The Adventures of Systems Boy!

I've been hopeful in the past about Adobe installers, and there have been improvements. But Adobe's update process still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth every time I try to use it, which is with less and less frequency, largely because of said bitter taste.


Even more frustrating is the fact that Adobe's updaters continue to annoy even after being expressly told not to. To wit, this dialog popped up out of nowhere recently, despite its preferences being set otherwise.


I contend that Adobe's automated update process is just plain broken. It's actually much easier to use their support site than their updater. That's what I do when I need to run Adobe updates. And I keep the updater turned off.

Or at least I try to.

Labels: Applications, Rants

Labels: Hardware, Rants

So there's an incredibly annoying and puzzling behavior in Mac OS X with regards to duplicate computer names on the LAN. Most Mac Admins probably know what I'm talking about. Here's the deal: Let's say you have a Mac Pro on your home network named Spanky and it has an IP address of 192.168.1.25. Let's also say, for the purposes of argument, that your best friend — who likes to emulate you in every way — has a Macbook named Spanky with an IP of 192.168.1.25 on his home network. (Hey, it could happen.) Now let's say your pal decides to come over, and he decides, "Hey, I think I'll bring my Macbook over so we can swap some illegally obtained music and pornography." He gets to your house to find you happily surfing the 'net. He whips out his Spanky and plugs it into your network, fires that puppy up, and Bam! All of a sudden your Mac Pro locks up. You can no longer surf. And you get an error message that looks a little something like this:


You go to your Sharing Preferences (or your Terminal, or what-have-you) and, sure enough, your computer has been renamed. Renamed! WTF! Why is your computer, on your network, suddenly called "Spanky-2"? Because that's how Mac OS X handles duplicate computer names on the same network. It renames the existing computer to existing computer-2. Not the intruder. Not the new kid on the block. Your computer is now the computer formerly known as your computer. Why, it's pure genius, I tells ya! Brilliant!

Seriously, what in God's name were they thinking? Because, the way I see it, this goes beyond annoying into the realm of the dangerous.

Case in point: Let's say your Mac Pro Spanky is actually a server that provides services — authentication, Kerberos, LDAP, file sharing, the works — for a network full of computers. And let's say your friend is actually a guest on that network. When that guest plugs his computer into your network, and it just happens to be named the same thing as your server, God help you. You just lost — well, I'm not sure how much, but — a significant portion of your services. And all it takes is a computer name? I can rename any Mac on any network from any other Mac on that network by just changing my Mac's name? What's more, if you can get the IP of that server, you can bring it down entirely. That is total shit.

Strangely, it's been this way for at least three iterations of the OS now — since 10.3 — and it's still this way in 10.5. I am appalled. Can someone please explain the rationale for this to me? Please? 'Cause from where I sit, this is a major security flaw. To my mind it makes way more sense to have the newly installed machine make changes to it's configuration than to essentially be able to force changes on another machine. It's just backwards. And dangerous. And it desperately needs to be fixed.

UPDATE 1:
Mat X points out two very important facts: 1) the name change in this instance should only affect the Bonjour (.local) name of the duplicate machine, not it's actual name (the name it calls itself) or it's FQDN (the name as resolved by a DNS server), and 2) a client name change on the LAN should not be able to bring down a server with the same name because of the previous fact.

Dude, you're totally right, though I have seen, way back in the old days (10.2 maybe?) a duplicate name kill a server. So it did used to be possible. Nowadays though, Mac OS X Server has better, smarter naming conventions that prevent such things. I will say, though, that what prompted this was that I booted a clone of my own machine up on the LAN (same name, same IP) and it killed my computer, internet-wise, probably more because of the duplicate IP address. It's possible that all would have righted itself over time if I'd waited to see. I was just so annoyed by the behavior that I went on a bit of a rant. I still think it would be better behavior to leave the existing LAN client alone and make changes only to the new Mac on the LAN. But still, I got a little carried away.

Thanks for keeping me on my extremely bitchy and unscientific toes!

UPDATE 2:
So I've been doing some more testing on this issue. And while duplicate names on the network will not bring down your Mac OS X Server, a duplicate IP address will. Here's what I did:

1. I changed my client's IP address to match that of the Mac OS X Server (both Leopard 10.5.1). My machine got kicked off the internet and I got this warning:
   
   
   
2. I rebooted my client machine. Once the client had rebooted, the server got the above alert.
3. At which point the server could not ping out to the internet. Bad Mac OS X! Bad!

