Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53030 > unrolled thread

Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-07 03:12 +1300
    Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-06 17:24 +0000
      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-07 15:51 +1300
        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 08:27 -0600
          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 09:08 +1300
            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 15:38 -0600
    Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2013-12-06 09:46 -0800
      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-07 15:51 +1300
        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-07 09:00 +0000
          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-07 23:11 +1300
          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> - 2013-12-07 16:32 +0000
            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 07:58 +1300
              Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-07 14:19 -0500
                Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 08:46 +1300
                  Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-08 15:08 +1300
                    Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 16:25 +1300
                      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-08 23:08 +1300
                        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 23:59 +1300
                          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 17:42 +0000
                      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-08 17:30 +0000
                    Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-08 12:42 -0500
                      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-09 08:08 +1300
                        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-08 19:12 +0000
                        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-08 14:19 -0500
                        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-08 23:54 +0000
                        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-12-10 01:14 -0500
                          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-10 19:26 +1300
                            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-10 12:22 -0500
                              Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-12 09:19 -0800
                                Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-12 19:22 +0000
                                Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-12 14:37 -0500
                  Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 03:08 +0000
                    Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-08 17:36 +0000
            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 03:06 +0000
          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-12-10 01:11 -0500
    Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-07 10:26 +1300
      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-07 15:51 +1300
        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-08 15:08 +1300
          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 16:25 +1300
            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-12-08 23:08 +1300
              Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 23:59 +1300
                Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-10 22:17 +1300
            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-12-08 17:32 +0000
              Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-09 08:08 +1300
        Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 03:17 +0000
          Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 16:36 +1300
            Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-08 06:23 +0000
              Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-12-08 22:47 +1300
      Re: Bought refurbished iPod touch, it's FUBARed, and other shit to. David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2013-12-07 14:58 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#53137

In article <1ldk8fm.1l8xhda1lodj71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David
Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> > > > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1970s?
> > > > 
> > > > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
> > > 
> > > dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
> > > 
> > > however, the command line is.
> > 
> > This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.
> 
> QDOS (and PC-DOS 1.0) was modelled on CP/M, which was certainly 1970s.

os x is 1960s technology at its core.

still to this day we're still stuck with shitty file extensions and
path names.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53138

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1ldk8fm.1l8xhda1lodj71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David
> Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1970s?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
> > > > 
> > > > dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
> > > > 
> > > > however, the command line is.
> > > 
> > > This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.
> > 
> > QDOS (and PC-DOS 1.0) was modelled on CP/M, which was certainly 1970s.
> 
> os x is 1960s technology at its core.
> 
> still to this day we're still stuck with shitty file extensions and
> path names.

Always thought that was, in a way, a step back from classic MacOS and
what Copeland might've been. Still, in another respect it's very nice
having the best of Unix with most of the better aspects of MacOS. But we
definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
and creator codes, and so forth.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53140

In article <1ldlqgv.1ltvphp15zm2gbN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1ldk8fm.1l8xhda1lodj71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David
> > Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1970s?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
> > > > > 
> > > > > dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
> > > > > 
> > > > > however, the command line is.
> > > > 
> > > > This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.
> > > 
> > > QDOS (and PC-DOS 1.0) was modelled on CP/M, which was certainly 1970s.
> > 
> > os x is 1960s technology at its core.
> > 
> > still to this day we're still stuck with shitty file extensions and
> > path names.
> 
> Always thought that was, in a way, a step back from classic MacOS and
> what Copeland might've been. Still, in another respect it's very nice
> having the best of Unix with most of the better aspects of MacOS. But we
> definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
> and creator codes, and so forth.

+1

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53141

In article <1ldlqgv.1ltvphp15zm2gbN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> > > > > > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1970s?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
> > > > > 
> > > > > dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
> > > > > 
> > > > > however, the command line is.
> > > > 
> > > > This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.
> > > 
> > > QDOS (and PC-DOS 1.0) was modelled on CP/M, which was certainly 1970s.
> > 
> > os x is 1960s technology at its core.
> > 
> > still to this day we're still stuck with shitty file extensions and
> > path names.
> 
> Always thought that was, in a way, a step back from classic MacOS and
> what Copeland might've been. 

it definitely is a big step back, but other parts are big steps forward.

other than file extensions, a lot of the primitive shit can be ignored,
most of the time.

> Still, in another respect it's very nice
> having the best of Unix with most of the better aspects of MacOS. 

true.

> But we
> definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
> and creator codes, and so forth.

no question about that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53148

On 2013-12-08, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <1ldk8fm.1l8xhda1lodj71N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David
>> Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> 
>> > > > > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > 1970s?
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
>> > > > 
>> > > > dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
>> > > > 
>> > > > however, the command line is.
>> > > 
>> > > This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.
>> > 
>> > QDOS (and PC-DOS 1.0) was modelled on CP/M, which was certainly 1970s.
>> 
>> os x is 1960s technology at its core.
>> 
>> still to this day we're still stuck with shitty file extensions and
>> path names.
>
> Always thought that was, in a way, a step back from classic MacOS and
> what Copeland might've been. Still, in another respect it's very nice
> having the best of Unix with most of the better aspects of MacOS. But we
> definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
> and creator codes, and so forth.

Indeed.

-- 
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]

#53210

On 12-08-2013, 14:08, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
> and creator codes, and so forth.

Yes.  We lost complexity that was way out of proportion to its benefit.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Don't get even — get odd!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53213

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 12-08-2013, 14:08, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
> > and creator codes, and so forth.
> 
> Yes.  We lost complexity that was way out of proportion to its benefit.

*blink* How do you figure that? And what on Earth was complex about type
and creator codes? They stayed out of the way, and one simply saved in
another app to switch creators, or saved as to switch types. There was
no fiddling with file extensions, no ability for novices to accidently
change or remove extensions, or pick the wrong one, nor ever any
question over what a document actually was. They 'just worked' and did
so transparently for the most part.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53221

In article <1ldogf3.1a9xdjq7b6u7pN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> > > definetly lost something too in moving back to file extensions from type
> > > and creator codes, and so forth.
> > 
> > Yes.  We lost complexity that was way out of proportion to its benefit.
> 
> *blink* How do you figure that? And what on Earth was complex about type
> and creator codes? They stayed out of the way, and one simply saved in
> another app to switch creators, or saved as to switch types. There was
> no fiddling with file extensions, no ability for novices to accidently
> change or remove extensions, or pick the wrong one, nor ever any
> question over what a document actually was. They 'just worked' and did
> so transparently for the most part.

yep. creator codes and file types was an idea well ahead of its time.

the problem was that nobody else used them so you had to add an
extension when sending it to someone else. lesser systems choked on
'foo' but not on 'foo.txt'. it was a pain and confused a lot of people.

that could easily have been automated (and was to an extent) but
instead, the nexties ditched it entirely and went back to extensions
and path names, just like it was done in the 1960s. they couldn't be
bothered with doing it properly.

that's why if you move an app out of the applications folder or dare to
rename it (notably apple's apps), it won't update properly because
apple's braindead update mechanism uses hard coded paths and can't be
bothered to even check if the target app is even there before updating
it. you'd think it would say 'can't find chess.app, do you want to
locate it' rather than blindly write to where it thought it was.

in classic mac os, all you needed to do was a lookup for the creator
code, get its folder id and then update. it didn't matter where the app
was or what it was called. you always got back the correct location.
that's one of the many things that set the mac apart from more
primitive systems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53273

On 2013-12-10 17:22:52 +0000, nospam said:
> yep. creator codes and file types was an idea well ahead of its time.
> 
> the problem was that nobody else used them so you had to add an
> extension when sending it to someone else. lesser systems choked on
> 'foo' but not on 'foo.txt'. it was a pain and confused a lot of people.

