIX / Mac OS / Windoze / etc., they just want
a computer that works and is easy to use.

Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
user base of small businesses, schools and home users.

> > What Apple should have done is kept a nice, simple OS for "the rest of
> > us" and had an over-expensive "corporate" OS (which few would have used
> > anyway since the world is stuck on Microsloth, whether literally or
> > only mentally).
>
> One needs an advanced OS in order to keep the programmers happy, which are
> after all, those making the computers working. Mac OS 9- isn't programmer
> firendly, quite simply -- try it!

Actually I've been programming Mac OS for years and "friendly" is a
matter of opinion. Those who know what they're doing can easily use it,
those who don't know what they're doing are often Windoze fools anyway
who usually just port badly made rubbish.

Király

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:56:50 PM10/24/05
to
In comp.sys.mac.system Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> That's the entire point. You can't even have sub-folders because some
> applications don't like being moved. They HAVE to be in "Applications"
> to work and/or be updated.

There's nothing requiring you to actually use the /Applications folder to
get to your apps. If apps like to be there, let them be there.

Try this: Create a folder with aliases to all your favourite apps.
Organize all the aliases into folders and sub-folders however you like.
Put this folder into your dock, desktop, finder sidebar, wherever you
want for quick access. Think of it as your own personal customizable
/Applications folder. Then forget that the real /Applications folder is
even there. You'll have exactly what you want.

K.

Király

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:59:21 PM10/24/05
to
In comp.sys.mac.system Dave Balderstone
<dave@n_o_t_t_h_i_s.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> OS 9 supports multiple users.

It did? Funny, I used OS 9 for a whole year and never knew that!

K.

Robert Love

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 8:00:46 PM10/24/05
to
In <0001HW.BF815404...@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:43:18 -0500, Robert Love wrote (in article
> <20051023134...@news.airmail.net>):
>
>> Subject: Re: Why must OS X applications be splattered about? From:
>> Robert Love <rbl...@airmail.net> Date: Today 1:43 PM Newsgroups:
>> comp.sys.mac.apps, comp.sys.mac.misc, comp.sys.mac.system In
>> <0001HW.BF80810B...@news.supernews.com> TaliesinSoft
>> wrote:
>>> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications
>>> in OS X have their parts splattered into several different places,
>>> the applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the
>>> application support folder, and who knows where else. What happens
>>> is that someone not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of
>>> OS X ( and the satire is fully intended) will move the application
>>> itself and will then be taken aback when the application no longer
>>> works.
[much deleted]

> I should have clarified that I'm aware that you shouldn't have to
> place an application in a standard place. My grump is the splattering
> of applications into many disjoint folders.

I guess I don't see how it could be otherwise. First, its not "many".
It is a few.

Let me point out one reason why I think it must be this way. Lets say
we have a set of related apps, say Stone Design's excellent suite of
apps, or even MS Office. These apps have a lot of repeated functions.
It might be very disk consuming or time consuming to develop, test,
download and install all that repeated functionality. So an
"applications support" or Library directory (folder) is used. Bundles
or libraries containing constantly used software bits live there. Would
you want every app that can display a jpeg to have that ability inside
of it? No, that wouldn't be very efficient.

All I can say is that I think NeXT and now Apple has done a superb job
of simplifiying and hiding a lot of Unix's complexity from the users.
And I'm glad.

If there specific questions I, and others who know more that me, will be
happy to offer suggestions.

Gregory Weston

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 8:36:22 PM10/24/05
to
In article <251020051247598863%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>,
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

Careful about the distinction between need and want, though. There are
some individuals who really do _need_ a secure system like this even if
they don't _want_ it. It's still they're machine and they can do
anything they're really intent on doing, but it's the padlock on the
cardboard box that makes them hesitate before shooting their own toes
off.

G

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

Gregory Weston

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 8:37:08 PM10/24/05
to
In article <2005102415511237709%aaaBuddy@noemailplease>,
aaJoe <aaaB...@noemail.please> wrote:

Um. If Apple was in the business of given people what they want with no
other consideration, wouldn't they just have licensed Windows?

Ilgaz Ocal

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 9:39:18 PM10/24/05
to
On 2005-10-23 07:51:39 +0300, TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.com> said:

> For reasons that totally escape my sense of logic, many applications in
> OS X have their parts splattered into several different places, the
> applications folder itself, the preferences folder, the application
> support folder, and who knows where else. What happens is that someone

> not versed in the glorious UNIX underpinnings of OS X (and the satire

> is fully intended) will move the application itself and will then be
> taken aback when the application no longer works.
>

> It would seem that for an application that all of the parts could be
> contained in packages, one package for the account in which the
> application resides, and one package for each of the accounts other
> than the resident one where the application is used.
>
> To be a bit harsh, UNIX was developed in the 70's and times have
> changed. What may have been appropriate in the days when a mainframe
> shared by many users had a megabyte of memory may not be appropriate
> today.
> I hate to think of the many times I've been called upon to unsnarl a
> friend or relative's Mac because they've dragged things around in an
> effort to bring order to chaos and instead they've brought chaos to
> what some persons think of as order.
>
> Hey, it's late at night and I'm feeling, perhaps deservedly as it's
> been a long, long day, somewhat of a grump. :-)

Hi,

Just add a second account (regular), use it and you will see why those
files are in different places. For example, launch mail.

