Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Can't Eject a Volume Date: 22 Feb 2014 16:59:16 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 221 Message-ID: References: <1lh9o11.jdr30za7497aN%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> <210220141307413164%nospam@nospam.invalid> <210220141449480745%nospam@nospam.invalid> <220220140029146712%nospam@nospam.invalid> X-Trace: individual.net RHGUNkT9WHCGeT976LE9ywSQ5xY6VNp/eTmDyAVqaUCy0uaM69 Cancel-Lock: sha1:CB4abhslzzIK16SGIB7DE0ANluk= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:56826 On 2014-02-22, nospam wrote: > In article , Jolly Roger > wrote: > >> >> >> To expand on this, force quitting an application can cause any >> >> >> file that the application currently has open to become corrupt, >> >> >> since it does not give the application a chance to finish >> >> >> updating the file in question and close it before quitting. >> >> >> Applications may have their own preference files open, or other >> >> >> files on your startup volume. If an application's preference >> >> >> file becomes malformed or corrupt, it can cause the application >> >> >> in question to behave in unpredictable ways on subsequent >> >> >> launches. >> >> > >> >> > that's possible, but very unlikely because files are written >> >> > atomically. >> >> >> >> mr.know-it-all won't be able to provide evidence that all (or even >> >> most) files are written atomically by all applications. The fact >> >> is that application developers may choose keep files open for >> >> relatively long periods of time, and whether an application has a >> >> file open, or has completed writing to that file, at any point in >> >> time cannot be predicted ahead of time. >> > >> > developers could do a lot of things. that doesn't mean they do. >> > >> > the vast majority of developers are not stupid and write files >> > atomically because they know that's the safest way to do it. >> >> Just as I predicted, mr.know-it-all can't produce a shred of proof of >> his asinine assertion. > > where's you proof that app developers write files nonatomically? Classic burden of proof fallacy. Now mr.know-it-all is attempting to place the burden of poof on me, when it is *he* who cannot prove his asinine assertion that all (or even most) files are written atomically by all applications. Notice that he *still* hasn't been able to offer a shred of proof of his assertion, yet continues to act as if I am wrong for questioning his assertion. Nice, try, weasel boy, but you fail again! He's a very foolish weasel! >> No surprise. As an actual professional software developer, I have >> seen with my own eyes quite a large number of both lazy and even >> well-meaning developers fail to follow best practices a large portion >> of the time. > > you're not the only software developer in this world and just because > you say something does not make it fact nor is it any sort of proof. Straw man again! I never said I was the only software developer in this world, nor did I say anything was fact. All I did was ask for proof of mr.know-it-all's silly assertion that all (or even most) files are written atomically by all applications - something he simply cannot prove. > the reality is that it's not anywhere near the disaster you claim it > to be. Straw man AGAIN! Nobody in this thread has suggested anythign is a disaster, or anything close to it! You can't make this stuff up, kids. Weasel boy just keep spinning the hits! Keep digging! >> I've even observed this in code written by Apple developers. > > so what? i know a lot of apple engineers and have worked with many of > them at one point or another. The point you seem to be unable to get is that all software developers make mistakes - even Apple software developers. That's all. You seem to be unable or unwilling to accept this. So be it! >> I've also seen with my own eyes application preference files becoming >> malformed due to force quitting in the past. So it's only natural >> that I question mr.know-it-all's silly assertion that file corruption >> due to force quitting applications is very unlikely. Notice how he >> still is unable to offer proof of his assertion. I'm still waiting, >> but I won't wait forever. > > notice that *you* haven't offered *any* proof at all. Burden of proof fallacy again. I only questioned *your* assertion that all (or even most) files are written atomically by all applications. The burden of poof is on you, idiot! Keep digging, mr.weasel! That's a fine hole you've got going! >> > not only that, but just because a file is open when an app is >> > force-quit does mean it will be corrupted. a force-quit is >> > typically done *after* an app has crashed, so the damage, if any, >> > has already happened. >> >> Now mr.know-it-all is trying to move the goal posts, and suggesting >> that typically force quitting is only done after applications have >> crashed, (which is rather silly, considering an application that has >> crashed *can't* be quit because