I'd also say that the problem was that they weren't easily seen and
modified, and that the codes were often completely gibberish so that
it was far from obvious looking at them what they were for.  That was
partly because they were limited to 4 chars, and partly because they
tried so hard to make them invisible (with the idealized vision that
people shouldn't have to care about them and that clicking on files
would "just work").

File extensions, especially when not limited to three chars, is easy
to see, change, understand.  The main advantage to type/creator was
the additional dimension.  Extensions are just type, and we rely on
a separate mapping of preferred apps to open various file types.

> that could easily have been automated (and was to an extent) but
> instead, the nexties ditched it entirely and went back to extensions
> and path names, just like it was done in the 1960s. they couldn't be
> bothered with doing it properly.
> 
> that's why if you move an app out of the applications folder or dare to
> rename it (notably apple's apps), it won't update properly because
> apple's braindead update mechanism uses hard coded paths and can't be

That only applies to the update mechanism and, as far as I can tell, only
on Apple's apps (though in fairness, I haven't tested with other apps I
got from the App Store).

When clicking on files to launch them, or using Launch Services in
general, no - path names are not an issue.  Similarly when using the
open command from the command line, if you add -a AppName, it certainly
doesn't ask for a path and unless you have a specific instance of an app
which you want to use, it doesn't usually matter.

> in classic mac os, all you needed to do was a lookup for the creator
> code, get its folder id and then update. it didn't matter where the app
> was or what it was called. you always got back the correct location.

Unless you had more than one copy of an app.

> that's one of the many things that set the mac apart from more
> primitive systems.

Face it - the issues of types, creators, mappings to apps is just complex
and no matter how it's done, there are going to be issues.  I very much prefer
solutions where it's obvious what's happening.  For the most part, I find
extensions vastly easier to see and manage.  The paths issue, well, it would
also be nice if it were easier to manage the Launch Services DB, but overall,
I very much prefer what we've got now in OS X versus the old creater/type
codes.

MIME-types may have been a better modern improvement - allowing specification
of a lot more with much less cryptic info - but again, there's no easy
way to attach that data to files and see it or change it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53277

In article <l8cr75$3i8$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> File extensions, especially when not limited to three chars, is easy
> to see, change, understand.  The main advantage to type/creator was
> the additional dimension.  Extensions are just type, and we rely on
> a separate mapping of preferred apps to open various file types.

Except that you have mixed up file metadata (what type of file it is)
with the file name. You have, IOW, overloaded the filename which is
always a bad thing.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53278

In article <l8cr75$3i8$1@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:

> > yep. creator codes and file types was an idea well ahead of its time.
> > 
> > the problem was that nobody else used them so you had to add an
> > extension when sending it to someone else. lesser systems choked on
> > 'foo' but not on 'foo.txt'. it was a pain and confused a lot of people.
> 
> I'd also say that the problem was that they weren't easily seen and
> modified, and that the codes were often completely gibberish so that
> it was far from obvious looking at them what they were for.  That was
> partly because they were limited to 4 chars, and partly because they
> tried so hard to make them invisible (with the idealized vision that
> people shouldn't have to care about them and that clicking on files
> would "just work").

that's a plus. the user doesn't need to see them or modify them.

file types could be distinguished by the icon. a macwrite icon looked
different than a macpaint icon.

> File extensions, especially when not limited to three chars, is easy
> to see, change, understand.  The main advantage to type/creator was
> the additional dimension.  Extensions are just type, and we rely on
> a separate mapping of preferred apps to open various file types.

they shouldn't be part of the user facing file name and changing an
extension breaks things.

if you change foo.jpg to foo.png, it *doesn't* *work*. why let the user
be able to do that? even mistyping an extension, such as jgp, will
cause a problem. 

if a file is a jpg, it's a jpg. store that info within the file system. 

> > that could easily have been automated (and was to an extent) but
> > instead, the nexties ditched it entirely and went back to extensions
> > and path names, just like it was done in the 1960s. they couldn't be
> > bothered with doing it properly.
> > 
> > that's why if you move an app out of the applications folder or dare to
> > rename it (notably apple's apps), it won't update properly because
> > apple's braindead update mechanism uses hard coded paths and can't be
> 
> That only applies to the update mechanism and, as far as I can tell, only
> on Apple's apps (though in fairness, I haven't tested with other apps I
> got from the App Store).
>
> When clicking on files to launch them, or using Launch Services in
> general, no - path names are not an issue.  Similarly when using the
> open command from the command line, if you add -a AppName, it certainly
> doesn't ask for a path and unless you have a specific instance of an app
> which you want to use, it doesn't usually matter.

the entire system relies on file paths. some stuff works around its
limitations but that's not a fix and an extra burden for the developer.

> > in classic mac os, all you needed to do was a lookup for the creator
> > code, get its folder id and then update. it didn't matter where the app
> > was or what it was called. you always got back the correct location.
> 
> Unless you had more than one copy of an app.

then it showed you a list. 

it's an edge case. most people didn't have multiple copies of an app.

> > that's one of the many things that set the mac apart from more
> > primitive systems.
> 
> Face it - the issues of types, creators, mappings to apps is just complex
> and no matter how it's done, there are going to be issues. 

nothing is perfect, but the type/creator codes was far easier and far
more reliable than the mess they have now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53112

In message <1ldjxld.1najmkue0qqq9N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
  Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> In article <1ldjvg2.hcp29n14dl38lN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>> 
>> > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
>> > > 
>> > > 1970s?
>> > 
>> > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
>> 
>> dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
>> 
>> however, the command line is.

> This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.

DOS was stolen CP/M code.


-- 
Well boys, we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a
horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we
was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we
got one little budge on those Roosskies.  At this height why they might
harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53135

In article <slrnla7ol1.u5u.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1ldjxld.1najmkue0qqq9N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
>   Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >> In article <1ldjvg2.hcp29n14dl38lN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> >> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > > > None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.
> >> > > 
> >> > > 1970s?
> >> > 
> >> > I think Tim refers to the DOS foundations of Windows.
> >> 
> >> dos wasn't 1970s and windows certainly wasn't.
> >> however, the command line is.
> 
> > This is true. What later became MS-DOS only started development in 1980.
> 
> DOS was stolen CP/M code.

Even today, cmd seems very primitive. Certainly the drive letter notion
derives from the 70s. Whether the primitive metadata (aka file
extensions) does or not, I'm not sure. Anyway. That's all.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53111

In message <mpro.mxg398005wjty006n@ypical.nospam.invalid> 
  Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> In message <071220130900190268%timstreater@greenbee.net>
>      Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>> None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows.

> 1970s?

Yes.

-- 
but then a lot of nice things turn bad out there

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53209

On 12-07-2013, 04:00, Tim Streater wrote:
> None of this alters the fundamental 1970s shittiness of Windows. The
> drive letters. The fact that you can't move an open file. I dislike a

Hey, sometimes Windows plays nanny, sometimes it doesn't.

