Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #183593 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-23 17:27 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-05-24 13:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac
Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-23 17:27 +0100
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-23 18:28 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:20 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-23 19:29 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:51 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-23 21:16 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 23:43 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 08:37 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 12:59 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 14:23 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 13:40 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 15:07 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:16 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 15:34 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:53 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 21:48 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 22:00 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 23:23 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 22:41 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-25 08:26 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 14:49 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-25 22:09 +0100
Re: Screenshot! pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2026-05-25 22:30 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 23:21 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 00:06 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-26 14:56 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:12 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-26 20:09 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 19:55 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-26 23:01 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 22:08 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-26 23:27 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 23:22 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-27 07:45 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 06:53 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-27 08:01 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 07:26 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-27 13:18 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 14:17 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-27 19:16 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 19:57 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-27 23:26 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 23:21 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-28 08:54 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 12:34 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2026-05-27 15:15 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 15:37 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2026-05-27 15:15 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 15:37 +0000
Re: Screenshot! Phil <pildalawyer@legal.org> - 2026-05-28 12:28 +0000
Re: Screenshot! WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2026-05-28 14:47 -0400
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:17 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-23 19:32 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:50 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-23 21:17 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 23:43 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 08:39 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 12:56 +0000
Re: Screenshot! "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> - 2026-05-24 14:42 +0100
Re: Screenshot! Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 13:45 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a174c9d$1$13959$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183719 |
On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>: > Brock said .... > > You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To > check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it > to AppCleaner. > > https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c > > None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found. > > = > > <SIGH> > > You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock.... > ....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*! > > > EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the > moment a user utilizes its advanced features — such as checking full > storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted > system areas — the application explicitly prompts for an administrator > password. And? > It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and > registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory: > /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does not? > If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it > into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative > diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system. That is not what I did. > > Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't > install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic > depth of the tool, that background helper is registered — and dragging > the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it. > > The technical facts remain unchanged. The claim remains unsupported. > > -- > Kind regards, > David -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 23:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7p9ctFecb6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183720 |
On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>: > >> Brock said .... >> >> You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To >> check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it >> to AppCleaner. >> >> https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c >> >> None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found. >> >> = >> >> <SIGH> >> >> You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock.... >> ....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*! >> >> >> EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the >> moment a user utilizes its advanced features — such as checking full >> storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted >> system areas — the application explicitly prompts for an administrator >> password. > > And? > >> It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and >> registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory: >> /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper > > Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does > not? > >> If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it >> into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative >> diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system. > > That is not what I did. >> >> Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't >> install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic >> depth of the tool, that background helper is registered — and dragging >> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it. >> >> The technical facts remain unchanged. > > The claim remains unsupported. *WRONG*!!!!! It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look directly at the application bundle's internal structure. If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed: com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper If you open the application’s main Info.plist file, you will find the explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation: SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper. As for your questions regarding its operation: When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for an administrator password to install the helper. Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed. But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing. The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence. Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root -level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory. When a user subsequently drags the EtreCheck .app bundle to the Bin, macOS leaves that root-level binary behind. It is a permanent orphan on the file system until manually scrubbed. The directory paths are real, the code structure inside the app bundle is real, and the mechanism is standard macOS security architecture. The only thing unsupported here is your denial of how the software is built. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 23:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a177c94$2$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183723 |
