Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #106786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-13 14:27 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-05-19 09:46 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 207 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-13 14:27 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-13 21:08 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-13 17:40 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-13 22:21 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 11:07 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-13 18:52 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-05-13 22:20 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-13 19:38 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-14 09:11 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-14 15:42 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 05:23 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 11:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 19:17 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 12:40 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 19:51 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 13:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:52 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:43 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:03 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:04 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:11 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:30 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:55 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:25 -0500
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-15 14:26 +0100
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 09:38 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-16 09:06 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:11 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 21:25 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-15 14:32 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:01 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-16 09:35 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:40 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-15 14:52 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 17:55 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:08 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 09:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 14:38 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-16 21:05 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 20:28 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-17 05:48 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 23:53 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-17 06:10 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 00:12 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-17 06:48 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 00:09 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 10:24 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 08:57 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:41 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:47 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:50 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 00:09 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 21:05 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 18:09 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-17 13:26 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 21:35 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 02:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 18:59 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2017-05-16 21:07 +0200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 20:28 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 18:20 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:41 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 02:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 19:14 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 22:46 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 19:51 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 23:41 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:41 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:50 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 09:53 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 10:31 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 16:43 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 15:41 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-17 18:49 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 15:56 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 00:43 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 21:51 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 01:05 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 22:14 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 01:46 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-17 22:55 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-18 21:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-18 16:23 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-19 00:16 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 14:55 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 18:33 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 15:39 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 19:08 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:28 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 19:32 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 16:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-19 20:05 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 15:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-20 09:33 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 16:43 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 16:45 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-20 17:08 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-22 15:21 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-22 06:31 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-22 15:23 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 09:32 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 10:50 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-23 21:15 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-23 16:06 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-18 21:47 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-19 00:13 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-19 01:20 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:05 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 09:45 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-16 14:32 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:40 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 18:06 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 15:30 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 23:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:38 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-17 02:00 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 19:16 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-15 18:50 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:09 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-15 20:12 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:16 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:17 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 19:42 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:04 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:36 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:32 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:33 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:14 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:57 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 17:00 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:16 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:39 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 03:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-15 11:39 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 17:01 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-14 21:16 +0100