Just like OS X.  TextEdit will give you "versions" whether you want it 
or not, but the side effect is that if you move the file, and then try
to close TextEdit, you get told "TextEdit can't find the file"

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to
    write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!"
               — from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53048

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> /begin rant
> 
> New and very latest shit:
> 
> I am truly at a low point with Apple right now. My new refurbished iPod
> touch wasn't tested before being sent out (some refurbishment process!),
> and has a permanently blurry damaged facetime camera.

Not good, but sometimes a problem slips through. Easy to fix: get it
swapped with another one.

> The iTunes store won't display any images. Just the square blue '?'
> placeholder (1). App store can't connect. App store on iPod and iTunes
> store on Mac can't download apps and install as the apps image isn't
> there to download. This is possibly related to my ISP's proxy, but
> amazingly nothing else is affected. Apple's app and iTunes store is
> special. It is affected like nothing else is. THey say they have reports
> of many ISPs in NZ, Australia and Asia having issues with their App and
> iTunes stores and the ISP's proxy servers.

Really? I deal with many members of my user group in Wellington, New
Zealand or nearby who are using a wide range of ISPs and I'm not aware
of anyone having reported an issue like this. (I might have seen it
briefly on one occasion but I put it down to a temporary glitch as it
didn't last long and I haven't seen it again.)

Which ISP are you using?

> How the hell can a major service like this not handle standard proxy
> servers?

They aren't "standard" proxy servers, as in ones used to get around a
firewall, which you typically configure via System Preferences.

We are either talking about a local node of the Akamai content
distribution network (which is what Apple uses to allow faster delivery
of static content), or the ISP's internal transparent caching proxy, or
both.

In the case of Akamai, there is some DNS magic going on to redirect you
to the Akamai node nearest to your ISP. You could try using Google's DNS
servers or OpenDNS, which would point your computer at a different
Akamai node.

In the case of the ISP's transparent proxy, they are intercepting
communication and caching copies of static data as it is delivered from
the real server, so they can save on external traffic when someone
requests the same data again. There is no way around them other than
using a VPN to another entry point into the rest of the Internet, or
using a different ISP.

I sometimes use a VPN to get around the HTTP transparent caching proxy
server Vodafone uses for its cellular network, which seems to get
overloaded or misbehave reasonably often.

My VPN is to my Mac Mini at home, which (ironically) goes out via
Vodafone again, but on a cable network that was previously TelstraClear
before Vodafone bought them, and I suspect Vodafone hasn't got around to
merging the back end infrastructure.

> I await my ISP giving me a static IP (wow - not had one of those at home
> since dialup days) and bypassing their proxy so I can have slower
> downloads, but hopefully the braindead Apple App and iTunes stores can
> work again. Assuming this is the reason for the issue.
>
> Internet sharing from one connection (e.g. ethernet) to another (say
> Airport or bluetooth) is broken in OS X 10.6.8, but worked back in
> 10.5.x.

I used Internet Sharing occasionally in 10.6.8 and it seemed to work
fine. I would have mainly been sharing from Ethernet to Airport, but I
probably did the other way around a couple of times. What was your
network configuration?

> Apple couldn't care less. THeir advice - abandon all my carbon apps, and
> upgrade them and others so I can install 10.9 and hope it has working
> internet sharing. Yeah - not going to happen. Internet sharing works in
> WinXP just fine. Not to mention in order to get 10.9 I'd need a WORKING
> FUCKING APP STORE!!!
> 
> Old shit:
> 
> Six years on I still don't have working Apple supplied Boot Camp GPU
> drivers for my 24" iMac, and rely on manually installed ATI ones found
> to work by educated guesses and much trial and error.
> 
> I'm still pissed at having to go through three 24" iMacs before I had
> one without hardware faults.
> 
> I'm still pissed at Time Machine failing me badly twice by being unable
> to restore backed up files. Thank goodness I never rely on one backup
> method.
> 
> I'm still pissed at all the other joyful shit I went through with early
> 10.5, not just it's craptastic TM.
> 
> Hell I'm still annoyed at my lime iMac frying it's video card just out
> of the standard one year warranty (I was a poor student and foolishly
> didn't buy extended Applecare back then) some 13 years ago.
> 
> I could go on, but you get the idea.
> 
> New thought:
> 
> I'm pissed that I find after doing the math the other day, I note two
> out of three Apple devices I've ever bought have failed with a hardware
> fault of some kind within the first two years. I'd like to get just a
> little more than two years fully functional operation out of a majority
> of my Apple devices, if not most of them (but going on past evidence
> that would just be a pipe dream).

I've bought lots of Apple products and none have failed within two
years.

Some have developed faults after that point:

PowerBook G4 DVI: completely died after almost five years (wouldn't
start up any more). I've seen a similar issue on at least one iBook from
the same era.

MacBook Pro (Mid 2007): suffered the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT fault after
almost three years. Fixed by local authorised service agent with one day
turnaround (I had AppleCare but didn't need it as this was a known fault
covered by a repair extension). The computer is still working fine three
years later.

Mac Mini (Late 2009, Server): both internal hard drives (Hitachi) failed
after more than three years.

The rest are still working fine (in some cases, only as far as I know as
I've sold them and have had no subsequent contact with the buyer),
including an Apple IIgs, nine Macs, three iPods, three iPads, two
iPhones, six Airport base stations, two Apple TVs.

I have had one bad repair experience:

iMac DV SE: had a minor fault with the speakers hissing while the
computer was shut down but plugged into power. Before AppleCare expired,
I arranged to get the logic board replaced as it was a known fault with
that generation. The replacement logic board appeared to have a faulty
SATA controller which corrupted the hard drive (I had backups). The
second replacement logic board didn't start up properly. The third one
worked. This might be Apple's fault, but I'm more inclined to blame poor
quality control at Renaissance. I suspect they were mixing up spare
parts and redelivering faulty boards. The repair agent can't have done a
very good job testing it.

> Conclusion:
> 
> I'm either suffering a from random bad luck and statistical confluence
> of bad shit, or Apple has major quality control issues they still have
> not addressed since the bloody 90's.
> 
> But realistically and in moments I've a cooler head, I know I must just
> be fucked by random chance. Apple cannot, surely, be so bad at quality
> control. Others would have noticed and suffered. Many more than I hear
> about.
> 
> No, I'm just fucked. The tech gods hate me :-D

Agreed.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53061

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > /begin rant
> > 
> > New and very latest shit:
> > 
> > I am truly at a low point with Apple right now. My new refurbished iPod
> > touch wasn't tested before being sent out (some refurbishment process!),
> > and has a permanently blurry damaged facetime camera.
> 
> Not good, but sometimes a problem slips through. Easy to fix: get it
> swapped with another one.

Heya David :-)

Well currently I'm considering a return instead of getting the
replacement once the local place does their business. There's no point
unless I have, at the very least, access to the iTunes store on my Mac
and App store on my iPod.