So, while my rant is partially in error, there does seem to be a bit of a flaw in the way Mac OS X handles new duplicate clients — particularly duplicate IP addresses. And I maintain that a better way would be to only modify the behavior on the most recent addition to the LAN.

Labels: Lab, Leopard, MacOSX, Rants, Server, Systems, Tiger

I've heard that the WACOM company's name is supposed to be pronounced "wack-em." But I don't care. I'm saying "way-com." 'Cause let's face it, you just sound stupid saying, "Hey, can I try your wack-em?" Or, "Your wack-em is huge. Much bigger than my wack-em." Or, "Wow, I just love my new, giant wack-em."

Oh yeah, and I say, "OS Ecks" as well.

Deal with it.

Labels: Hardware, Humor, Rants

The term "sea change" has been extremely popular of late. I'm not sure why. I have a sneaking suspicion that the universe of online Mac journalism is highly incestuous. (I feel dirty.) But stranger still, the word "rejigger" has popped up, in one form or another, in no fewer than three articles or blogs, today alone, each related to Leopard.

And that is why rejigger is today's Word of the Day.

Okay kids. Give it a rest now.

Labels: Humor, Internet, Leopard, Rants

Universal recently announced that they — like a handful of other major record companies — would begin offering DRM-free music for download at a number of online stores. But not on iTunes. It's a strange and controversial decision, and probably represents Universal's best efforts to gain some control over the online music market, which, from everything I've ever read, is currently dominated by iTunes. The tech world is, of course, up in arms over Universal's decision. But I find all this hullabaloo strange.

Ken Fisher, at Ars Technica, writes:

I know I've run across a few Universal albums I would have bought but then reconsidered, thinking, "This will be DRM-free soon." Foolish? Maybe, but DRM-free products are clearly superior, and it looks like music fans in general believe that to be the case.

Yes, Ken. Without a doubt that was indeed unbelievably foolish. You see, Ken, and anyone else out there who cares about this sort of thing and happens to be listening, which, come to think of it, is probably about six people at this point, there's a perfectly reasonable alternative to DRMed downloads that's been available for over 25 years: Buy the fucking CD! Yes, you can still buy CDs. You can even buy them online. And guess what? They're completely, 100% DRM-free. Not only that, they're better quality, they often include song lyrics and nifty graphics, and you don't ever have to worry about making a backup.

I find it strange that people are fighting so hard for DRM-free music online when the option to buy a CD has existed for years. Do DRM-free online music purchases offer certain conveniences? Sure. Immediate gratification, for one. But that's about it. In fact, the major advantage of DRM-free music will probably go to the music companies, they're just too stupid to realize it: increases in online sales over physical sales, which, since online music requires zero manufacturing costs, will be a huge gain for them.

So what are you fighting for? Essentially, you're fighting for the record companies to make more money so that your digital musical lifestyle can be slightly more convenient and instantly gratifying. Stop it. Please. It's stupid and I'm tired of reading about it. The solution is really quite simple. If you've forgotten, I'll say it one more time: Buy the fucking CD!

Ah, yes. I do feel better.

Labels: Internet, Rants

I still have no time to post, but I did want to squeeze in a quickie regarding yesterday's WWDC news (or lack thereof).

Labels: Internet, Rants

I've determined that approximately 75-80% of all technical questions can be accurately answered with the response, "Because you are a dumbass."

Examples:

• Q: Why isn't my computer working?
  A: Because you are a dumbass.
• Q: Why did my computer freeze?
  A: Because you are a dumbass.
• Q: Why can't I log in to the server (x)?
  A: Because you are a dumbass.
• Q: Why can't my browser read the website (x)?
  A: Because you are a dumbass.
• Q: Why can't I get online?
  A: Because you are a dumbass.
• Q: Why can't I find my file (x)?
  A: Because you are a dumbass.
• Q: Why is this piece of technology (x) so slow?
  A: Because you are an unbelievable dumbass.

Seriously folks, computers have become exceptionally reliable and predictable. If something's not working, well, frankly, it's probably your fault.

Now leave me alone. I have work to do.

Idiot.

Labels: Humor, Rants, Systems

The weather's been insanely variable 'round here for the past couple months. Recently I took this screen shot from WeatherDock.