On May 27, 2026 at 3:26:37 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7p9ctFecb6U1@mid.individual.net>: > On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> Brock said .... >>> >>> You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To >>> check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it >>> to AppCleaner. >>> >>> https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c >>> >>> None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found. >>> >>> = >>> >>> <SIGH> >>> >>> You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock.... >>> ....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*! >>> >>> >>> EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the >>> moment a user utilizes its advanced features — such as checking full >>> storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted >>> system areas — the application explicitly prompts for an administrator >>> password. >> >> And? >> >>> It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and >>> registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory: >>> /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper >> >> Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does >> not? >> >>> If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it >>> into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative >>> diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system. >> >> That is not what I did. >>> >>> Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't >>> install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic >>> depth of the tool, that background helper is registered — and dragging >>> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it. >>> >>> The technical facts remain unchanged. >> >> The claim remains unsupported. > > *WRONG*!!!!! > It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look > directly at the application bundle's internal structure. > > If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package > Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will > find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed: > com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper > > If you open the application’s main Info.plist file, you will find the > explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation: > SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to > com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper. > > As for your questions regarding its operation: > > When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task > requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system > logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive > performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for > an administrator password to install the helper. > > Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand > privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn > CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed. > > But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing. > The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence. > > Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root > -level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory. Please back this claim. And then READ what I have written to you and try to understand it. > When a user > subsequently drags the EtreCheck .app bundle to the Bin, macOS leaves > that root-level binary behind. It is a permanent orphan on the file > system until manually scrubbed. > > The directory paths are real, the code structure inside the app bundle > is real, and the mechanism is standard macOS security architecture. The > only thing unsupported here is your denial of how the software is built. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 08:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7qam6Fj6cuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183726 |
On 28/05/2026 00:21, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On May 27, 2026 at 3:26:37 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7p9ctFecb6U1@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>> On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>> <n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>: >>> >>>> Brock said .... >>>> >>>> You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To >>>> check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it >>>> to AppCleaner. >>>> >>>> https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c >>>> >>>> None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found. >>>> >>>> = >>>> >>>> <SIGH> >>>> >>>> You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock.... >>>> ....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*! >>>> >>>> >>>> EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the >>>> moment a user utilizes its advanced features — such as checking full >>>> storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted >>>> system areas — the application explicitly prompts for an administrator >>>> password. >>> >>> And? >>> >>>> It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and >>>> registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory: >>>> /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper >>> >>> Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does >>> not? >>> >>>> If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it >>>> into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative >>>> diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system. >>> >>> That is not what I did. >>>> >>>> Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't >>>> install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic >>>> depth of the tool, that background helper is registered — and dragging >>>> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it. >>>> >>>> The technical facts remain unchanged. >>> >>> The claim remains unsupported. >> >> *WRONG*!!!!! >> It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look >> directly at the application bundle's internal structure. >> >> If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package >> Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will >> find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed: >> com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper >> >> If you open the application’s main Info.plist file, you will find the >> explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation: >> SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to >> com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper. >> >> As for your questions regarding its operation: >> >> When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task >> requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system >> logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive >> performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for >> an administrator password to install the helper. >> >> Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand >> privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn >> CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed. >> >> But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing. >> The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence. >> >> Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root >> -level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory. > > Please back this claim. And then READ what I have written to you and try to > understand it. I back the claim by citing Apple's own official developer specifications for the macOS security framework. The mechanism we are discussing is called SMJobBless (part of the Service Management framework). Under Apple’s secure architecture, when an application bundle uses this API to install a privileged helper tool: The operating system validates the tool's code signature against the parent app's signature. The launchd system daemon explicitly copies the helper tool binary into the root-level system directory: /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ A corresponding configuration property list is created inside: /Library/LaunchDaemons/ This is entirely handled by the system, not the application itself. Because these files are written to the root-level system directories under administrative ownership, they are entirely decoupled from the user's local application folder. When a user drags an .app bundle from /Applications to the Bin, macOS executes a simple file-system deletion of that specific directory bundle. It does not trace root-level system directories to clean up associated daemons or privileged helpers. Apple explicitly prevents standard application bundle deletion from modifying root-level system directories for security reasons. If you want independent confirmation of this platform-wide behaviour, you can look at any standard macOS administration guide regarding the Service Management framework, or look at how other premium utilities handle uninstallation. The permanence of these files is exactly why developers who use SMJobBless must explicitly code a custom "Uninstall" routine to invoke an authenticated helper script to clean up /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/. The claim is backed by the core architectural rules of the operating system you are using. -- I hope this helps David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a18366f$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183730 |
On May 28, 2026 at 12:54:46 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7qam6Fj6cuU1@mid.individual.net>:
> On 28/05/2026 00:21, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 27, 2026 at 3:26:37 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n7p9ctFecb6U1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> On 27/05/2026 20:57, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 2026 at 11:16:39 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>> <n7oqo7Fc4i6U1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> Brock said ....