> > The iTunes store won't display any images. Just the square blue '?'
> > placeholder (1). App store can't connect. App store on iPod and iTunes
> > store on Mac can't download apps and install as the apps image isn't
> > there to download. This is possibly related to my ISP's proxy, but
> > amazingly nothing else is affected. Apple's app and iTunes store is
> > special. It is affected like nothing else is. THey say they have reports
> > of many ISPs in NZ, Australia and Asia having issues with their App and
> > iTunes stores and the ISP's proxy servers.
> 
> Really? I deal with many members of my user group in Wellington, New
> Zealand or nearby who are using a wide range of ISPs and I'm not aware
> of anyone having reported an issue like this. (I might have seen it
> briefly on one occasion but I put it down to a temporary glitch as it
> didn't last long and I haven't seen it again.)
> 
> Which ISP are you using?

Worldnet.co.nz

> > How the hell can a major service like this not handle standard proxy
> > servers?
> 
> They aren't "standard" proxy servers, as in ones used to get around a
> firewall, which you typically configure via System Preferences.

Yeah I get that, I mean standard in terms of them not being custom
software and hardware setups for every ISP. There's nothing uncommon
going on here. Every single other internet service just works.

> We are either talking about a local node of the Akamai content
> distribution network (which is what Apple uses to allow faster delivery
> of static content), or the ISP's internal transparent caching proxy, or
> both.
> 
> In the case of Akamai, there is some DNS magic going on to redirect you
> to the Akamai node nearest to your ISP. You could try using Google's DNS
> servers or OpenDNS, which would point your computer at a different
> Akamai node.

Yeah, tried other DNS servers to no avail. But that would not be an
acceptable long term solution anyway, as it would cripple my media
download speeds, and destroy things like streaming, as you know.

> In the case of the ISP's transparent proxy, they are intercepting
> communication and caching copies of static data as it is delivered from
> the real server, so they can save on external traffic when someone
> requests the same data again. There is no way around them other than
> using a VPN to another entry point into the rest of the Internet, or
> using a different ISP.
> 
> I sometimes use a VPN to get around the HTTP transparent caching proxy
> server Vodafone uses for its cellular network, which seems to get
> overloaded or misbehave reasonably often.
> 
> My VPN is to my Mac Mini at home, which (ironically) goes out via
> Vodafone again, but on a cable network that was previously TelstraClear
> before Vodafone bought them, and I suspect Vodafone hasn't got around to
> merging the back end infrastructure.

Well as I say below my ISP has options, so they reckon, that they say
have worked for other customers with similar issues. I just do not
comprehend how it can affect me and not others. Surely if it didn't work
at all every single iTunes store and App store user would be up in arms.
THere have to be a fair number of them on any NZ ISP.

> > I await my ISP giving me a static IP (wow - not had one of those at home
> > since dialup days) and bypassing their proxy so I can have slower
> > downloads, but hopefully the braindead Apple App and iTunes stores can
> > work again. Assuming this is the reason for the issue.
> >
> > Internet sharing from one connection (e.g. ethernet) to another (say
> > Airport or bluetooth) is broken in OS X 10.6.8, but worked back in
> > 10.5.x.
> 
> I used Internet Sharing occasionally in 10.6.8 and it seemed to work
> fine. I would have mainly been sharing from Ethernet to Airport, but I
> probably did the other way around a couple of times. What was your
> network configuration?

ADSL router to ethernet to Airport in my iMac, or to Bluetooth, or to
Firewire. All end up saying self assigned IP, as if they cannot see my
router's DHCP info (which of course my Mac can in Sys.
Prefs->Network->Ethernet, so somehow Internet sharing over a service
interrupts DHCP connectivity... bizarre), and manually entering the info
also fails.

Despite all that and indications it wouldn't work, my iPod was able to
connect using the software Airport base station the very first time I
set it up, and never again (I wiped it's settings to see if the camera
was a software issue - of course it wasn't, but one must go through
these pointless steps). So that's even odder.

But later testing with other devices as well, I could not ever get
internet sharing over Airport, Bluetooth (the two I'd want to use in the
longer term) and even firewire, just to make sure nothing worked. All my
devices could establish a network connection, but no DHCP info was being
passed, and manually entering info still would not allow them to connect
to the internet.

> > Apple couldn't care less. THeir advice - abandon all my carbon apps, and
> > upgrade them and others so I can install 10.9 and hope it has working
> > internet sharing. Yeah - not going to happen. Internet sharing works in
> > WinXP just fine. Not to mention in order to get 10.9 I'd need a WORKING
> > FUCKING APP STORE!!!

Not to mention installing 10.9's creation of a recovery partition would
screw up the partition order and render Boot Camp inoperative, requiring
re-creation of Boot Camp and reinstallation of everything there. If it
came to that, it might well be easier to just nuke and pave, start
afresh altogether with 10.6, upgrade to 10.9 and then Boot Camp
creation.

> > Old shit:
> > 
> > Six years on I still don't have working Apple supplied Boot Camp GPU
> > drivers for my 24" iMac, and rely on manually installed ATI ones found
> > to work by educated guesses and much trial and error.
> > 
> > I'm still pissed at having to go through three 24" iMacs before I had
> > one without hardware faults.
> > 
> > I'm still pissed at Time Machine failing me badly twice by being unable
> > to restore backed up files. Thank goodness I never rely on one backup
> > method.
> > 
> > I'm still pissed at all the other joyful shit I went through with early
> > 10.5, not just it's craptastic TM.
> > 
> > Hell I'm still annoyed at my lime iMac frying it's video card just out
> > of the standard one year warranty (I was a poor student and foolishly
> > didn't buy extended Applecare back then) some 13 years ago.
> > 
> > I could go on, but you get the idea.
> > 
> > New thought:
> > 
> > I'm pissed that I find after doing the math the other day, I note two
> > out of three Apple devices I've ever bought have failed with a hardware
> > fault of some kind within the first two years. I'd like to get just a
> > little more than two years fully functional operation out of a majority
> > of my Apple devices, if not most of them (but going on past evidence
> > that would just be a pipe dream).
> 
> I've bought lots of Apple products and none have failed within two
> years.
> 
> Some have developed faults after that point:
> 
> PowerBook G4 DVI: completely died after almost five years (wouldn't
> start up any more). I've seen a similar issue on at least one iBook from
> the same era.
> 
> MacBook Pro (Mid 2007): suffered the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT fault after
> almost three years. Fixed by local authorised service agent with one day
> turnaround (I had AppleCare but didn't need it as this was a known fault
> covered by a repair extension). The computer is still working fine three
> years later.
> 
> Mac Mini (Late 2009, Server): both internal hard drives (Hitachi) failed
> after more than three years.
> 
> The rest are still working fine (in some cases, only as far as I know as
> I've sold them and have had no subsequent contact with the buyer),
> including an Apple IIgs, nine Macs, three iPods, three iPads, two
> iPhones, six Airport base stations, two Apple TVs.
> 
> I have had one bad repair experience:
> 
> iMac DV SE: had a minor fault with the speakers hissing while the
> computer was shut down but plugged into power. Before AppleCare expired,
> I arranged to get the logic board replaced as it was a known fault with
> that generation. The replacement logic board appeared to have a faulty
> SATA controller which corrupted the hard drive (I had backups). The
> second replacement logic board didn't start up properly. The third one
> worked. This might be Apple's fault, but I'm more inclined to blame poor
> quality control at Renaissance. I suspect they were mixing up spare
> parts and redelivering faulty boards. The repair agent can't have done a
> very good job testing it.