Seriously, Mother Nature, what are you smokin'?

Labels: Applications, Humor, Rants

Hello out there, oh loyal, faithful readers. All three of you.

Just wanted to pop in and say hi. It's been a solid month since I've posted anything, and that's pretty unusual. I've even stopped responding to comments, which is almost unheard of. Unfortunately it's been somewhat out of my control. Both work and life have been insanely busy. I'm not so much making excuses here as posting this so that anyone who might be reading this site knows that:
A) I am not dead (or even injured)
B) I am not planning on discontinuing the blog.

That said, I wanted to just take a moment and explain what's been going on. Our department is getting a face lift. Which is to say that we are completely remodeling our floor. Gut rehab: Power. A/C. Network cabling. Seriously. Everything is being completely redone. It's freaking fantastic. It's also a hell of a lot of work as I'm the one overseeing the entire transition, from a technological standpoint anyway, which, since this is a digital art program, represents a fairly large piece of the pie. So I'm exceptionally busy helping plan the new floor — from actual per-room computer placement, to the power needs and layout of the server room. Much of this is new to me, so I'm being educated quite rapidly and on the fly. And since this is a gut rehab, we'll have to clear off the floor at the end of the semester, so I'm planning that transition as well — from moving staff computers to another floor and setting them up with an ad-hoc LAN, to moving our entire DMZ to said floor along with the requisite internet pipes. It's not easy, and it's very much a concerted effort. Fortunately, everyone here has really pulled together, and we're actually making it happen somehow. And while I'm elated to finally be getting all this done (it's been a long time coming, believe me, and we desperately need it, if for the cabling and power problems alone — don't even get me started on the A/C!) I'm way too overwhelmed to write about any of it intelligently right now. Or much of anything else for that matter.

We have been forging ahead with our various long term projects, however. Most notably, I've started building and testing an authentication server for the external network. So far it's going exceedingly well, and it shouldn't be long before our external network has a single authentication source (hopefully this summer sometime). I've been taking notes, so expect a post sometime when things get back to normal. We've also recently bought and set up a firewall appliance which we're loving. It's now being used to properly host our internal and DMZ networks, and is really making our network management a thousand times easier and more sensible. We'll be using it for limited VPN as well, which will be sweet. Today a friend will be running a demo of Leopard in his class as well. These — along with all the goodies associated with the renovation — are all posts in the pipe. Just as soon as I get some time.

You know — if I may wax reflective for just a second — it's not even so much that I have no time to write. Clearly, I'm able to write this post. The real problem is that writing about technology takes a certain amount of brain power. No, not even brain power. Brain space is maybe more like it. With everything I'm dealing with, I've got plenty to write about, and even some time to write about it. What I'm missing is the time to actually process what I'm experiencing. And before I can write about it, I have to process it. It's not so much that I need time to write as that I need to time to think. And that I just don't have right now.

So that's what's been going on here. This can't all last forever, of course. And I'm sure I'll be posting regularly again soon. Until then, do check back from time to time. I'll try to post small bits of stuff as I can.

Okay then. Back to the trenches. This has been fun.

Labels: Lab, Rants, TheBlog

I'm in a rotten mood lately. It's my time of year. Sorry for all the ranting and swearing. Keep your kids away for the next couple of weeks.

Right, then.

I've always been baffled by the use of the "Start" page or "Enter" page at the front of some websites. I mean, really, what's the point of these things? If I didn't want to start or enter the site, I wouldn't have gone there in the first place. And, technically, I've already "entered" the site simply by navigating to it. So, I've always asked myself, why the extra step?


Today I think I figured out the answer. The Enter page signals something subtle but immensely important: You are about to be fucked up the ass. When you click the Enter button, a series of things is about to happen. First, a new window will pop up. This new window will be of a size, position and aspect ratio of the site author's choosing, i.e. not of your choosing and probably as gigantic as possible. The URL bar, bookmark bar, tab bar and anything else you might rely on for browsing the web will be disabled. And this new, probably gigantic window will most likely be populated with... nothing, at least for the first few seconds, save for a "progress" bar (really, is this progress?), which is a sure sign that, yes, you've just been anally reamed. Congratulations.


Eventually, the Flash will load and you'll be browsing the site in no time, and, like some sort of alien abduction, you'll have absolutely no memory of this violation. Next time you see that Enter button, you'll go right ahead and click it like nothing ever happened. And then later you'll scratch your head and wonder where all the rectal bleeding is coming from.