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown no evidence of this. I was quite certain it did not. To
>>>>> check I downloaded it and ran it. Then I uninstalled it by dragging it
>>>>> to AppCleaner.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://shottr.cc/s/PDfQ/SCR-20260527-b1c
>>>>>
>>>>> None of those are as you describe. Not a launch daemons/agents to be found.
>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>>>
>>>>> <SIGH>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't see it in AppCleaner, Brock....
>>>>> ....... *because you didn't actually trigger it*!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> EtreCheck is designed to run in user space by default. However, the
>>>>> moment a user utilizes its advanced features — such as checking full
>>>>> storage performance or granting "Full Disk Access" to scan restricted
>>>>> system areas — the application explicitly prompts for an administrator
>>>>> password.
>>>>
>>>> And?
>>>>
>>>>> It is at that exact moment of admin authorization that macOS copies and
>>>>> registers the privileged helper tool binary into the root directory:
>>>>> /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
>>>>
>>>> Show evidence of this. And when is it triggered? Does it run if EtreCheck does
>>>> not?
>>>>
>>>>> If you merely downloaded the app, opened it, and immediately dragged it
>>>>> into AppCleaner without executing any of those elevated administrative
>>>>> diagnostics, the privileged helper was never deployed onto your system.
>>>>
>>>> That is not what I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your screenshot simply proves that an un-triggered feature doesn't
>>>>> install its components. For users who actually use the full diagnostic
>>>>> depth of the tool, that background helper is registered — and dragging
>>>>> the .app bundle to the Bin does not remove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The technical facts remain unchanged.
>>>>
>>>> The claim remains unsupported.
>>>
>>> *WRONG*!!!!!
>>> It is entirely supported, Brock. If you want the hard evidence, look
>>> directly at the application bundle's internal structure.
>>>
>>> If you right-click the EtreCheck application bundle, select Show Package
>>> Contents, and navigate to /Contents/Library/LaunchServices/, you will
>>> find the embedded helper binary waiting to be deployed:
>>> com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper
>>>
>>> If you open the application’s main Info.plist file, you will find the
>>> explicit registration key that macOS requires for privilege escalation:
>>> SMPrivilegedExecutables pointing directly to
>>> com.etresoft.EtreCheckHelper.
>>>
>>> As for your questions regarding its operation:
>>>
>>> When is it triggered? It is triggered the moment a user attempts a task
>>> requiring low-level system access, such as reading restricted system
>>> logs or using the advanced storage benchmark to measure drive
>>> performance. macOS throws the standard security dialogue box asking for
>>> an administrator password to install the helper.
>>>
>>> Does it run if EtreCheck does not? No. It is a launch-on-demand
>>> privileged helper daemon managed by launchd. It does not constantly burn
>>> CPU cycles in the background when the main app is closed.
>>>
>>> But that completely misses the architectural point we are discussing.
>>> The issue isn't whether it actively hogs your RAM; the issue is persistence.
>>>
>>> Once that admin prompt is cleared, macOS copies that binary to the root
>>> -level /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/ directory.
>>
>> Please back this claim. And then READ what I have written to you and try to
>> understand it.
>
> I back the claim by citing Apple's own official developer specifications
> for the macOS security framework.
Lovely but not relevant.
>
> The mechanism we are discussing is called SMJobBless
Looking into this: SMJobBless is being phased out. SMAppService is available
for macOS Ventura and newer. For apps using the modern SMAppService approach,
the "leftover orphaned files" problem is substantially mitigated, since the
daemon lives inside the app bundle and is not moved to system directories.
> (part of the
> Service Management framework). Under Apple’s secure architecture, when
> an application bundle uses this API to install a privileged helper tool:
You have not shown it uses such a tool.
David <n7qaabFj4hqU1@mid.individual.net>:
-----
If you haven't triggered that admin elevation, the file won't
be in your root directory yet. However, the blueprint is
permanently baked into the software. Anyone can verify this
by right-clicking the EtreCheck app bundle, selecting Show
Package Contents, and looking inside
/Contents/Library/LaunchServices/
-----
https://shottr.cc/s/Pv0B/SCR-20260527-o33
>
> The operating system validates the tool's code signature against the
> parent app's signature.
>
> The launchd system daemon explicitly copies the helper tool binary into
> the root-level system directory: /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/
>
> A corresponding configuration property list is created inside:
> /Library/LaunchDaemons/
>
> This is entirely handled by the system, not the application itself.
> Because these files are written to the root-level system directories
> under administrative ownership, they are entirely decoupled from the
> user's local application folder.
>
> When a user drags an .app bundle from /Applications to the Bin, macOS
> executes a simple file-system deletion of that specific directory
> bundle. It does not trace root-level system directories to clean up
> associated daemons or privileged helpers. Apple explicitly prevents
> standard application bundle deletion from modifying root-level system
> directories for security reasons.
No. Deleting the App Bundle deletes only the App Bundle because that is what
you are deleting. It does not delete other stuff for a lack of security
(though it would be insecure to have it do so), but because it would make no
sense to have it do so.
>
> If you want independent confirmation of this platform-wide behaviour,
> you can look at any standard macOS administration guide regarding the
> Service Management framework, or look at how other premium utilities
> handle uninstallation. The permanence of these files is exactly why
> developers who use SMJobBless must explicitly code a custom "Uninstall"
> routine to invoke an authenticated helper script to clean up
> /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/.
>
> The claim is backed by the core architectural rules of the operating
> system you are using.
>
> --
> I hope this helps
> David
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB45972804E54DHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5> |
| In reply to | #183701 |
"David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> news:n7nj6gF63u8U1@mid.individual.net Wed, 27 May 2026 07:01:36 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > On 27/05/2026 07:53, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote: >>> On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>> <n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>> >>>>> On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>> On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>>> <n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>>>>> <n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased >>>>>>>>> EtreCheck. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do >>>>>>>> not care about it. I am not concerned about it. There are many, >>>>>>>> many software packages I do not run -- not based on fear. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You HAVE run it! >>>>>> >>>>>> As we have discussed multiple times. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. >>>>>>> Are there copies of past reports lingering in your >>>>>>> Library? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know WHERE to look? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HAVE you looked? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please advise. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this. >>>>> >>>>> Were you not surprised to find them there?!!! >>>> >>>> I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or >>>> concerning in any way. >>> >>> *I'm shocked*! >>> >>> It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete >>> lack of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or >>> concerning." >>> >>> For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how >>> things "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly >>> run software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves >>> behind in your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/ >>> directories is quite the self-own. >>> >>> If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you, >>> it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked >>> the curiosity to check. >>> >>> For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as >>> a technical authority on a computer workshop group? It’s a bit of an >>> embarrassment, Brock. >>> >> >> Your AI had a stroke. 🤣 > > > Translation: "I have absolutely no technical defense for getting caught > completely clueless about my own Mac's file system, so I'll try a weak > deflection instead." > > Notice how you completely failed to address the actual point, Brock? You > admitted you didn't know those files were lingering in your Library. You > admitted you didn't look. And in your other concurrent post, you > explicitly argued that apps leaving background junk behind should have > uninstallers. > > The prose isn't having a stroke—it's just exposing your massive > logical hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve. > > To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to > show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by > attacking the messenger. > > Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this > time, or are you completely out of your depth? I must admit how comical this is. You are in no position to question anyone else concerning Mac or anything else. Snit actually does know more about the machine sitting in front of him than you ever will. What's especially funny about that is the fact he doesn't actually know very much. It's interesting how you gave snit a free pass every single other time he's stepped on his clit, but now you feel it necessary to try and ride him because you didn't like his responses. What's coming next, David? Are you going to create a gsv for him as well? He's an idiot for ever trusting you. He was warned. Now he's starting to experience what you're really like. h0h0h0. -- Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference? Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference? Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 15:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a170fa8$1$43783$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183712 |
On May 27, 2026 at 8:15:21 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB45972804E54DHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
> "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> news:n7nj6gF63u8U1@mid.individual.net
> Wed, 27 May 2026 07:01:36 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On 27/05/2026 07:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> David B. <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote:
>>>> On 27/05/2026 00:22, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 26, 2026 at 3:27:06 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>>> <n7ml1qF1qbmU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/05/2026 23:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 26, 2026 at 3:01:33 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>>>>> <n7mjhtF1ib4U1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26/05/2026 20:55, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 26, 2026 at 12:09:09 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <n7m9emF1coU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>>>> [....]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've put my money where my mouth is and have purchased
>>>>>>>>>> EtreCheck.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You, though, are afraid to run it on your computer(s)!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a fiction you made up. I do not currently have it. I do
>>>>>>>>> not care about it. I am not concerned about it. There are many,
>>>>>>>>> many software packages I do not run -- not based on fear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You HAVE run it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we have discussed multiple times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>> Are there copies of past reports lingering in your
>>>>>>>> Library?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know WHERE to look?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HAVE you looked?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please advise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe I deleted them since the last time we discussed this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were you not surprised to find them there?!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not know they were there but it was not really surprising or
>>>>> concerning in any way.