I'll swap you - your tech life for mine. I realise it's a rather
one-side deal, but you know you've been having far too good a time of
it. Everyone needs a couple decades of challenges, right David? ;-)

> > Conclusion:
> > 
> > I'm either suffering a from random bad luck and statistical confluence
> > of bad shit, or Apple has major quality control issues they still have
> > not addressed since the bloody 90's.
> > 
> > But realistically and in moments I've a cooler head, I know I must just
> > be fucked by random chance. Apple cannot, surely, be so bad at quality
> > control. Others would have noticed and suffered. Many more than I hear
> > about.
> > 
> > No, I'm just fucked. The tech gods hate me :-D
> 
> Agreed.

Yeah, heh.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53109

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > > /begin rant
> > > 
> > > New and very latest shit:
> > > 
> > > I am truly at a low point with Apple right now. My new refurbished iPod
> > > touch wasn't tested before being sent out (some refurbishment process!),
> > > and has a permanently blurry damaged facetime camera.
> > 
> > Not good, but sometimes a problem slips through. Easy to fix: get it
> > swapped with another one.
> 
> Heya David :-)
> 
> Well currently I'm considering a return instead of getting the
> replacement once the local place does their business.

"Local place"? Do you mean an authorised Apple support agent?

I assume the refurbished iPod Touch was supplied from Apple's online
store (i.e. Apple Australia)?

> There's no point unless I have, at the very least, access to the iTunes
> store on my Mac and App store on my iPod.

True dat.

> > > The iTunes store won't display any images. Just the square blue '?'
> > > placeholder (1). App store can't connect. App store on iPod and iTunes
> > > store on Mac can't download apps and install as the apps image isn't
> > > there to download. This is possibly related to my ISP's proxy, but
> > > amazingly nothing else is affected. Apple's app and iTunes store is
> > > special. It is affected like nothing else is. THey say they have reports
> > > of many ISPs in NZ, Australia and Asia having issues with their App and
> > > iTunes stores and the ISP's proxy servers.
> > 
> > Really? I deal with many members of my user group in Wellington, New
> > Zealand or nearby who are using a wide range of ISPs and I'm not aware
> > of anyone having reported an issue like this. (I might have seen it
> > briefly on one occasion but I put it down to a temporary glitch as it
> > didn't last long and I haven't seen it again.)
> > 
> > Which ISP are you using?
> 
> Worldnet.co.nz

I don't recall any of the members I've helped in person mentioning that
they used Worldnet (the ones that come to mind are Telecom, Vodafone, ex
ihug/TelstraClear/Clearnet/Paradise now Vodafone, Slingshot, Actrix), so
it is possible that I haven't had to clash swords with Worldnet.

> > > How the hell can a major service like this not handle standard proxy
> > > servers?
> > 
> > They aren't "standard" proxy servers, as in ones used to get around a
> > firewall, which you typically configure via System Preferences.
> 
> Yeah I get that, I mean standard in terms of them not being custom
> software and hardware setups for every ISP. There's nothing uncommon
> going on here. Every single other internet service just works.
> 
> > We are either talking about a local node of the Akamai content
> > distribution network (which is what Apple uses to allow faster delivery
> > of static content), or the ISP's internal transparent caching proxy, or
> > both.
> > 
> > In the case of Akamai, there is some DNS magic going on to redirect you
> > to the Akamai node nearest to your ISP. You could try using Google's DNS
> > servers or OpenDNS, which would point your computer at a different
> > Akamai node.
> 
> Yeah, tried other DNS servers to no avail. But that would not be an
> acceptable long term solution anyway, as it would cripple my media
> download speeds, and destroy things like streaming, as you know.

It at least rules out one possible explanation of the problem - a faulty
Akamai node which Worldnet happens to be using.

> > In the case of the ISP's transparent proxy, they are intercepting
> > communication and caching copies of static data as it is delivered from
> > the real server, so they can save on external traffic when someone
> > requests the same data again. There is no way around them other than
> > using a VPN to another entry point into the rest of the Internet, or
> > using a different ISP.
> > 
> > I sometimes use a VPN to get around the HTTP transparent caching proxy
> > server Vodafone uses for its cellular network, which seems to get
> > overloaded or misbehave reasonably often.
> > 
> > My VPN is to my Mac Mini at home, which (ironically) goes out via
> > Vodafone again, but on a cable network that was previously TelstraClear
> > before Vodafone bought them, and I suspect Vodafone hasn't got around to
> > merging the back end infrastructure.
> 
> Well as I say below my ISP has options, so they reckon, that they say
> have worked for other customers with similar issues. I just do not
> comprehend how it can affect me and not others. Surely if it didn't work
> at all every single iTunes store and App store user would be up in arms.
> THere have to be a fair number of them on any NZ ISP.
> 
> > > I await my ISP giving me a static IP (wow - not had one of those at home
> > > since dialup days) and bypassing their proxy so I can have slower
> > > downloads, but hopefully the braindead Apple App and iTunes stores can
> > > work again. Assuming this is the reason for the issue.
> > >
> > > Internet sharing from one connection (e.g. ethernet) to another (say
> > > Airport or bluetooth) is broken in OS X 10.6.8, but worked back in
> > > 10.5.x.
> > 
> > I used Internet Sharing occasionally in 10.6.8 and it seemed to work
> > fine. I would have mainly been sharing from Ethernet to Airport, but I
> > probably did the other way around a couple of times. What was your
> > network configuration?
> 
> ADSL router to ethernet to Airport in my iMac, or to Bluetooth, or to
> Firewire. All end up saying self assigned IP, as if they cannot see my
> router's DHCP info (which of course my Mac can in Sys.
> Prefs->Network->Ethernet, so somehow Internet sharing over a service
> interrupts DHCP connectivity... bizarre), and manually entering the info
> also fails.

If the Mac is doing Internet sharing, then it is performing the function
of a router: doing NAT and acting as a DHCP server for the network on
the "client" side of the sharing, in this case Airport, Bluetooth or
Firewire.

Clients on that network would not be able to see the DHCP server of your
router, since it is on the other side of a NAT router (the sharing Mac).

Those clients should be able to see each other, and the sharing Mac, but
will have limited access to anything else on your local wired network
(e.g. no Bonjour, but an outgoing ping or TCP connection should work).

The sharing Mac itself reports that it has a self-assigned address on
the network interface being shared to, because Internet sharing sets up
a second logical network connection over the same physical interface,
but System Preferences shows the normal network connection, and the Mac
can't see a DHCP server via that connection, so it ends up with a
self-assigned address.

If you have a look at ifconfig in Terminal, you will see that Internet
Sharing sets up another network interface called "bridge100" (on my 10.9
Mac, don't have a 10.6 handy to retest), and that shows the IP address
the Mac is using (192.168.2.1 appears to be the standard one, with the
Mac's DHCP server offering 192.168.2.2 and higher to clients on the
shared network).

Upgrading to 10.7 or later won't help, because Internet Sharing has
worked basically the same since 10.6. (I don't remember using it in 10.5
enough to recall whether it changed between 10.5 and 10.6.)

Internet Sharing is called that because its purpose is to share your
Mac's Internet connection to other network interfaces. It is not
intending to share access to a whole local network with other network
interfaces.