Its multiuser environment. Yes times are changed, we now have multiple
users in a desktop machine! :)

Ilgaz

Jeffrey Goldberg

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 9:52:14 PM10/24/05
to

Small business and individual users need systems that are reasonably
secure. Even if you don't think that the security of your machine
matters, I do. A compromised machine on the network is a real threat
and does real damage to the network as a whole.

Separating what belongs to the system and what belongs to the user (even
if the only user) is a requirement for security.

And there is a big (well, growing) business this matters to. There is
the business of various sorts of computer crime that uses legions of
compromised machines. It's not individual "hackers" testing their
skills anymore. It's organized crime, and that is big business.

You can decide to blame big business for why things can't be as simple
as in the old days. But it's the business of someone trying to co-opt
your machine to do nasty things to other people.

-j

Jeffrey Goldberg

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 10:03:28 PM10/24/05
to
Anybody wrote:
> In article <haberg-2510...@c83-250-196-61.bredband.comhem.se>,
> hab...@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

>> The reason for switching to UNIX is only that the personal computers
>> eventually became powerful enough.

> "Powerful enough" for what?!?!? To run UNIX - whoop-de-doo, most user
> couldn't care less about UNIX / Mac OS / Windoze / etc., they just want
> a computer that works and is easy to use.

You are right about that. The reasons for switching to Unix is not
because it became possible (after all, millions of Linux and BSD users
have been using Unix on PCs for a long time), but because there were
deep and fundamental problems with OS 9, and it's failure to make
certain distinctions and put up internal barricades so that a
programming error in one program wouldn't bring the whole machine down.

Apple needed to go to a system which "protected memory" in a particular
way, distinguished between user and system processes, was genuinely
multi-processor, limited user privileges and so on. It could have
rolled its own. But by basing it on Unix, that brought in a huge amount
of people developing for Apple.

> Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
> wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
> all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
> user base of small businesses, schools and home users.

As I said before. Security and stability. If you are not on the net
and if you are using only a couple of applications, then you don't need
this.

-j

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:24:49 PM10/24/05
to
In article <6xe7f.36711$yS6.24522@clgrps12>, s...@m.sucks.email.invalid
(Király) wrote:

Sure, there's various ways to work around it, but why should I have to.
I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
OS.

Anybody

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:32:44 PM10/24/05
to
In article <11lr4jh...@news.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Goldberg
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:

Even if you one the 'Net you don't need Mac OS X.

Mac OS "Classic" is still more secure than Windoze will ever be and as
long as fools were told to stay out of the System Folder they couldn't
really do any damage ... and it's just as easy for a fool who doesn't
know what they're doing to stuff up their computer under Mac OS X.
Believe me, I've had to re-install enough of them.

Ten years ago the Amiga had most of what Mac OS X has today, and yet it
still failed to bring in the corporate bigwigs because of their
"Microsoft only" mentality. Apple aren't going to make much headway now
either, but they will make lots of headaches for many of their core
users. Of course they couldn't care less since 1 extra corporate can
easily out pays 50-100 individuals.

Steven Fisher

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:36:01 PM10/24/05
to

Pardon, but did you read what you're replying to?

"In fact, I keep my Comms apps in a totally separate folder with no ill
effects :-)"

In other words, it already works.

-- Steve

Wes Groleau

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:40:23 PM10/24/05
to
Anybody wrote:
> Again, UNIX and all it's over-complication was chosen because Apple
> wants to woo the corporate money spenders ... no other real reason at
> all, and absolutely nothing to do with most of it's already installed
> user base of small businesses, schools and home users.

You might be right. Then again, it just MIGHT have been
they were aware that people like me were getting ready
to switch to (shudder) Windows because Microsoft had
finally caught up to and PASSED Apple in robustness.

The pre-Unix Mac OS made Windows 95 look like crap
(which is what it was). But Windows NT, was an order
of magnitude more stable than OS 9.

--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

Wes Groleau

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:47:29 PM10/24/05
to
Dave Balderstone wrote:

> OS 9 supports multiple users.

Don't say that unless you've actually tried it.
I tried it, and it stunk.

Apple's side of it wasn't bad, though there were apparent
bugs. But MANY software vendors apparently didn't know
this feature existed, and their stuff would not work unless
I gave the kids write access into areas that I DEFINITELY
wanted to keep them out of.

And even when it worked, it couldn't stop a buggy
program from taking down the system.

When OS X first came out, I often said, "Either the
reliability is going to save Apple from oblivion,
or the changes in user interface are going to drive
away their here-to-fore loyal fans."

Fortunately, the former seems to have happened.

--
Wes Groleau

If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage.
But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine,
is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it.

Dave Balderstone

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:47:38 PM10/24/05
to
In article <251020051624494888%any...@anywhere-anytime.com>, Anybody
<any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:

> I bought a Mac, not a Windoze box. I shouldn't have to work around the
> OS.

That sentence is not logical.

You bought a Mac with an OS. The OS operates in a certain way.

Use it as designed.

You didn't buy a Magic Happy Gumdrop Computer with the Magic Happy
Gumdrop OS that Lets You Use It Any Way You Want!!!!

If that's what you want, design it, build it, and market it. Based on
the posts in this thread, you'll sell tens of them!

Dave Balderstone

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 12:05:05 AM10/25/05
to
In article <lVh7f.14555$gF4.10019@trnddc07>, Wes Groleau
<grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > OS 9 supports multiple users.
>
> Don't say that unless you've actually tried it.
> I tried it, and it stunk.

Tried it. Still running it. YMMV.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages