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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56820

Re: Can't Eject a Volume

Show all headers | View raw

In article <bmq1cmF5p5pU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> 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? 

have you disassembled all of the millions of apps out there? (no)

or are you talking out your ass, as usual? (yes)

> 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.

the reality is that it's not anywhere near the disaster you claim it to
be. 

although it's technically possible that it could happen, actual real
world experience indicates that it's rare. 

easy to test - force quit and see if anything is corrupted. repeat a
bunch of times. 

> 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.

> 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. 

nobody said it won't ever happen. you are as usual, moving the
goalposts.

> > 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.

obviously, i'm referring to the latter. 

that's why there is an option to force-quit. if every crash was
automatically terminated, such an option would not be needed.

a 'professional developer' would have known that.

> 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.

that makes you a lying hypocrite.

> > 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.

you can't even keep your own story straight. 

> > 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.

real world experience always trumps theoretical possibilities. 

i force-quit finder a couple of times a month because it's a buggy
piece of shit and i haven't had any problems with corrupted files. i've
needed to do this since the early days of os x. 

xcode is much worse. on average, i need to force quit it several times
a day, and it keeps a *lot* of stuff open. not a single problem there
either.

i have seen xcode corrupt files *without* force-quitting, simply by
closing the project from the menus.

that means what you're saying is wrong. but you'll never admit it.

> 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.

> >> >> > 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.

the reality is that finder is very fragile. it's very buggy and apple
has zero interest in fixing it. some of the bugs have been there for
over 10 years and it's not particularly hard to make it crash either.
apple says 'works as designed'. interesting design goal, to crash. 

as i said above, i have to force-quit finder every so often and have
yet to lose *anything*, and that goes back to the early days of os x.

that's real world proof.

> 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.

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Can't Eject a Volume nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid (Nick Naym) - 2014-02-18 14:32 -0500
  Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 14:48 -0500
  Re: Can't Eject a Volume billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-18 19:52 +0000
    Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-02-22 12:05 -0800
      Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 21:25 +0000
        Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-02-22 21:03 -0800
  Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-18 20:13 +0000
  Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Ralph <alan.ralph@gmail.com> - 2014-02-18 20:18 +0000
    Re: Can't Eject a Volume Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-20 15:13 +0000
      Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Ralph <alan.ralph@gmail.com> - 2014-02-20 21:07 +0000
        Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 21:52 +0000
          Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 06:27 -0500
            Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 16:53 +0000
              Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 13:07 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 12:38 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 21:24 +0000
              Re: Can't Eject a Volume Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-21 22:51 +0000
        Re: Can't Eject a Volume Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-21 01:35 +0000
          Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 06:27 -0500
          Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 17:02 +0000
            Re: Can't Eject a Volume Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-21 17:10 +0000
              Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 17:21 +0000
              Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 13:07 -0500
            Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 13:07 -0500
              Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 19:14 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 14:49 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 22:13 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 00:29 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 16:59 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-02-25 16:49 +1100
              Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-21 18:28 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 00:29 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 10:02 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 10:22 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 17:01 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 12:13 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 17:16 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-22 12:34 -0500
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 21:23 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-22 21:46 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 21:53 +0000
                Re: Can't Eject a Volume Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-22 17:00 +0000
  Re: Can't Eject a Volume M-M <nospam.m-m@ny.more> - 2014-02-18 20:37 -0500
    Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-19 02:13 +0000
      Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 21:42 -0500
        Re: Can't Eject a Volume Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-19 04:21 +0000
          Re: Can't Eject a Volume nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 23:35 -0500
  Re: Can't Eject a Volume Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-20 15:13 +0000

csiph-web