If you want your Mac to act as an Ethernet to WiFi (or other network
interface) bridge rather than a router, you would need a different
solution. I haven't bothered looking for one, because I just use an
Airport Express when I want to do that.

I think the necessary tools are there, but Apple doesn't provide a
simple way to set it up.

> Despite all that and indications it wouldn't work, my iPod was able to
> connect using the software Airport base station the very first time I
> set it up, and never again (I wiped it's settings to see if the camera
> was a software issue - of course it wasn't, but one must go through
> these pointless steps). So that's even odder.
> 
> But later testing with other devices as well, I could not ever get
> internet sharing over Airport, Bluetooth (the two I'd want to use in the
> longer term) and even firewire, just to make sure nothing worked. All my
> devices could establish a network connection, but no DHCP info was being
> passed, and manually entering info still would not allow them to connect
> to the internet.

That's weird. Every time I've used Internet Sharing, all the client
devices get a DHCP address from the Mac which is running Internet
Sharing.

> > > Apple couldn't care less. THeir advice - abandon all my carbon apps, and
> > > upgrade them and others so I can install 10.9 and hope it has working
> > > internet sharing. Yeah - not going to happen. Internet sharing works in
> > > WinXP just fine. Not to mention in order to get 10.9 I'd need a WORKING
> > > FUCKING APP STORE!!!
> 
> Not to mention installing 10.9's creation of a recovery partition would
> screw up the partition order and render Boot Camp inoperative, requiring
> re-creation of Boot Camp and reinstallation of everything there. If it
> came to that, it might well be easier to just nuke and pave, start
> afresh altogether with 10.6, upgrade to 10.9 and then Boot Camp
> creation.

Yeah, well Windows is stuck in the dark ages for partitioning schemes,
and Apple's use of EFI means there is one wasted partition among the
first four, leaving just room for one Mac partition, the recovery
partition, and one Boot Camp partition.

I've never bothered with Boot Camp - never needed the performance gain
over running Windows in a VM (with a virtual hard drive).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53115

David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > /begin rant
> > > > 
> > > > New and very latest shit:
> > > > 
> > > > I am truly at a low point with Apple right now. My new refurbished iPod
> > > > touch wasn't tested before being sent out (some refurbishment process!),
> > > > and has a permanently blurry damaged facetime camera.
> > > 
> > > Not good, but sometimes a problem slips through. Easy to fix: get it
> > > swapped with another one.
> > 
> > Heya David :-)
> > 
> > Well currently I'm considering a return instead of getting the
> > replacement once the local place does their business.
> 
> "Local place"? Do you mean an authorised Apple support agent?

G'day again David. I hope your weekend goes well.

<http://www.technologycentre.co.nz/> is my local Apple dealer and repair
centre.

> I assume the refurbished iPod Touch was supplied from Apple's online
> store (i.e. Apple Australia)?

The US online store as it happens - the NZ store had no 64GB refurbs,
and it's cheaper from the US. I used NZ Post's YouShop
<https://www.nzpost.co.nz/tools/youshop/app> remailing service to get it
here (great service BTW), as they won't ship internationally.

> > There's no point unless I have, at the very least, access to the iTunes
> > store on my Mac and App store on my iPod.
> 
> True dat.

I get to find out Monday (when finally the right guy at my ISP is in to
finish the job) whether it really is a proxy issue. Otherwise the iPod
gets returned/I refuse the replacement. However that works. As with most
things, I get two answers to every question at Applecare.

> > > > The iTunes store won't display any images. Just the square blue '?'
> > > > placeholder (1). App store can't connect. App store on iPod and iTunes
> > > > store on Mac can't download apps and install as the apps image isn't
> > > > there to download. This is possibly related to my ISP's proxy, but
> > > > amazingly nothing else is affected. Apple's app and iTunes store is
> > > > special. It is affected like nothing else is. THey say they have reports
> > > > of many ISPs in NZ, Australia and Asia having issues with their App and
> > > > iTunes stores and the ISP's proxy servers.
> > > 
> > > Really? I deal with many members of my user group in Wellington, New
> > > Zealand or nearby who are using a wide range of ISPs and I'm not aware
> > > of anyone having reported an issue like this. (I might have seen it
> > > briefly on one occasion but I put it down to a temporary glitch as it
> > > didn't last long and I haven't seen it again.)
> > > 
> > > Which ISP are you using?
> > 
> > Worldnet.co.nz
> 
> I don't recall any of the members I've helped in person mentioning that
> they used Worldnet (the ones that come to mind are Telecom, Vodafone, ex
> ihug/TelstraClear/Clearnet/Paradise now Vodafone, Slingshot, Actrix), so
> it is possible that I haven't had to clash swords with Worldnet.

Assuming it is their fault, they've been excellent till now. I mean as
good as any ISP can be in NZ, where we all share the same limited
bandwidth and suffer high international latency. They've the best naked
DSL plan for my needs, that I've seen (I don't use a landline phone at
all). They answer the phone and emails fast, and always try to be
helpful and courteous. Unlike certain ISPs I've had to deal with on
behalf of others *cough* Slingshot* *hack* Vodafone *splutter*

> > > > How the hell can a major service like this not handle standard proxy
> > > > servers?
> > > 
> > > They aren't "standard" proxy servers, as in ones used to get around a
> > > firewall, which you typically configure via System Preferences.
> > 
> > Yeah I get that, I mean standard in terms of them not being custom
> > software and hardware setups for every ISP. There's nothing uncommon
> > going on here. Every single other internet service just works.
> > 
> > > We are either talking about a local node of the Akamai content
> > > distribution network (which is what Apple uses to allow faster delivery
> > > of static content), or the ISP's internal transparent caching proxy, or
> > > both.
> > > 
> > > In the case of Akamai, there is some DNS magic going on to redirect you
> > > to the Akamai node nearest to your ISP. You could try using Google's DNS
> > > servers or OpenDNS, which would point your computer at a different
> > > Akamai node.
> > 
> > Yeah, tried other DNS servers to no avail. But that would not be an
> > acceptable long term solution anyway, as it would cripple my media
> > download speeds, and destroy things like streaming, as you know.
> 
> It at least rules out one possible explanation of the problem - a faulty
> Akamai node which Worldnet happens to be using.

Yep, also reinstalled OS X, tried Windows in Boot Camp, other user
accounts, swapped ADSL routers, etc, etc... all to no avail. At least I
can be fairly certain this issue isn't on my end.