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 13:25 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:53 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:10 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:16 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:01 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 17:37 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 01:00 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 01:50 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 03:20 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-15 05:23 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 15:11 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:52 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 14:05 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 17:27 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:18 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:02 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 19:26 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 22:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-14 23:51 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-15 11:25 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 16:48 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-15 19:26 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-16 04:52 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 14:30 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-16 04:28 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2017-05-16 05:02 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-16 14:32 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-05-16 17:39 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-17 22:14 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 11:55 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-17 22:13 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-16 09:09 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? "Andre G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:35 -0600
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-15 10:07 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-05-14 17:04 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 16:20 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-15 00:46 +0000
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2017-05-14 23:47 -0700
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-05-14 11:40 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-05-14 14:41 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-05-15 13:13 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-18 14:21 +1200
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-05-18 09:18 -0400
Re: Could Mac Files be Ransomwared via Windows XP Running in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-19 09:46 +1200
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnohsec7.o8m.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #107031 |
In message <ofla60$f48$1@news.datemas.de> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-18 2:47 PM, Lewis wrote: >> In message <ofj98e$svj$1@news.datemas.de> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-17 9:43 PM, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <ofikfe$okb$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker >>>> <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It proves that someone changed their mind about what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permissions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be. That's all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means there is no single correct value. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Sorry. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that someone realized they'd made an error (or introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>> one). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> if that were true, they'd have removed the conflicting ones, leaving >>>>>>>>>>>> only the correct one. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No need when they can simply read the BOM files in order and let the >>>>>>>>>>> final one win... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> there is no final one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If only you could support that... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i did. it's in the hfs+ docs. why would i even mention that if it >>>>>>>> wasn't? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You CLAIM it is in the HFS+ docs... >>>>>> >>>>>> it is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ...but you can't produce a quote despite those documents being readily >>>>>>> available on the web. >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm not going through it to find what's obvious to nearly everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nor can you offer an adequate explanation of why documentation for a >>>>>>> file system would mention a system utility such as repair permissions. >>>>>> >>>>>> i didn't say the hfs docs mentions repair permissions. you're way over >>>>>> your head >>>>>> >>>>>> what i said was the order of files is indeterminate, and it is. >>>>> >>>>> And you said that that is document in the HFS+ documentation.... >>>> >>>> and it is. >>>> >>>> i don't see you showing where it contradicts that claim. i pointed you >>>> to the docs. feel free to find where it guarantees the order and states >>>> what order that is. that's because it ain't there. >> >>> You've now both claimed that it is in the documentation and NOT in the >>> documentation for HFS+ >> >> No he hasn't. You're doing your typical thing of twisting words. > Yes. He really has. >> >>>> >>>>>>>> you clearly haven't a clue how permissions repair works or what it does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Found that documentation in HFS+ yet? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> no point, because you'll argue about something else. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that would be you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Still waiting on something concrete from you... >>>>>> >>>>>> it's been provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> like i said before you don't understand what's going on. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And you're doing everything you can to avoid changing that it would seem. >>>> >>>> nope. several people have explained things to you, including myself. >> >>> Several people have made claims. >> >>> Only YOU have claimed that in the documentation of HFS+ is support for >>> your claim of indeterminate ordering of BOM files. >> >> And? Show where in the documentation it tells you that the BOM files (or >> any files on HFS+) have specific ordering? > Show were it says that because files on disk don't have determinate > ordering that repair permissions cannot determine their ordering by > other means. You are very confused. The OS can certainly order the files in any way it choses. Size. Date of last access. Date created. ACLs. Owner. seconds after midnight. Relative Humidity on the day 17 days before the file was created. How many times the file has been backed up. The number of hard links to the file. None of that has the slightest thing to do with HFS providing a list of files in some order. -- Worlds of belief, she [Susan] thought. Just like oysters. A little piece of shit gets in and then a pearl grows around it. --Hogfather