it's no longer running - the very >> definition of a crash). > > i'm not moving a thing. > > apps can crash more than one way. sometimes they are terminated by the > system and sometimes they hang and need to be force-quit. A hang isn't a crash. A crash isn't a hang. They are two distinctly different states (something even novice software developers know), yet you are trying to use them interchangeably. Nice try, but no cigar, weasel boy. Keep digging! >> Ludicrous! But he'll keep digging the hole deeper, because he simply >> cannot admit he is wrong - ever. He would love us to ignore that he >> hasn't yet produced a single shred of proof of his original assertion >> by distracting us with yet another hair-brained assertion. He's a >> silly weasel, that's for sure! > > pot meet kettle. > > you have yet to provide any proof. all you've said is it's true > because you said it's true. it doesn't work that way. Burden of proof fallacy yet again! Weasel boy makes assertions he can;t back up, then tries to turn the tables asking others for proof he's not right! He's a delusional sad little weasel! > that makes you a lying hypocrite. Ad hominem attack! The last resort of a silly little weasel! >> > if this was a huge problem, we'd be hearing about data loss when >> > people force-quit apps, and we don't, therefore it's not a serious >> > issue. >> >> Straw man. Nobody in this thread suggested there was a huge problem. >> Nice try, weasel. Keep digging! > > other than you, that is. > > if we assume what you said above is true, where force-quitting an app > is almost certain to corrupt files, then it must be a huge problem. Except I never said that. Straw man again? Really, mr.weasel? This is getting very boring! Please keep digging - eventually we won't be able to hear you anymore! >> > real world experience is what matters. >> >> As a professional software developer, I have enough real-world >> experience to say with confidence that applications can and do keep >> files open while running, and force quitting those applications can >> result in malformed or incomplete data in said filed. Anyone >> disputing this clearly doesn't know much about the reality of >> software development. > > it *can* happen, but it doesn't happen all that often. in fact, it's > relatively rare. Another bold claim! Please do provide proof of this new assertion! Oh, right. You can't, and you'll attempt to turn the tables and ask me for proof you aren't right. Got it. Boring. >> But mr.know-it-all thinks he knows better than every other human >> being on planet Earth. And he'll continue to argue about this until >> we get bored with his shenanigans. Then he'll take our lack of >> participation in his petty argument as a sign that he has somehow won >> the argument. Sad. > > more bullshit. none of that is true. Sure seems that way to me. >> >> >> > Force quitting an app like the Finder where you are never >> >> >> > sure of the state it is in is absolutely to be avoided. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I would consider Finder to be that fragile - >> >> >> certainly not as fragile as other applications or system >> >> >> processes. >> >> > >> >> > nonsense. finder is one of the buggiest parts of os x and apple >> >> > has shown no interest in fixing it. >> >> >> >> Now he's trying to move the goal posts yet again. He ignores that >> >> we are talking specifically about files open by the Finder. Now >> >> he's trying to change the topic to general Finder bugs. Lame. >> >> That's not what we are discussing here. Nice try, but no cigar, >> >> mr.know-it-all. >> > >> > actually it is what is being discussed. >> > or have you already forgotten that *you* said finder was not >> > fragile? >> > >> > typical for you, when facts are shoved in your face, you get all >> > bent out of shape. >> >> DING DING DING! Straw man again! mr.know-it-all bullheadedly >> continues insisting that we were talking about Finder bugs in general >> when it's clear as day that my statement, in context with the >> entirety of this thread, is about force quitting Finder and resulting >> file malformation/corruption. > > you said finder is not fragile, without any facts to back up your > claim. mr.weasel just *loves* to take statements out of context and try to distort the conversation! My comment about Finder not bing fragile was, in context, about it not being so fragile when it comes to *corrupting files* (which is what we have been discussing for a couple days now in this thread). But weasel boy wants to ignore that and make it about general Finder bugginess, because that's a distraction from the actual topic at hand. Silly weasel, tricks are for kids! >> He has to do this, because he knows he has no valid argument about >> the topic at hand. So he tries to change the topic of discussion. >> Lame. Keep digging, you silly weasel boy! > > i haven't changed anything. you are a liar. Keep on digging, weasel boy! -- 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