So this post is a warning to all you forgetful folks out there. If you see a Start or Enter page for a site, just remember: It's a trap! Don't click it! No good can come of it.

Someday you'll thank me.

Labels: Internet, Rants

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the perception that Macintosh computers are more expensive than comparably equipped computers from other manufacturers persists to this day, despite the fact that this has not been true for several years now. Steven Frank recently wrote:

"Despite recent dramatic price drops across Apple's line, I still hear from beloved but uninformed relatives that Macs are "too expensive". It's a stigma that they seem unable to shake, even with raw numbers in your face demonstrating that the Mac is equal to or cheaper than a similarly equipped Dell."

Most Mac users — and non-Mac users in the know — can tell you that Macs, for what they offer, are very reasonably priced. Yet the stigma remains.

I believe the reason for this is that Macs just look damn nice. People take one look at a Mac and just instantly assume that it must be expensive, because no computer — hell, no product — could look that good and cost the same as something less beautiful.

If Apple is ever going to shake the perception that their computers cost more, they're going to have to build them uglier. Actually, I think they should come out with a whole new budget product line. Encase everything in cheap, shiny, silver plastic — you know, that chromed shit that just looks and feels awful and flimsy. This should cover 90% of the machine. Some flashy lights and extra, useless buttons would be a good touch too. Latches and ports should also feel cheap and sport gaudy colors. Display hinges on portables should be stiff and unyielding. Maybe the Mac OS X interface should uglied-up a bit too. The display itself should, of course, be ultra-glossy.

Call it the UglyMac.



Of course, the price points for this budget line would be pretty much the same, because Macs are already sold at an average market cost. But the perception that they cost more would almost certainly dissolve. Finally.

There you go. Problem solved.

Labels: Hardware, Rants

del.icio.us has suddenly, and for no apparent reason, begun sorting my bookmarks in reverse order. Of course the sort order always seemed completely arbitrary and impossible to configure anyway, but still I got very used to clicking things in that certain, screwy order. And now it's backwards.

Um... What The Fuck?... I'm irked.

Anyone know a way to sort del.icio.us bookmarks in some logical order, once and for all? Please. I'm begging.

Labels: Internet, Rants

Period. And here's why: Anytime someone screws up and even makes the tiniest attempt to try and shift the blame, it's tacky. It's poor sportsmanship. It's poor form. Since everyone is spouting analogies, here's mine: Let's say I throw you a can of Coke. You know, you're thirsty, and I go, "Here's a can of Coke," and I throw it to you. But you're not ready. You're not expecting that can of Coke to be flying across the room at you, and you miss it. You miss the catch, and you get conked on the head by my flying can of Coke. Now, if my response is, "Dude, I'm so sorry I hit you in the head with that can of Coke," that's appropriate. We'll probably remain friends, you and I. But, if I say something like, "Sorry I hit you on the head with that can of Coke, but you really should have caught it," well now, that's just plain old tacky. And you're probably going to remember that, and it will probably fester in your mind, perhaps for some years, until it finally comes out in some fit of rage that ultimately ends our friendship. 'Cause, basically, I'm an asshole for saying that, and I probably said a whole lot more stuff like that, and by now you probably have every reason to hate me. But I digress.

The point in time when you royally screw up — like Apple did by releasing iPods with viruses on them — is not ever a point in time when you want to be pointing out someone else's flaws. I don't know what it is about the social human mind that recoils at such behavior. It just does. And that's why most of us think Apple's response to their screw-up was just plain... Uh... Right, tacky!

Maybe they need to release another press release that says, "We're sorry we screwed up, and we're also sorry we tried to shift the blame." A-la, "I'm sorry I hit you with that Coke, and I'm sorry I tried to blame you for it after." That might help. Might.

Labels: Hardware, Rants

Warning: Many of the links on this page are annoying as shit. Please click with care. Or at least with a sane, popup-blocking browser.

Every time I click on your ad in my browser, and a popup window with some dumbass Flash presentation starts loading, and I'm sitting there waiting for you to give me some information about your product, and getting bored, and I know if wait for it I'll be under-whelmed and under-informed and probably even more annoyed, you lose me. I close the window before that stupid Flash animation ever gets a chance to finish loading. Fuck you. Why do I have to wait for you to sell me something? My time is precious.