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 01:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofm9sh$6rm$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #107033 |
On 2017-05-18 5:13 PM, Lewis wrote: >>>>>>>>> you clearly haven't a clue how permissions repair works or what it does. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Found that documentation in HFS+ yet? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> no point, because you'll argue about something else. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have nothing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that would be you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still waiting on something concrete from you... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it's been provided. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> like i said before you don't understand what's going on. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And you're doing everything you can to avoid changing that it would seem. >>>>> >>>>> nope. several people have explained things to you, including myself. >>> >>>> Several people have made claims. >>> >>>> Only YOU have claimed that in the documentation of HFS+ is support for >>>> your claim of indeterminate ordering of BOM files. >>> >>> And? Show where in the documentation it tells you that the BOM files (or >>> any files on HFS+) have specific ordering? > >> Show were it says that because files on disk don't have determinate >> ordering that repair permissions cannot determine their ordering by >> other means. > > You are very confused. The OS can certainly order the files in any way > it choses. Size. Date of last access. Date created. ACLs. Owner. > seconds after midnight. Relative Humidity on the day 17 days before the > file was created. How many times the file has been backed up. The number > of hard links to the file. > > None of that has the slightest thing to do with HFS providing a list of > files in some order. > Which has nothing to do with whether repair permissions can figure out an order or not... ...which is what the PP was trying to claim: that if HFS+ could provide the files in a determinate order, then repair permissions couldn't work out one. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <enuu2oFd9p7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106894 |
On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>> >>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>> >>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >> >> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. > > I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. > >> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >> isn't the only valid choice. > > Ummm... ...no. Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right permissions either. What nospam says is correct. > But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can > solve with it? Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <offaai$utq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106900 |
On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>> >>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>> >>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>> >>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >> >> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >> >>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>> isn't the only valid choice. >> >> Ummm... ...no. > > Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets > permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) > thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right > permissions either. What nospam says is correct. > >> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >> solve with it? > > Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair > permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do > so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. > So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any prophylactic steps such as a PSA test?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 13:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <160520171356104069%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #106928 |
In article <offaai$utq$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can > >> solve with it? > > > > Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair > > permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do > > so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. > > So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any > prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? that's not the same thing and you know it. a better analogy is to take medication (ones with serious side effects) for a disease you don't have, are not at risk for and probably won't ever get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 14:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.D540BE090137A68AB02919BF@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #106932 |
On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:56:10 -0400, nospam wrote (in article <160520171356104069%nospam@nospam.invalid>): > In article <offaai$utq$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>> solve with it? >>> >>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >> >> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? > > that's not the same thing and you know it. > > a better analogy is to take medication (ones with serious side effects) > for a disease you don't have, are not at risk for and probably won't > ever get. Actually it's a good analogy for reasons I'm sure Alan didn't intend. A positive PSA test can stampede you to get drastic, quality of life diminishing treatments for a cancer that may grow so slowly you will probably die of something else :) -- Nelson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 17:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofg65v$fob$4@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #106932 |
On 2017-05-16 10:56 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <offaai$utq$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>> solve with it? >>> >>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >> >> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? > > that's not the same thing and you know it. > > a better analogy is to take medication (ones with serious side effects) > for a disease you don't have, are not at risk for and probably won't > ever get. > What are the "serious side effects" of repairing permissions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eo0tduFrc96U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106928 |
On 2017-05-16, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>>> >>>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>>> >>>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >>> >>> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >>> >>>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>>> isn't the only valid choice. >>> >>> Ummm... ...no. >> >> Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets >> permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) >> thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right >> permissions either. What nospam says is correct. >> >>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>> solve with it? >> >> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. > > So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any > prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? That's a clear false equivalency. If a computer system is performing well with no obvious issues, there's no reason to repair permissions. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <offuih$37u$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #106933 |
