Hi folks,
First of all, small update on Mighty Mouse 1.1.1: as Brian mentioned before, due to some permissions that got lost in StuffIt archive we kept the Installer in (namely, +x on some command-line tools used internally by Mighty Mouse), the 1.1.1 package got screwed up. =) I've fixed the problem and re-uploaded 1.1.1 archive for now, so if you're having troubles, re-download it and we will post 1.1.2 later today after we do some Q&A.
Panther vs APE: Good news: I am glad to announce that we did some substantial progress on that and got Application Enhancer working on Panther (even on multiple user login environments). Bad news: I am not going to post it for a while until we test it throughfully and make sure it actually works as expected. We understand the thrill and suspense you may get without your favorite tools on Panther, but we also take this very seriously and are not going to put undertested builds for general public, because we understand the risks involved. So soon.
Haxies on Panther: they work. Some work with some quirks. I'll post a more detailed update on how they do under the new furry system tonight or tomorrow.
Does anyone have any idea why Safari uses so much memory after a few hours and lots of page loading? I've got people telling me it's using 106 megs, 116megs, 78megs and 64megs (I've asked 4 different people).
Is there anyway to prevent such horrid usage? It leads to massive paging out very quickly if you are on an iBook with max RAM.
If I could just get ahold of Dave Hyatt and ask him.
The scoop:
What's new in this version:
We have some progress/news to report on APE / Panther also. Slava will likely step up on the stage and comment shortly. ;)
Update:We'll be posting Mighty Mouse 1.1.2 shortly. We found a permissions issue caused by new behavior in Stuffit 8 that resulted in 1.1.1 not working correctly. (ironic isn't it...=P )
I have recently came across just-released StuffIt Deluxe 8. Among other cosmetic enhancements, it includes a "new" (or rather, "new for OSX", since the feature existed back in Mac OS Classic versions of StuffIt) feature called "Archive Via Rename" that allows you to compress or expand files or folders quickly just by appending or removing an archive file extension (.sit, .sitx, .zip, etc).
Whereas the feature is a real life-saver for many people, and undoubtfully a convenient feature, I could not agree with the technology decision used to implement the feature in the Finder: it is a Kernel Extension.
Just how stupid is that? For the ones of you who would like the scoop right now, this is a quick round-up: APE, mach_inject, InputManager and similar techniques operate on a process level -- they can only access memory allocated to a particular process, and if things go very bad, that process will crash. Kernel Extensions load directly into the kernel, therefore they got access to everything in memory, including the sacred private kernel memory space. This means, if Kernel Extension goes haywire, you get a Kernel Panic (hello Bluetooth adapter drivers that got supposedly fixed with 10.2.8!). So in the first case, you get an application dying; in the second case you'll have to reboot your Mac.
Kernel Extensions are mainly used for device drivers -- these beasts have to have direct access to the kernel; some tools like Little Snitch also install their own kexts to trap on fundamental processes of the system (network operations in this particular case). But using a Kernel Extension to tweak Finder.app is not just plain silly, it is dangerous and stupid - Aladdin risks the stability of your whole system just so their single feature only affecting Finder.app could work. Moreover, if you launch the StuffIt AVR Preference Pane and turn off the feature, the Kernel Extension will stay there, silent, and ready to strike if anything goes wrong.
In real world, there are half a dozen solutions that do not involve making a Kernel Extension: above-mentioned APE, a QuickTime component, a Contextual Menu Module. Aladdin just picked the most outrageous out there - the approach can very well be compred to killing a mosquitoe with a nuke blast. Sure it works, but the impact is just slightly bigger than needed.
Let's just hope Aladdin has awesome programmers and that the above-ranted Kernel Extension is perfect and has no bugs. ;)
Update 09/26: Aladdin's Josh Stender posted a semi-official response to my doubts in the Aladdin Support Board. It is good that Aladdin Systems understand the possible side effects of the path they are taken and are willing to make a step to change that, if needed. As I said before, let's just hope the need will never arise. ;)
Down to the details:
Is it just me or VeriSign is crossing all limits?
Type any non-existent domain name into your browser... (www.this-domain-does-not-exist-19784kdfgfjkfg.com will work).
Look where it takes you. How does this makes you feel?
For me, this means another huge source of income for VeriSign. Right now the page has no ads, but I am pretty sure it won't take long for them to appear there; also, what if somebody wants to buy a domain but first types it in a browser to see if it's taken... gets to the VeriSign page and sees an offer to register the abovementioned domain for a sweet $60/year crapdeal. Does this sounds like a fair play to other dot-registrants? Does a personal, single-company operated page for ANY non-existant domain sounds fair at all?