Or another scenario: I load up a bunch of tabs with pages I'm interested in. Some of these pages might be movie sites, some trailers, or even just Apple's site, which, since they started auto-playing their ads at every visit, I've axed from my dailies. (They've mercifully stopped doing this with the introduction of the MacBook, but it was really annoying for a while.) One of these pages has more Flash animation, with that annoying, generic background sound that everyone just hates and that adds absolutely nothing to the experience. Some of the trailers start playing automatically. Great. Now I've got sound spewing from several different tabs at once, and I have to go stop each movie trailer one by one. Worse, when I finally locate the page with the Flash sound I find that it can't be turned off. There's no mute button.

Look, assholes, I'm trying my best to learn about your products. This is stuff I'm already really interested in, or I wouldn't have clicked it in the first place. Your mindless, thoughtless use of Flash and audio say to me that you don't give a shit about my browsing experience, nor do you comprehend how people that use tab-capable browsers (i.e., any of us not using I.E.) actually surf the web. I'm sorry, but rather than engendering sympathy or even interest for your cause or product, all you're really doing is pissing me off and losing my business in the process. More often than not, I just close your window and forget about it. I don't need more stuff, or more to read, all that badly. And I certainly don't need more Flash.

Why do we surf? Most of us surf for information. Why do we click on ads? Again, for information. Not for some Flash designer's idea of adver-tainment.

I repeat: You're losing my business. Cut it out.

Labels: Rants

This is stupid, I know, but it's been bugging me for a long time, and I just can't hold it in any longer: Is Apple ever going to change that tab bar at the top of their web site? 'Cause, dude, it is so, like, Puma. So iMac G3. So Pinstripe.



Seems like Apple has redesigned almost every part of their site — from the black pages in the Final Cut Studio section, to the clean modular look of the iPod/iTunes and .Mac pages, the Safari-esque sidebars of the Apple Store, and the metallic look of the Quicktime section. But everywhere you go, that ugly-ass, 10.1-lookin', pinstripe-and-chicklet-button tab bar persists. Isn't it about time they updated that thing?

And please, no metal.

Thanks.

Labels: Internet, Rants

I don't really understand why everyone's all of a sudden interested in the Repair Permissions function of Disk Utility. But lately there's been a flurry of writings on the subject of whether or not you should repair permissions before and/or after a software update. It started way the hell back in god-knows-when (actually it was in May of 2005) with an article by a guy called Rosyna who happens to make Unsanity's haxies. This was only recently followed up with two posts by the brilliant author of Daring Fireball, John Gruber. In his second post he blasts MacFixIt for recommending the procedure. And now we have a rather thorough response from them as well.

Why, it's a regular permissions flame war, I tell ya.

Well, I wanted to weigh in on this from my own personal experience, briefly. As someone who manages rooms full of Macintosh computers that are chock full of every imaginable piece of software — both from Apple and third-party vendors — on a daily basis, I have to say, repairing permissions before and/or after a software update — or on a regular basis for that matter — is a perfectly reasonable precautionary measure. I can't tell you how many times a simple permissions repair has fixed an errant problem on a workstation or a client computer. Repair Permissions has saved my ass on countless occasions. And as far as repairing permissions affecting software updates goes, it seems to me that if an incorrect permission can affect overall system or application behavior, it's quite likely it could affect a software update. What happens when the software update package runs and hits a file it's supposed to modify or replace but can't because the permissions are incorrect? Well, seems to me like that could screw things up and leave you with an incomplete install of the update. And that could be bad. This doesn't sound like voodoo to me; it sounds like common sense.

So why doesn't Apple recommend repairing permissions before/after software updates? Well, I have long thought they should. In fact, I think it would be really smart if Apple's software updaters checked the permissions of any dependencies needed by the updater and alerted you to any inconsistencies, then allowed you to choose whether or not to proceed with a repair of the incorrect permissions, and finally proceeded with the update. I doubt this will happen, but a boy can dream. I think the reason Apple doesn't recommend repairing permissions on any sort of regular basis, or before or after a software update, is because they are loathe to admit the generally sad state of permissions settings in the OS. Permissions get changed on a very regular basis. Epson printer software regularly changes permissions on my systems. Flash Player updates do too. And that's just off the top of my head. The fact is, just about any third-party app that installs with an installer (as opposed to drag and drop) can change permissions on any file it wants, and this happens routinely. I've even seen Apple software updates change permissions on my systems (though, admittedly, this hasn't happened for a long time). Basically, Apple just doesn't want to say up front, "Look, this software update might break something, or a third-party app might have changed something that will break something when you install this update, so you should take certain precautions," because doing so would be like saying, "there are huge problems with our permissions model which has gotten much better, but is still seriously flawed in many respects."