On 2017-05-16 11:06 AM, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2017-05-16, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>>>> >>>>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>>>> >>>>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >>>> >>>>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>>>> isn't the only valid choice. >>>> >>>> Ummm... ...no. >>> >>> Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets >>> permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) >>> thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right >>> permissions either. What nospam says is correct. >>> >>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>> solve with it? >>> >>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >> >> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? > > That's a clear false equivalency. If a computer system is performing > well with no obvious issues, there's no reason to repair permissions. > If a car is performing well with no obvious issues, there's no need to do any regular maintenance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eo1hh9F1feqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106947 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-16 11:06 AM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2017-05-16, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>>>>> >>>>>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >>>>> >>>>>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>>>>> isn't the only valid choice. >>>>> >>>>> Ummm... ...no. >>>> >>>> Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets >>>> permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) >>>> thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right >>>> permissions either. What nospam says is correct. >>>> >>>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>>> solve with it? >>>> >>>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >>> >>> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >>> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? >> >> That's a clear false equivalency. If a computer system is performing >> well with no obvious issues, there's no reason to repair permissions. >> > > If a car is performing well with no obvious issues, there's no need to > do any regular maintenance. Yet another false equivalency brought to you by Alan Baker. Everyone knows engine oil has a limited life span and therefore needs to be changed regularly to maintain correct operation; computers have no oil (permissions do not have a limited life span, nor do they need to be repaired regularly to maintain operation). And so on, ad nauseam. Your lame arguments are really boring. Peace, out. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofg61r$fob$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #106948 |
On 2017-05-16 4:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-16 11:06 AM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> On 2017-05-16, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>>>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >>>>>> >>>>>>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>>>>>> isn't the only valid choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ummm... ...no. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets >>>>> permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) >>>>> thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right >>>>> permissions either. What nospam says is correct. >>>>> >>>>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>>>> solve with it? >>>>> >>>>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>>>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>>>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >>>> >>>> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >>>> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? >>> >>> That's a clear false equivalency. If a computer system is performing >>> well with no obvious issues, there's no reason to repair permissions. >>> >> >> If a car is performing well with no obvious issues, there's no need to >> do any regular maintenance. > > Yet another false equivalency brought to you by Alan Baker. Everyone knows > engine oil has a limited life span and therefore needs to be changed > regularly to maintain correct operation; computers have no oil (permissions > do not have a limited life span, nor do they need to be repaired regularly > to maintain operation). And so on, ad nauseam. Your lame arguments are > really boring. Peace, out. > It's more than engine oil... ...and regular maintenance is just wise. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 02:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eo1p5qF30kfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106949 |
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-16 4:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2017-05-16 11:06 AM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-16, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>>>>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>>>>>>> isn't the only valid choice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ummm... ...no. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets >>>>>> permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) >>>>>> thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right >>>>>> permissions either. What nospam says is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>>>>> solve with it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>>>>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>>>>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >>>>> >>>>> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >>>>> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? >>>> >>>> That's a clear false equivalency. If a computer system is performing >>>> well with no obvious issues, there's no reason to repair permissions. >>>> >>> >>> If a car is performing well with no obvious issues, there's no need to >>> do any regular maintenance. >> >> Yet another false equivalency brought to you by Alan Baker. Everyone knows >> engine oil has a limited life span and therefore needs to be changed >> regularly to maintain correct operation; computers have no oil (permissions >> do not have a limited life span, nor do they need to be repaired regularly >> to maintain operation). And so on, ad nauseam. Your lame arguments are >> really boring. Peace, out. >> > > It's more than engine oil... We are talking about repairing permissions on macOS here. > ...and regular maintenance is just wise. Nothing you can say will ever change the fact that regularly repairing permissions for no reason has absolutely no value for macOS computers. > Sorry. Your entire argument in this thread is sorry, yes. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofgbp9$p9c$4@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #106958 |