> > > In the case of the ISP's transparent proxy, they are intercepting
> > > communication and caching copies of static data as it is delivered from
> > > the real server, so they can save on external traffic when someone
> > > requests the same data again. There is no way around them other than
> > > using a VPN to another entry point into the rest of the Internet, or
> > > using a different ISP.
> > > 
> > > I sometimes use a VPN to get around the HTTP transparent caching proxy
> > > server Vodafone uses for its cellular network, which seems to get
> > > overloaded or misbehave reasonably often.
> > > 
> > > My VPN is to my Mac Mini at home, which (ironically) goes out via
> > > Vodafone again, but on a cable network that was previously TelstraClear
> > > before Vodafone bought them, and I suspect Vodafone hasn't got around to
> > > merging the back end infrastructure.
> > 
> > Well as I say below my ISP has options, so they reckon, that they say
> > have worked for other customers with similar issues. I just do not
> > comprehend how it can affect me and not others. Surely if it didn't work
> > at all every single iTunes store and App store user would be up in arms.
> > THere have to be a fair number of them on any NZ ISP.
> > 
> > > > I await my ISP giving me a static IP (wow - not had one of those at home
> > > > since dialup days) and bypassing their proxy so I can have slower
> > > > downloads, but hopefully the braindead Apple App and iTunes stores can
> > > > work again. Assuming this is the reason for the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Internet sharing from one connection (e.g. ethernet) to another (say
> > > > Airport or bluetooth) is broken in OS X 10.6.8, but worked back in
> > > > 10.5.x.
> > > 
> > > I used Internet Sharing occasionally in 10.6.8 and it seemed to work
> > > fine. I would have mainly been sharing from Ethernet to Airport, but I
> > > probably did the other way around a couple of times. What was your
> > > network configuration?
> > 
> > ADSL router to ethernet to Airport in my iMac, or to Bluetooth, or to
> > Firewire. All end up saying self assigned IP, as if they cannot see my
> > router's DHCP info (which of course my Mac can in Sys.
> > Prefs->Network->Ethernet, so somehow Internet sharing over a service
> > interrupts DHCP connectivity... bizarre), and manually entering the info
> > also fails.
> 
> If the Mac is doing Internet sharing, then it is performing the function
> of a router: doing NAT and acting as a DHCP server for the network on
> the "client" side of the sharing, in this case Airport, Bluetooth or
> Firewire.
> 
> Clients on that network would not be able to see the DHCP server of your
> router, since it is on the other side of a NAT router (the sharing Mac).
> 
> Those clients should be able to see each other, and the sharing Mac, but
> will have limited access to anything else on your local wired network
> (e.g. no Bonjour, but an outgoing ping or TCP connection should work).
> 
> The sharing Mac itself reports that it has a self-assigned address on
> the network interface being shared to, because Internet sharing sets up
> a second logical network connection over the same physical interface,
> but System Preferences shows the normal network connection, and the Mac
> can't see a DHCP server via that connection, so it ends up with a
> self-assigned address.
> 
> If you have a look at ifconfig in Terminal, you will see that Internet
> Sharing sets up another network interface called "bridge100" (on my 10.9
> Mac, don't have a 10.6 handy to retest), and that shows the IP address
> the Mac is using (192.168.2.1 appears to be the standard one, with the
> Mac's DHCP server offering 192.168.2.2 and higher to clients on the
> shared network).
> 
> Upgrading to 10.7 or later won't help, because Internet Sharing has
> worked basically the same since 10.6. (I don't remember using it in 10.5
> enough to recall whether it changed between 10.5 and 10.6.)
> 
> Internet Sharing is called that because its purpose is to share your
> Mac's Internet connection to other network interfaces. It is not
> intending to share access to a whole local network with other network
> interfaces.
> 
> If you want your Mac to act as an Ethernet to WiFi (or other network
> interface) bridge rather than a router, you would need a different
> solution. I haven't bothered looking for one, because I just use an
> Airport Express when I want to do that.
> 
> I think the necessary tools are there, but Apple doesn't provide a
> simple way to set it up.

You're saying it's normal to see 'self assigned IP'? I'm not sure I
recall seeing it before when I shared internet on this Mac ages ago and
briefly on other people's Macs, usually when staying with them and
they'd no WiFi access point. Well, ok, but aside from the initial
connection of my iPod touch, (and way back with my Nintendo DS with 10.5
which always worked with internet shared over Airport), I cannot get
internet sharing working in 10.6. No connected device can see the
outside world. It is as if the internet doesn't exist. Why it worked
only the first time I connected my iPod touch, I've no idea.

Anyway, I'm ordering a cheap WiFi access point. I'm still pissed I can't
ever (unless this blasted issue is resolved, that is - and comments in
various forums online suggest that'll be never) share via bluetooth,
though. There are times I'd like to do that when Airport is being used
to access another network.

If even reinstalling OS X and deleting every conceivably related
preference file can't sort this, I'm at a loss.

> > Despite all that and indications it wouldn't work, my iPod was able to
> > connect using the software Airport base station the very first time I
> > set it up, and never again (I wiped it's settings to see if the camera
> > was a software issue - of course it wasn't, but one must go through
> > these pointless steps). So that's even odder.
> > 
> > But later testing with other devices as well, I could not ever get
> > internet sharing over Airport, Bluetooth (the two I'd want to use in the
> > longer term) and even firewire, just to make sure nothing worked. All my
> > devices could establish a network connection, but no DHCP info was being
> > passed, and manually entering info still would not allow them to connect
> > to the internet.
> 
> That's weird. Every time I've used Internet Sharing, all the client
> devices get a DHCP address from the Mac which is running Internet
> Sharing.

As I say, it's as if they can't see the internet. My iPod touch cannot
see any DHCP info in it's WiFi settings. Regardless, internet over
Airport to it worked briefly, then stopped working.

> > > > Apple couldn't care less. THeir advice - abandon all my carbon apps, and
> > > > upgrade them and others so I can install 10.9 and hope it has working
> > > > internet sharing. Yeah - not going to happen. Internet sharing works in
> > > > WinXP just fine. Not to mention in order to get 10.9 I'd need a WORKING
> > > > FUCKING APP STORE!!!
> > 
> > Not to mention installing 10.9's creation of a recovery partition would
> > screw up the partition order and render Boot Camp inoperative, requiring
> > re-creation of Boot Camp and reinstallation of everything there. If it
> > came to that, it might well be easier to just nuke and pave, start
> > afresh altogether with 10.6, upgrade to 10.9 and then Boot Camp
> > creation.
> 
> Yeah, well Windows is stuck in the dark ages for partitioning schemes,
> and Apple's use of EFI means there is one wasted partition among the
> first four, leaving just room for one Mac partition, the recovery
> partition, and one Boot Camp partition.
> 
> I've never bothered with Boot Camp - never needed the performance gain
> over running Windows in a VM (with a virtual hard drive).

I game, so running in a VM just doesn't cut it for me, unless we're
talking stuff like Plants Vs Zombies or MS PowerPoint (I sometimes need
to use the Windows version *shudder*) :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53129

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > > David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > /begin rant
> > > > > 
> > > > > New and very latest shit:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am truly at a low point with Apple right now. My new refurbished
> > > > > iPod touch wasn't tested before being sent out (some refurbishment
> > > > > process!), and has a permanently blurry damaged facetime camera.
> > > > 
> > > > Not good, but sometimes a problem slips through. Easy to fix: get it
> > > > swapped with another one.
> > > 
> > > Heya David :-)
> > > 
> > > Well currently I'm considering a return instead of getting the
> > > replacement once the local place does their business.
> > 
> > "Local place"? Do you mean an authorised Apple support agent?
> 
> G'day again David. I hope your weekend goes well.

Been busy - hosted a barbecue for about 19 visitors on Saturday, despite
the weather being a bit iffy.