So there's an unspoken rule that you should do some general permissions repair on a semi-regular basis. Actually, it's not even unspoken, it's just buried in Apple's Knowledge Base. The fact that the Repair Permissions function exists at all is proof that there is wonkiness in the permissions system, and that running this routine can actually fix stuff. It sure makes a lot of sense to me to perform whatever fixes you can before running a software or OS update, and if that includes Repair Permissions, then that's fine. It takes about one minute of my time and, if nothing else, is well worth the peace of mind it provides.

My question is, why now, guys? Why all of a sudden is this such an issue? The Repair Permissions function has been around for years, and MacFixIt has recommended using it for almost as long. And why John Gruber cares what I do to my system before and after a software update is beyond me. But frankly, I think I trust the MacFixIt guys — and myself — on this one. Don't get me wrong. I love Daring Fireball. It's one of my favorite sites. But MacFixIt — like myself — is in the business of troubleshooting. They/we know about what works and what doesn't. Out there. In the big, bad, complicated world of multiple computers with every imaginable combination of hardware and software, where things most definitely and most decidedly go very, very wrong. I mean, where do you go for troubleshooting advice?

Anyway, I think this whole thing is silly. I respect both these sites immensely, and it pains me to see them argue over such a trivial piece of advice.

Guys, can't we all just get along?

Labels: MacOSX, Rants

Okay, sure, maybe there's a hint of sour grapes here, my being still Intel Macless and all, but really, please, just stop it already. If I read one more article about Boot Camp — this one included — I'm liable to puke. Just stop. Stop writing about it. It's all been said. It's all been done. You're just repeating yourselves. And it's driving me crazy.

I just clicked a link entitled "Apple to complete Intel transition by end of 2006" on MacFixIt which, rather than leading me to an article about the Apple Intel transition, actually lead to a five page write up on — yup, you guessed it — Boot Camp. I assume somewhere in the five page article is a line or two about the Intel transition and its imminent completion, but if you think I'm going to wade through another opinion piece on how well Windows runs on the Mac, you're freakin' out of your freakin' mind.

People have been running Windows XP on hardware from vendors the world over for, like, seventy billion years now. I can't imagine the experience would be much different on a Mac. And from everything I've read, this is indeed the case.

Sure, it's great we can do it. Just, please, stop writing about it. You're killing me.

Labels: MacOSX, Rants

"Think about it: the computers work great until the users come in and start fucking everything up. I don't hate computers, I hate users."
-systemsboy

This is a rant borne out of the recent feeling that I hate everyone and wish they would all just leave me the fuck alone. I don't think there is a SysAdmin alive who has not felt this way at least once in his life. This one's for you.

Until recently I naively believed that as time progressed, and as new generations came up in the information age, a familiarity with computers would breed a more tech-saavy user. Everyone's always talking about how kids who grew up in this digital age of ours are so much better with computers than adults who had to learn about them as, well, adults. This is total shit. I fall into the latter camp — I started learning about computers in earnest in 1997 — whereas most of the students I teach are in the former — they grew up with computers in their schools and homes and have used them all their lives. And I've assumed, again naively, that I'd see progressively tech-saavy users with each successive class of students. The dream was that the students of the future would have far fewer technical problems, and be far more self-reliant when it came to troubleshooting said problems. Unfortunately, by and large, the reverse seems to be true: students seem more helpless — and at the same time more demanding — than ever before.

There's an episode of Star Trek involving an ancient race of beings who rely heavily on a technology which they've completely lost the ability to understand. This technology is, essentially, a computer with the ability and intelligence enough to run their planet — and itself — for centuries without human intervention. After generations of relying on this computer, the people forget how it works, and when it finally breaks down — see, they always break down eventually — it begins emitting such powerful radiation that it renders the population sterile. But they're at a loss as to how to go about fixing it. It's quite a bind. Ultimately, they end up kidnapping a bunch of kids before finally getting the Enterprise engineer to fix their system. Or, I should say, to show them how to fix it.