On 2017-05-16 7:00 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-16 4:50 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2017-05-16 11:06 AM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>> On 2017-05-16, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 2017-05-15 5:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>>> On 2017-05-15, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2017-05-15 2:40 PM, nospam wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <ofd6vt$1ne7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name >>>>>>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Repair Permissions" is not useless since it does do something, >>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT whether running that process actually fixes *all* the >>>>>>>>>>>>> problems it supposedly does is a totally different question. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's useless and rarely fixes anything, if ever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It fixes what it was designed to fix ... Permissions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> permissions do not break, so there's nothing to fix. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but at the very least, permissions DID (past tense) break. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it resets permissions to what apple thinks they should be, which >>>>>>>>> isn't the only valid choice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ummm... ...no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, yes. As I already explained, Repair Permissions simply sets >>>>>>> permissions of installed files to what Apple (or the app developer) >>>>>>> thinks they should be. And those aren't always necessarily the right >>>>>>> permissions either. What nospam says is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But does that mean one shouldn't bother solving the problems you can >>>>>>>> solve with it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obvious straw man. Nobody in this thread has said you shouldn't repair >>>>>>> permissions *ever*; what *has* been stated is it's a waste of time to do >>>>>>> so when there is no symptom of a problem having to do with permissions. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if you don't show any symptoms of cancer, there's no need to take any >>>>>> prophylactic steps such as a PSA test? >>>>> >>>>> That's a clear false equivalency. If a computer system is performing >>>>> well with no obvious issues, there's no reason to repair permissions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If a car is performing well with no obvious issues, there's no need to >>>> do any regular maintenance. >>> >>> Yet another false equivalency brought to you by Alan Baker. Everyone knows >>> engine oil has a limited life span and therefore needs to be changed >>> regularly to maintain correct operation; computers have no oil (permissions >>> do not have a limited life span, nor do they need to be repaired regularly >>> to maintain operation). And so on, ad nauseam. Your lame arguments are >>> really boring. Peace, out. >>> >> >> It's more than engine oil... > > We are talking about repairing permissions on macOS here. > >> ...and regular maintenance is just wise. > > Nothing you can say will ever change the fact that regularly repairing > permissions for no reason has absolutely no value for macOS computers. You've already acknowledged that there are problems that can be caused by wrong permissions. Therefore regularly repairing permissions prevents those problems from arising. > >> Sorry. > > Your entire argument in this thread is sorry, yes. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 18:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <591a30b3$0$51788$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #106886 |
On 2017-05-15 17:06, Your Name wrote: > Apple has actually removed the function from newer versions of Disk > Utility. Mac OS X runs the process itself during boot time instead. Would SIP be a reason why Disk Utility lost the "repair permissions" ? Or does Disk Utility have the all mighty powers to bypass SIP? In the standard Verify/Repair disk, does Disk Utility just bypass the file system and touch Catalogue/Extents hidden files directly to verify integrity ? Or is there a phase of that process where in needs to access files at which point SIP would kick in?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <enuua6Fd9p7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106897 |
On 2017-05-15, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-15 17:06, Your Name wrote: > >> Apple has actually removed the function from newer versions of Disk >> Utility. Mac OS X runs the process itself during boot time instead. > > Would SIP be a reason why Disk Utility lost the "repair permissions" ? Naturally Apple's own software is trusted and can modify stuff in protected directories. Stop trying to blame things on SIP; your irrational hatred for SIP is bad enough as it is without spewing misguided nonsense like this. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <591a440b$0$57906$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #106902 |
On 2017-05-15 20:09, Jolly Roger wrote: > Naturally Apple's own software is trusted and can modify stuff in > protected directories. Stop trying to blame things on SIP; your > irrational hatred for SIP is bad enough as it is without spewing > misguided nonsense like this. Why do you say I was "blaming" SIP ? I just asked if it was a factor in the "repair pemissions" no longer available.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <enuunnFd9p7U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106903 |
On 2017-05-16, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-15 20:09, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Naturally Apple's own software is trusted and can modify stuff in >> protected directories. Stop trying to blame things on SIP; your >> irrational hatred for SIP is bad enough as it is without spewing >> misguided nonsense like this. > > Why do you say I was "blaming" SIP ? It probably has something to do with all the times you've railed against it and complained about it right here in these news groups. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <150520172020269816%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #106897 |
In article <591a30b3$0$51788$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Would SIP be a reason why Disk Utility lost the "repair permissions" ? one reason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ens6s4Fo412U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #106833 |
On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2017-05-14 3:03 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >> >>>> Secondly, since there is no such thing as bug-free software, it may >>>> introduce problem that otherwise wouldn't be there. >>> >>> No. >> >> As a veteran Mac software developer, my opinion on this is backed by >> knowledge and experience; so it's of no consequence if you disagree. > > Bully for you. It's also of no consequence whether you believe what I say. > By that argument, you can't run any software. We are talking about malware protection software in particular here, and you want to move the goal post because you have no other valid argument. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofapdl$1l81$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #106841 |
On 2017-05-14 4:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: > On 2017-05-14, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2017-05-14 3:03 PM, Jolly Roger wrote: >>> >>>>> Secondly, since there is no such thing as bug-free software, it may >>>>> introduce problem that otherwise wouldn't be there. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> As a veteran Mac software developer, my opinion on this is backed by >>> knowledge and experience; so it's of no consequence if you disagree. >> >> Bully for you. > > It's also of no consequence whether you believe what I say. > >> By that argument, you can't run any software. > > We are talking about malware protection software in particular here, and > you want to move the goal post because you have no other valid argument. > That isn't a goalpost move: it's the very heart of the matter. You can't argue that anti-malware software is "unwise" by saying it might have bugs, because that problem exists ALL THE TIME FOR ALL SOFTWARE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web