>>>>
>>>> *I'm shocked*!
>>>>
>>>> It is absolutely fascinating to watch you hand-wave away a complete
>>>> lack of basic macOS file-system awareness as "not surprising or
>>>> concerning."
>>>>
>>>> For someone who frequently pontificates on these groups about how
>>>> things "should" work on the Mac platform, admitting that you blindly
>>>> run software without having the foggiest notion of what it leaves
>>>> behind in your ~/Library/Application Support/ or ~/Library/Caches/
>>>> directories is quite the self-own.
>>>>
>>>> If you "did not know they were there" until it was pointed out to you,
>>>> it proves you weren't looking, didn't know where to look, and lacked
>>>> the curiosity to check.
>>>>
>>>> For an ordinary end-user? Perfectly fine. For someone masquerading as
>>>> a technical authority on a computer workshop group? It’s a bit of an
>>>> embarrassment, Brock.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your AI had a stroke. 🤣
>>
>>
>> Translation: "I have absolutely no technical defense for getting caught
>> completely clueless about my own Mac's file system, so I'll try a weak
>> deflection instead."
>>
>> Notice how you completely failed to address the actual point, Brock? You
>> admitted you didn't know those files were lingering in your Library. You
>> admitted you didn't look. And in your other concurrent post, you
>> explicitly argued that apps leaving background junk behind should have
>> uninstallers.
>>
>> The prose isn't having a stroke—it's just exposing your massive
>> logical hypocrisy, and it clearly hit a nerve.
>>
>> To borrow a phrase from your own signature: You cannot use reason to
>> show the message to be wrong, so you try to feel somehow superior by
>> attacking the messenger.
>>
>> Care to try again and actually talk about the macOS file system this
>> time, or are you completely out of your depth?
>
> I must admit how comical this is. You are in no position to question anyone
> else concerning Mac or anything else. Snit actually does know more about the
> machine sitting in front of him than you ever will. What's especially funny
> about that is the fact he doesn't actually know very much. It's interesting
> how you gave snit a free pass every single other time he's stepped on his
> clit, but now you feel it necessary to try and ride him because you didn't
> like his responses. What's coming next, David? Are you going to create a gsv
> for him as well? He's an idiot for ever trusting you. He was warned. Now
> he's starting to experience what you're really like. h0h0h0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Gremlin got all excited he used a mouse-less computer as if that
was impressive.
<XnsABEF47D94EFACHT1@rSNu6VvwL.gxU66>:
-----
My first computer didn't even know what a fucking mouse
was. You really are playing games with the wrong one.