I think what may be going on today is similar. I think today's computer users are are like those people in the Star Trek episode. They've completely lost touch with a technology upon which they're reliant. The new generation of student is actually less tech-saavy because, rather than seeing the computer as a tool that he must learn and understand in order to use properly, he sees it as some sort of birthright and as something that should, as they say, "just work."

This is not completely the wrong attitude. Computers, to a certain extent, should "just work." But I think the whole reason we put quotations around that phrase is because we SysAdmins all know, deep down inside, that that idea is, to a certain extent, a pipe dream. And doubly so for the art student range of users who have a tendency to use computers in ways in which they were not originally intended. Computers are extremely complex mixtures of hardware and software interacting with users on behalf of their desires, needs and expectations. When they break or even fail to function in certain ways, I hardly find it surprising. It is, quite frankly, par for the course. It's the reason I have a job.

But these days people seem to think my job is to fix any and every computer problem that might occur, both in the lab and outside of it. Many users refuse to undertake any troubleshooting steps themselves and come immediately to me for help, when often a simple reboot will solve their problem. I actually had a student contemptuously ask me why he should have to reboot the computer, as if it were ridiculous that A) there was a problem in the first place, and B) he should have to do anything about it himself. There is a sense of entitlement and an intellectual laziness that seems pervasive lately among end-users. It's all I can do to get users to Google a question they have or check the help files before coming to me for help with a problem. Consequently, a far-too-sizable chunk of my time is spent answering questions to which the answers are readily available online or right there on the computer. Or worse, looking up the answers to those questions for users who are too lazy or arrogant to do it themselves. It's infuriating.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
-Lao Tzu

When I was in school I spent a great deal of time and effort troubleshooting my personal computer, and thereby learning about computers and how they work. In the process I also learned how to find information I needed on a given topic or problem. We didn't have a class in this. I am completely self-taught. I taught myself how to fish. And I've made a career out of it. Where I work there is a class on systems. It's required. But many students object to this requirement and resent having to take this class. Not only do they refuse to learn to fish, they seem to expect someone else to catch, gut, cook, cut and hand-feed them the fish. And when it doesn't taste just so, they spit it back in your face.

I believe in understanding the tools of your craft. The great Renaissance painters understood the chemical interactions of pigments in oil. They knew how to mix primer and rabbit skin glue, and how to construct and stretch canvas. These days we have paint in tubes and pre-stretched canvas, but any painter worth his salt still has a fundamental understanding of the chemicals in paint and the best way to go about making a stretcher. Computer art students would do well to follow this model. And, quite frankly, they should do so happily. They should be in love with their tools. If they're not, maybe they should find another medium. 'Cause otherwise they're going to end up kidnapping children. And that just ain't right.

Labels: Rants

Getting anti-virus software for the Mac is like getting chemotherapy for a cold. It's totally overkill and does way more harm than good. You're better off with the cold.

Via MacFixIt:
In yet another case of AntiVirus software causing serious issues while purporting to be identifying infected files, it appears that Sophos' AntiVirus software is generating false positives for the "OSX/Inqtana.B worm", invoking users to delete critical application and system files and causing serious issues.

Again, the virus being identified by Sophos AntiVirus is marked Inqtana.B -- apparently a variant of the Inqtana.A malware that likewise spreads by copying itself to other computers via a bluetooth connection.

As previously reported, OSX/Inqtana.A -- a Java based proof of concept bluetooth worm that affects older versions of Mac OS X 10.4.x (Tiger). The vulnerability does not affect Mac OS X 10.4.5, and has not been found in the wild.

Despite that, Sophos' software is identifying "infected" files -- sometimes numbering in the thousands -- on Mac OS X 10.4.5 systems.

The results of the false positives are, in some cases, disastrous...

...We currently recommend that users disable Sophos AntiVirus until further notice, and disallow the application to automatically delete any files it deems "infected."

That really says it all. The state of commercial Mac anti-virus software is pathetic. It seems like the developers of this software are desperately trying to drum up business with scare tactics for viruses that don't even exist in the wild while simultaneously writing code that damages people's systems. Fucked up? You betcha.

I'm all for virus protection, even on the Mac. But when anti-virus software is worse than the viruses it claims to protect against, it's no wonder no one's buying it.

Labels: Applications, Rants, Systems