> <http://www.technologycentre.co.nz/> is my local Apple dealer and repair
> centre.
> 
> > I assume the refurbished iPod Touch was supplied from Apple's online
> > store (i.e. Apple Australia)?
> 
> The US online store as it happens - the NZ store had no 64GB refurbs,
> and it's cheaper from the US. I used NZ Post's YouShop
> <https://www.nzpost.co.nz/tools/youshop/app> remailing service to get it
> here (great service BTW), as they won't ship internationally.

That may complicate things, but the warranty is supposed to be
worldwide.

[...]

> > > > > Internet sharing from one connection (e.g. ethernet) to another (say
> > > > > Airport or bluetooth) is broken in OS X 10.6.8, but worked back in
> > > > > 10.5.x.
> > > > 
> > > > I used Internet Sharing occasionally in 10.6.8 and it seemed to work
> > > > fine. I would have mainly been sharing from Ethernet to Airport, but I
> > > > probably did the other way around a couple of times. What was your
> > > > network configuration?
> > > 
> > > ADSL router to ethernet to Airport in my iMac, or to Bluetooth, or to
> > > Firewire. All end up saying self assigned IP, as if they cannot see my
> > > router's DHCP info (which of course my Mac can in Sys.
> > > Prefs->Network->Ethernet, so somehow Internet sharing over a service
> > > interrupts DHCP connectivity... bizarre), and manually entering the info
> > > also fails.
> > 
> > If the Mac is doing Internet sharing, then it is performing the function
> > of a router: doing NAT and acting as a DHCP server for the network on
> > the "client" side of the sharing, in this case Airport, Bluetooth or
> > Firewire.
> > 
> > Clients on that network would not be able to see the DHCP server of your
> > router, since it is on the other side of a NAT router (the sharing Mac).
> > 
> > Those clients should be able to see each other, and the sharing Mac, but
> > will have limited access to anything else on your local wired network
> > (e.g. no Bonjour, but an outgoing ping or TCP connection should work).
> > 
> > The sharing Mac itself reports that it has a self-assigned address on
> > the network interface being shared to, because Internet sharing sets up
> > a second logical network connection over the same physical interface,
> > but System Preferences shows the normal network connection, and the Mac
> > can't see a DHCP server via that connection, so it ends up with a
> > self-assigned address.
> > 
> > If you have a look at ifconfig in Terminal, you will see that Internet
> > Sharing sets up another network interface called "bridge100" (on my 10.9
> > Mac, don't have a 10.6 handy to retest), and that shows the IP address
> > the Mac is using (192.168.2.1 appears to be the standard one, with the
> > Mac's DHCP server offering 192.168.2.2 and higher to clients on the
> > shared network).
> > 
> > Upgrading to 10.7 or later won't help, because Internet Sharing has
> > worked basically the same since 10.6. (I don't remember using it in 10.5
> > enough to recall whether it changed between 10.5 and 10.6.)
> > 
> > Internet Sharing is called that because its purpose is to share your
> > Mac's Internet connection to other network interfaces. It is not
> > intending to share access to a whole local network with other network
> > interfaces.
> > 
> > If you want your Mac to act as an Ethernet to WiFi (or other network
> > interface) bridge rather than a router, you would need a different
> > solution. I haven't bothered looking for one, because I just use an
> > Airport Express when I want to do that.
> > 
> > I think the necessary tools are there, but Apple doesn't provide a
> > simple way to set it up.
> 
> You're saying it's normal to see 'self assigned IP'?

On the Mac which is running Internet Sharing, yes. I tried it again to
refresh my memory before posting that. I was sharing from Ethernet to
Wi-Fi, and for the Wi-Fi interface in System Preferences it was showing
a self-assigned IP address.

I tested the shared network using my iPhone, and it was able to access
the Internet. It was assigned the address 192.168.2.2, and the Mac
showed (in ifconfig in Terminal, as I noted) it was 192.168.2.1 for the
bridge100 network. My main network is on a different address range.

> I'm not sure I recall seeing it before when I shared internet on this Mac
> ages ago and briefly on other people's Macs, usually when staying with
> them and they'd no WiFi access point. Well, ok, but aside from the initial
> connection of my iPod touch, (and way back with my Nintendo DS with 10.5
> which always worked with internet shared over Airport), I cannot get
> internet sharing working in 10.6. No connected device can see the outside
> world. It is as if the internet doesn't exist. Why it worked only the
> first time I connected my iPod touch, I've no idea.
>
> Anyway, I'm ordering a cheap WiFi access point. I'm still pissed I can't
> ever (unless this blasted issue is resolved, that is - and comments in
> various forums online suggest that'll be never) share via bluetooth,
> though. There are times I'd like to do that when Airport is being used
> to access another network.
> 
> If even reinstalling OS X and deleting every conceivably related
> preference file can't sort this, I'm at a loss.

It sounds like something got broken with the system components used by
Internet Sharing, but I'm at a loss to explain it if reinstalling the OS
didn't help.

> > > Despite all that and indications it wouldn't work, my iPod was able to
> > > connect using the software Airport base station the very first time I
> > > set it up, and never again (I wiped it's settings to see if the camera
> > > was a software issue - of course it wasn't, but one must go through
> > > these pointless steps). So that's even odder.
> > > 
> > > But later testing with other devices as well, I could not ever get
> > > internet sharing over Airport, Bluetooth (the two I'd want to use in the
> > > longer term) and even firewire, just to make sure nothing worked. All my
> > > devices could establish a network connection, but no DHCP info was being
> > > passed, and manually entering info still would not allow them to connect
> > > to the internet.
> > 
> > That's weird. Every time I've used Internet Sharing, all the client
> > devices get a DHCP address from the Mac which is running Internet
> > Sharing.
> 
> As I say, it's as if they can't see the internet. My iPod touch cannot
> see any DHCP info in it's WiFi settings. Regardless, internet over
> Airport to it worked briefly, then stopped working.
> 
> > > > > Apple couldn't care less. THeir advice - abandon all my carbon
> > > > > apps, and upgrade them and others so I can install 10.9 and hope
> > > > > it has working internet sharing. Yeah - not going to happen.
> > > > > Internet sharing works in WinXP just fine. Not to mention in order
> > > > > to get 10.9 I'd need a WORKING FUCKING APP STORE!!!
> > > 
> > > Not to mention installing 10.9's creation of a recovery partition
> > > would screw up the partition order and render Boot Camp inoperative,
> > > requiring re-creation of Boot Camp and reinstallation of everything
> > > there. If it came to that, it might well be easier to just nuke and
> > > pave, start afresh altogether with 10.6, upgrade to 10.9 and then Boot
> > > Camp creation.
> > 
> > Yeah, well Windows is stuck in the dark ages for partitioning schemes,
> > and Apple's use of EFI means there is one wasted partition among the
> > first four, leaving just room for one Mac partition, the recovery
> > partition, and one Boot Camp partition.
> > 
> > I've never bothered with Boot Camp - never needed the performance gain
> > over running Windows in a VM (with a virtual hard drive).
> 
> I game,

Ah, understood.

> so running in a VM just doesn't cut it for me, unless we're talking stuff
> like Plants Vs Zombies or MS PowerPoint (I sometimes need to use the
> Windows version *shudder*) :-)

I gather you also have at least two Mac native partitions, hence the
problem with the recovery partition breaking Boot Camp?

If you have a single Mac partition, then the recovery partition and Boot
Camp can coexist peacefully.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web