-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB459727EFA5FDHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5> |
| In reply to | #183681 |
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:6a15c674$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Tue, 26 May 2026 16:12:36 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>: >> Only "bad guys" need fear me! > > Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple > forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is > a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as > though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting > SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but > you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these > developers. You're wrong, Snit. David has tried to dox me, multiple times. His first attempt was for my not answering his emails in a timely according to him manner. As if the world revolves around David and I should stop whatever I was doing and spend all my energy answering his off the wall queries. The same garbage he's been going back and forth with you about, essentially. You can falsely call me a troll all you like - it doesn't change reality. It doesn't show you in a good light and it never will. You David and peecent are well known trolls. I am not. Label as you like though, the functionally illiterate fraud one worked so well for you. :) For the record, *nobody* fears him. Why should anyone? He's incompetent on his best days as you've learned for yourself. A real scatter brain. -- Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference? Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference? Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 15:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a170fbe$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183711 |
On May 27, 2026 at 8:15:19 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB459727EFA5FDHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
> Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
> news:6a15c674$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Tue, 26 May 2026 16:12:36
> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>> Only "bad guys" need fear me!
>>
>> Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple
>> forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is
>> a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as
>> though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting
>> SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but
>> you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these
>> developers.
>
> You're wrong, Snit. David has tried to dox me, multiple times. His first
> attempt was for my not answering his emails in a timely according to him
> manner. As if the world revolves around David and I should stop whatever I was
> doing and spend all my energy answering his off the wall queries. The same
> garbage he's been going back and forth with you about, essentially. You can
> falsely call me a troll all you like - it doesn't change reality. It doesn't
> show you in a good light and it never will. You David and peecent are well
> known trolls. I am not. Label as you like though, the functionally illiterate
> fraud one worked so well for you. :)
>
> For the record, *nobody* fears him. Why should anyone? He's incompetent on his
> best days as you've learned for yourself. A real scatter brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Gremlin could not believe FirstClass could handle so many
simultaneous connections.
<XnsAB5313CBDCEE6HT1@2sAL9.E04>
-----
Yes, you had a modem bank, tied into a network, not a
single workstation. A single workstation back then
wouldn't have had the cpu power to deal with one hundred
concurrent connections on it's own. That's a shitload more
cpu power required than you seem to realize, here, Snit.
...
Uhh, I don't care what code optimizing tricks they used,
there's no fucking way they were able to support one
hundred people, at one time, on one machine. No fucking
way, Snit. You had alot more hardware involved.
-----
Notice I said about 80... not 100... but I know it could do it because
it DID do it. It helped that most users were merely reading text. There
was little "heavy" usage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil <pildalawyer@legal.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 12:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB45A562CFDA15000@62.164.182.28> |
| In reply to | #183716 |
"David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> wrote in news:n7qlc4FkpvvU1@mid.individual.net: > On 28/05/2026 09:13, David Kennedy wrote: >> On 27/05/2026 16:37, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> >> lots of stuff... >> >> I don't suppose that there's any chance you could stop responding to >> the moron? > > What on earth makes you think that Brock is a moron? *EVERYBODY* knows that Brock is a moron. Maybe these links will help explain it to *YOU* ? https://tinyurl.com/WhatIsSnit https://tinyurl.com/Snitliesmethods https://tinyurl.com/Snit-Reviews > He has two university degrees! So does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Kamala Harris. Both are widely considered to be morons. Your point is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 14:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.2FC8C530015F622170000180A38F@news.supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #183711 |