Feedback to: comments@icann.org
(via timb on irc)
Further reading: Slashdot
Update: Petiton to Verisign to sign; the SiteFinder page at which it replies to non-existant DNS records seems to be seriously lagged; the direct result at SiteFinder that you'll get, bypassing the lagged bounce server.
In relation to previous post by Rosyna, the encryption for iChat is mentioned among one of the desired features. Weirdly, it appears to be that encryption in the iChat is already implemented, but not available to anybody outside Apple.
Check this out:
strings /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/InstantMessage.framework/iChatAgent.app/Contents/MacOS/iChatAgent | grep -i encrypt returns:
/AppleInternal/Library/Encryption Enabler.bundle
AIMService: ** ENCRYPTION ENABLED **
Encrypted message.
AIMService: Received *ENCRYPTED* IM from <%@>
AIMService: Sending <%@> an *ENCRYPTED* IM
_encryptIM:to:
_deallocEncryption
_initEncryption
encryptString:
@"FZEncryption"
The first line hints at the location of the encryption module of iChat located in a folder with an interesting name "AppleInternal". The rest hints at the already implemented method to encrypt and decrypt IM messages. Unfortunately I do not know what kind of encryption is used or how it is used, but I can assume that if all Apple employees (or a few key ones) have the Encryption Enabler.bundle on their machines, their AIM conversations are encrypted and secure. That kinda makes sense, as who would want their work-related conversations to be sniffed by some malicious AOL employee? ;)
The question is, though, why the encryption module, if it exists, is not a part of standard iChat feature set? Is this an intention, and underlooked decision, or simply some backdoor feature some of the iChat engineers added for themselves? I guess we will never know unless some Apple employees reading this blog wish to comment. ;)
If you could change/add/remove (except the $30 cost) anything to iChat. Anything at all. What would you change/add/remove?
Personally. I'd like encryption, better and automatic logging, window position saving, icons that animate, chat windows like AIM Official, better blocking, warning, and persistent reconnection after disconnect. Instead of just once and then giving up.
Yesterday I've finally put some money on my MasterCard (it's a debit card and not credit, as there's no credit cards in Russia whatsoever), and decided to purchase several software titles I use/like:
Overall, these guys do awesome work, and knowing how hard it is to exist on [indie,share]ware sales, I should do more support to authors of products I use on daily basis.
I ordered my Dual G5 on July 23rd. It had no modem, standard RAM, Bluetooth and a Radeon 9800 Pro card. It's now September 10th and my order status still says "Open, On or Before 10/02/03" (that's October 2nd, 2003). I've got no problem whatsoever with that. I do have a small issue with the fact that Apple has been "pinging" my account for the money every week for the last four weeks. This week they did it twice. That's five times they've authorized my check card for the amount.
I normally would not care except I was in a Japanese buffet "restaurant" on the third authorization and when I went to pay, my card was rejected three times. I had to ask the person I took to dinner (...) to pay for the meal. I was furious as it was a huge blow to my pride/dignity (stuff like that). The day after (a Monday) I called my bank to ask what was up. They told me I had a limit of $3000US per day on my check card and that the Japanese place (Todai, in the Biltmore) was authorizing for three times the amount due which put it over the limit. So basically Apple locks me out of my bank account every time they do this silly authorization thing. I've ordered many things from the Apple store before and they have never charged me or even authorized the charge until the day it shipped.
Angry. I'll call Thomas tomorrow and see what's up.
I love the problem and the solution:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107666
(Link via Rosyna)
Update: I've updated this entry as of September 6th to address some of the comments. The updated part is at the end of this entry.
I've recently become aware of an article talking about a possible exception to New York's anti-smoking laws. I have to say I am quite angry. Angry at the fact there is such a stupid exception or any exceptions at all. Smoking should be banned from all places that have non-smoking people anywhere around them: bars, restaurants, parks, building entranceways, sidewalks, malls, airports, public bathrooms, bus stops, or any place like that. The only exception I will make is to Cigar clubs where the only purpose of the club's existence it so smoke tobacco as long as patrons bring and extra pair of sealed clothes and take a shower before they leave.
People say that smoking is their right. Yes, it is their right to choose to get emphysema (Aunt) or heart attacks (another Aunt) from smoking. It's also their choice to be unable to taste any food as well as a non-smoker would. Someone from France tell me if smoking is generally allowed in restaurants there. I know that Ketchup/Catsup use is a total faux pas but to allow smoking which causes everyone's experience of the food to be diminished seems highly hypocritical.
Your so called "rights" as a smoker end where my rights to enjoy just existing start. Smokers are highly disrespectful people. They don't care about how others around them handle cigarette smoke. Note: I am not a supporter of the idea that infrequent or even frequent second-hand smoke can cause cancer in non-smokers. They don't care that the smoke lingers about them for hours on end. Smokers I have noticed have a very, very weak sense of smell. I do not. When I am around cigarette smoke of any amount my eyes water, mucus drips from my nose, the back of my throat hurts and I get horrible, horrible migraines.