On May 27, 2026, Gremlin wrote (in article<XnsB459727EFA5FDHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>): > Brock McNuggets<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> > news:6a15c674$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Tue, 26 May 2026 16:12:36 > GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > > > On May 26, 2026 at 6:56:10 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > > <n7ln3qFrmsvU1@mid.individual.net>: > > > > Only "bad guys" need fear me! > > > > Not true. You target developers and then harp, for years, in multiple > > forums about things you imagine are wrong or scary they are not. That is > > a harm to those developers. We have discussed this -- it is not as > > though you do as Carroll and Gremlin and other trolls and arresting > > SEEKING to cause harm, nor do you dox and target their family lives, but > > you do lean that way with your repeated insinuations with these > > developers. > > You're wrong, Snit. David has tried to dox me, multiple times. ol’ yellowstain has tried to dox me, muliple times, too. he’s massively incomptent at it. He’s tried to ‘report’ me to Supernews, my newsfeed, to try to both have my account revoked and to find my real name. See, for just one example, the following post, complete with all headers: Start include text ________________ DNS Cache questions David_B<DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> Path: num2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!number.nntp.giganews.c om!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!p eer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds- media.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx27.ams1.POSTED!not- for-mail Subject: Re: DNS Cache questions Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac References:<nvASG.100406$dTb.45114@fx41.ams1> <sIQTG.82762$pq3.15877@fx25.ams1><Gq2UG.26296$Wl7.12753@fx26.iad> <0001HW.24D10E380057E05770000D3AE38F@news.supernews.com> <280720202155245719%nospam@nospam.invalid><GC9UG.92399$vLb.36669@fx43.ams1> <0001HW.24D1ACC1007D08B270000D3AE38F@news.supernews.com> <ZqhUG.230916$iXb1.79605@fx03.ams1> <0001HW.24D1FA34008F2FBA70000D5BA38F@news.supernews.com> <XSjUG.254488$qj7.15799@fx04.ams1> <0001HW.24D20C8300937A2F70000D5BA38F@news.supernews.com> <31nUG.170803$Rb1.11098@fx35.ams1> <0001HW.24D25E5400A6A75170000D3AE38F@news.supernews.com> <Q%xUG.103648$WO.70854@fx38.ams1> <0001HW.24D30BB600CF4A8C70000488F38F@news.supernews.com> From: David_B<DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:<0001HW.24D30BB600CF4A8C70000488F38F@news.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 19 Message-ID:<wCAUG.67604$RU.41593@fx27.ams1> X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:15:56 UTC Organization: blocknews - www.blocknews.net Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:15:56 +0100 X-Received-Bytes: 2107 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3067413913 Bytes: 2302 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com uk.comp.sys.mac:797048 comp.sys.mac.system:984057 On 30/07/2020 15:07, Wolffan wrote: On 30 Jul 2020, David_B wrote [....] I did, indeed, write to www.supernews.com As you know, I received an acknowledgement but no follow-up. Maybe I'll prod them again, sonny Jim! go for it. It’s been over a year. Note that the troll-boy just sabotaged his own ‘I was just joking’ defence. Yes, he’s that stupid. OK - I'll do it now! :-) you’re an idiot No. I'm not. I emailed just as I promised. Request received: [Supernews] | Request - (Ticket #: 4002614) - (Ticket #: 4328943) _________________________ End included text. note the timestamp. note how ol’ yellowstain refuses to address his bullshit. note how I am _still_ posting using Supernews. Ol’ yellowstain is full of shit. > His first > attempt was for my not answering his emails in a timely according to him > manner. As if the world revolves around David and I should stop whatever I was > doing and spend all my energy answering his off the wall queries. The same > garbage he's been going back and forth with you about, essentially. You can > falsely call me a troll all you like - it doesn't change reality. It doesn't > show you in a good light and it never will. You David and peecent are well > known trolls. I am not. Label as you like though, the functionally illiterate > fraud one worked so well for you. :) > > For the record, *nobody* fears him. Why should anyone? He's incompetent on his > best days as you've learned for yourself. A real scatter brain. ol’ yellowstain is good at only two things: sucking down excessive quantities of alcohol and gazing with longing at male, especially black male, buttocks. Snit had best not bend over near him. Just saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a11ef48$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183593 |
On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: > What Gremlin (AI) said to me! > > https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png > > Comments welcome! Did he make a note about it somewhere? -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 19:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183597 |
On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: > >> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*! >> >> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >> >> Comments welcome! > > Did he make a note about it somewhere? Gemini agree that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. That was my experience too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a11f70d$1$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183601 |
On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>: > On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>> >>> Comments welcome! >> >> Did he make a note about it somewhere? > > Gemini agree that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an > enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. > > That was my experience too. Did the developer make a note of it? -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 21:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183602 |
On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: >>> >>>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>>> >>>> Comments welcome! >>> >>> Did he make a note about it somewhere? >> >> Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an >> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. >> >> That was my experience too. > > Did the developer make a note of it? I'm sorry, I don't understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a123b89$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183606 |
On May 23, 2026 at 1:17:48 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net>: > On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>> >>>>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>>>> >>>>> Comments welcome! >>>> >>>> Did he make a note about it somewhere? >>> >>> Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an >>> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. >>> >>> That was my experience too. >> >> Did the developer make a note of it? > I'm sorry, I don't understand. Did the developer note that these files are saved? -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 08:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7fo99FtkguU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183608 |
On 24/05/2026 00:43, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On May 23, 2026 at 1:17:48 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>> <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>: >>> >>>> On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>> >>>>>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>>>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>>>>> >>>>>> Comments welcome! >>>>> >>>>> Did he make a note about it somewhere? >>>> >>>> Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an >>>> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. >>>> >>>> That was my experience too. >>> >>> Did the developer make a note of it? >> I'm sorry, I don't understand. > > Did the developer note that these files are saved? No, he did not, as far as I'm aware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a12f595$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183616 |
On May 24, 2026 at 12:39:21 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7fo99FtkguU2@mid.individual.net>:
> On 24/05/2026 00:43, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 23, 2026 at 1:17:48 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>> <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>>>> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!>
>>>>>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comments welcome!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did he make a note about it somewhere?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an
>>>>> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my experience too.
>>>>
>>>> Did the developer make a note of it?
>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand.
>>
>> Did the developer note that these files are saved?
>
> No, he did not, as far as I'm aware.
Then what is this about:
It is a massive victory that John Daniel (the developer of EtreCheck) has
updated the details page...
Sounds like you are giving AI very bad info.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David B." <"David B."@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 14:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7gdi7F2bvpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #183621 |
On 24/05/2026 13:56, Brock McNuggets wrote: > On May 24, 2026 at 12:39:21 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote > <n7fo99FtkguU2@mid.individual.net>: > >> On 24/05/2026 00:43, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>> On May 23, 2026 at 1:17:48 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>> <n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net>: >>> >>>> On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>> <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>>>> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>>>>>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Comments welcome! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did he make a note about it somewhere? >>>>>> >>>>>> Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an >>>>>> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. >>>>>> >>>>>> That was my experience too. >>>>> >>>>> Did the developer make a note of it? >>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand. >>> >>> Did the developer note that these files are saved? >> >> No, he did not, as far as I'm aware. > > Then what is this about: > > It is a massive victory that John Daniel (the developer of EtreCheck) has > updated the details page... > > Sounds like you are giving AI very bad info. You'll have to use Archive.org to review what the developer USED to say! -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6a1300ec$0$77130$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #183632 |
On May 24, 2026 at 6:42:31 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n7gdi7F2bvpU1@mid.individual.net>: > On 24/05/2026 13:56, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On May 24, 2026 at 12:39:21 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >> <n7fo99FtkguU2@mid.individual.net>: >> >>> On 24/05/2026 00:43, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> On May 23, 2026 at 1:17:48 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>> <n7egbcFno4sU3@mid.individual.net>: >>>> >>>>> On 23/05/2026 19:50, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 11:32:23 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>>> <n7ea5nFmrepU2@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23/05/2026 19:17, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2026 at 9:27:35 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote >>>>>>>> <n7e2roFlopsU1@mid.individual.net>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What *GEMINI* (AI) said to me! <-------- *Correction made*!> >>>>>>>>> https://i.ibb.co/0yRmSfr9/Screenshot-2026-05-23-at-17-01-39.png >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Comments welcome! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did he make a note about it somewhere? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gemini agreed that no "adviser" on the ASC forums had ever asked an >>>>>>> enquirer to provide an 'old' EtreCheck report. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was my experience too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did the developer make a note of it? >>>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand. >>>> >>>> Did the developer note that these files are saved? >>> >>> No, he did not, as far as I'm aware. >> >> Then what is this about: >> >> It is a massive victory that John Daniel (the developer of EtreCheck) has >> updated the details page... >> >> Sounds like you are giving AI very bad info. > > You'll have to use Archive.org to review what the developer USED to say! You cannot say what your own message was referring to? Please, my friend, try to get to a point. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac
csiph-web