I've heard the silliest excuses about why bars and the ilk should allow smoking like I can choose not to go to these places. I can choose not to go into a bar. But I can also choose to go into a bar and not drink. I cannot choose to go into a bar that allows smoking and not smell cigarette smoke nor can I choose to not get a migraine when I smell said smoke. I cannot choose not to walk by someone that has just smoked or is smoking in the "open" entrance way of a building if there are no visible signs the person is smoking.
And those stupid, stupid commercials put on by the tobacco industry about kids listening to their parents and just saying "no". How can someone seriously expect a kid to listen to their smoking parent when they say "Don't Smoke"? Hypocrites. That brings me to another point. People that smoke around children should be charged with child endangerment. How is it any different? It dramatically increases the kids chance of taking up smoking and then getting cancer or a heart disease from it later in life. I haven't seen one of those commercials show the kid in a smoke filled room saying no. Second-Hand smoke can and does cause addiction.
I've honestly thought about carrying around Febreeze and just spraying people that reek of smoke with it...or even better... Pepper Spray/Mace. Spray them with that. It should cause the same effect on them that cigarette smoke causes to me unless smoking has made them tolerant. And if someone thinks it is assault, well, it's self defense they assaulted me first. It's my right to spray them with a solution to the assault.
Cleo says: Having smoking in one part of a room is like saying that it is ok to pee in one side of a pool. I just love this comment.
Jeremy says: Heck, I'm a smoker and I agree with you. Except for your statement that "smokers are highly disrespectful people", of course, because that's a blanket statement which just isn't true.
I smoke in my own car, when no one else is in it who might be bothered; or out in the street or something when no one is nearby. That's it. Not even in my own house, because of the way it makes things smell. I don't mind the smell of cigarette smoke (in fact, I've always kind of liked it), but I hate the way it smells when it lingers on things.
See, this is what I mean by disrespectful. You don't seem to realize that you are doing harm. Chances are you smoke with your windows down and your cigarette is hanging out the window while you drive. Other people can smell this with or without their windows open. And how many accidents have been caused because someone was driving with their cigarette in their hand and dropped it in their lap while turning?
Don't talk to me about cars causing pollution. I do not get migraines from car fumes I do from cigarette fumes. Cars also need to pass emissions tests or else they cannot be on the road. Cigarette smokers do not need to pass any such test (sadly). Diesel fumes are just as bad though and I wish they would make that illegal/regulated so that these vehicles cannot be on residential roads.
Let's not forget that when you are in a small space smoking you reek of smoke coming out of the small place which is also disrespectful to people that pass by you. A similar situation is salons/barber shops. I hate when their employees smoke and then come to do your hair and their fingers reek of smoke. The proprietor cannot fire them nor can they ask if they smoke on the application form or during the interview. I know a proprietor of a very expensive salon that asked such a question and the person didn't get the job. They then filed discrimination charges against the owners. The owners also had to schedule the smokers' appointments around to match their smoking breaks. That is not fair to non-smokers at all.
chad says: Since the ban in NYC, bars have been a lot worse off. I don't even like bars to begin with, but the smoking ban ruins any atmosphere that they used to have.
This is just funny. A smoking ban ruining the atmosphere of anything... There is a smoking ban in Tempe here in bars and after the first two weeks business returned to normal and people were actually drinking more beer because they didn't have the buzz of the cigarette. So it helped business here. And if you ban smoking within 50 yards of an entrance (which would effectively ban public smoking in New York City) you wouldn't have the problem of people leaving to take a smoke break. None of California seems to have problems with the ban there hurting business either.
Court Kizer says: If an establishment is smoking or non-smoking should be up to the business owner. then David says: Laws passed that ban smoking in PRIVATE establishments are just wrong. Government has no right to tell private citizens ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY that they can not allow smokers. If you don't want to smell smoke in a restaurant then go to a restaurant that bans smoking. and don't say that there wouldn't be any. Of course there would. It is that 'supply/demand' thing. If enough people demand it, then someone will supply it.
I completely agree. It should also be up to the establishment owner whether or not they serve alcohol to anyone (including minors). Liquor laws be dammed. It should also be their decision on how many cockroaches cover their floors/counters and whether or not the patrons are exposed to salmonella and other harmful bacteria. Nothing like going into a restaurant just to see cockroaches all over the place and meat being dropped on the floor. The health department has these laws for a reason people. They make laws to prevent the public from getting sick. When you have an establishment that allows access to the general public, you are not a private establishment.
Smoking is not a Civil Right. Walking down the street without fear of being harmed from cigarette smoke is.
Well, another quick post: Xounds 2.0 is out!
Download and give it a try! ;)
