Time machine interval
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Howard Brazee - 15 Mar 2008 21:18 GMT My Time Machine has been taking backups at 15 minute intervals. I checked System Settings and see that it thinks it is 1 hour intervals, but I don't see where to change this setting.
I don't want 15 minute intervals.
Barry Margolin - 15 Mar 2008 21:30 GMT > My Time Machine has been taking backups at 15 minute intervals. I > checked System Settings and see that it thinks it is 1 hour intervals, > but I don't see where to change this setting. > > I don't want 15 minute intervals. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Howard Brazee - 15 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT > > I don't want 15 minute intervals. > > http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 Thanks. That tells me where to find the 1-hour setting, and that file shows it to be a 1 hour setting.
Checking, I find I was mistaken. It does 1-hour settings, but at 15 minutes past the hour. This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at work or asleep, so I bumped it up.
Barry Margolin - 16 Mar 2008 20:27 GMT > Checking, I find I was mistaken. It does 1-hour settings, but at 15 > minutes past the hour. This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at > work or asleep, so I bumped it up. The time past the hour depends on when you boot your computer. That appears to be when the timer starts.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Mike Rosenberg - 16 Mar 2008 20:35 GMT > Checking, I find I was mistaken. It does 1-hour settings, but at 15 > minutes past the hour. This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at > work or asleep, so I bumped it up. I don't think you understand how Time Machine works. It's only backing up whatever is new or has changed since the previous backup. If you don't use your Mac for, say, 8 hours, it's not actually backing anything up when it runs 8 times, just creating 8 directories. Then it only keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old. If you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be.
 Signature <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/election.shtml> Election 2008 goods. <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude
Barry Margolin - 16 Mar 2008 21:02 GMT > > Checking, I find I was mistaken. It does 1-hour settings, but at 15 > > minutes past the hour. This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old. If > you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be. I'm with the OP. I find it annoying to be using the computer and hear it start writing to my backup drive.
I've been backing up my Macs with Retrospect for two decades, and I've been perfectly fine backing up every couple of days. Of course, when it was writing to removable media that I had to change whenever it filled up (I started with tapes, then Zip drives, then CD-RW -- I finally switched to a Firewire drive when those became affordable a few years ago), it was necessary to compromise on frequency.
But even now that it's not so intrusive I think that hourly backups are way overkill. I think I've restored things from backups about once a year, and it's always been a version of the file that had been in existence for days, weeks, or months. I just changed my TM to back up every 8 hours.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
AES - 17 Mar 2008 00:33 GMT My concerns regarding backups are basically, how much work have I done, or how much stuff have I received or downloaded that I don't want to lose, since the last previous backup.
So, I'm wondering if there could be some kind of "activity measure" to trigger intermittent backups -- a backup gets triggered after every so many keystrokes, mouse clicks, and/or MB of data coming into certain ports -- rather than just a crude time measure.
I appreciate that if "not much is happening, activity-wise" then backups at fixed time intervals won't actually have to do much backing up or consume much in the way of resources; so this isn't a major concern.
But still, it's the "results of activity" that one really wants to preserve. Amazing how much harder and more painful it is to lose the results of some task that one has done, and have to compose a memo or do a calculation over again, than it was to do the same task the first time!
Frédérique & Her vé Sainct - 17 Mar 2008 08:09 GMT > But even now that it's not so intrusive I think that hourly backups are > way overkill. I think I've restored things from backups about once a > year, and it's always been a version of the file that had been in > existence for days, weeks, or months. I just changed my TM to back up > every 8 hours. if you want to keep backing up the old way, without even doing this you can just unplug your backup drive, and whenever you want to backup, plug and request an immediate TM backup...
 Signature Frédérique & Hervé Sainct, h.sainct@laposte.net [fr,es,en,it] Frédérique's initial is missing in front of the above address l'initiale de Frédérique manque devant l'adresse email ci-dessus
Barry Margolin - 21 Mar 2008 18:19 GMT > But even now that it's not so intrusive I think that hourly backups are > way overkill. I think I've restored things from backups about once a > year, and it's always been a version of the file that had been in > existence for days, weeks, or months. I just changed my TM to back up > every 8 hours. I noticed yesterday that my Time Machine had gone back to hourly backups. It looks like the Time Machine software update reinstalled the standard com.apple.backupd-auto.plist.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
HK - 17 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT >> Checking, I find I was mistaken. It does 1-hour settings, but at 15 >> minutes past the hour. This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old. If > you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be. I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software that work easily, and are easily configured to do about anything you might want.
Dave Balderstone - 17 Mar 2008 02:10 GMT > I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a > backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software > that work easily, and are easily configured to do about anything you > might want. And based on my experience and evidence here, hardly anyone uses them.
Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth.
 Signature Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups. http://improve-usenet.org/
HK - 17 Mar 2008 03:27 GMT >> I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a >> backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for > Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth. I have an HP Windows Home Server. Works like a charm on the PCs, and naturally there's no Apple software so it can work with my MacBook Pro.
The WHS backs up all our PC's every night, discards old backups on a schedule, and requires no intervention. The one time I had to totally restore a PC from it, I just plopped in a startup CD for that machine, and in two hours, the dead PC came back to life.
Works off TCP/IP. Has many interesting features.
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 05:05 GMT > > I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a > > backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for > Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth. Well, that's their *goal*, at least. Time Machine certainly ain't workin' here. ; )
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Barry Margolin - 17 Mar 2008 21:36 GMT > > I don't know why Apple has to be so cutsie-poo on something like a > > backup program. There are plenty of models to follow for backup software [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Apple's not being cute, their providing something that just works, for > Mom and Grandpa, and Great Aunt Beth. I'm not sure if it's what HK was referring to, but the thing I find "too cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way you navigate the backups. People need to restore from backups once in a blue moon, we don't need it to be like a video game. Why does this thing have to take over the full screen, rather than working in a window like most apps?
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Lewis - 18 Mar 2008 04:08 GMT > I'm not sure if it's what HK was referring to, but the thing I find "too > cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way > you navigate the backups. People need to restore from backups once in a > blue moon, we don't need it to be like a video game. Why does this > thing have to take over the full screen, rather than working in a window > like most apps? The 'enter time machine' graphics are not for those who are restoring from backup, they are for finding that one file (or one email, or one address) that you need. The time slider on the right, and the zippying back through the various views of your data is a pretty useful interface as far as I'm concerned. I've only used it a couple of times, but it was simple to use, quick, and it got my right where I needed to be very easily.
 Signature There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Barry Margolin - 18 Mar 2008 06:50 GMT > > I'm not sure if it's what HK was referring to, but the thing I find "too > > cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > restoring from backup, they are for finding that one file > (or one email, or one address) that you need. Isn't that what "restoring from backup" means?
> The time > slider on the right, and the zippying back through the > various views of your data is a pretty useful interface as > far as I'm concerned. I've only used it a couple of times, > but it was simple to use, quick, and it got my right where I > needed to be very easily. And so would a simple window containing a scrolling list of backup times that you could double-click on.
What purpose does the "flying through space" graphics serve? It's way overkill -- I think someone was looking for a way to take show off some new graphics API that was added in Leopard, so they threw this c00l GUI on Time Machine.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 15:27 GMT >cute" is the fancy graphics for "Enter Time Machine" and then the way >you navigate the backups. People need to restore from backups once in a >blue moon, we don't need it to be like a video game. Why does this >thing have to take over the full screen, rather than working in a window >like most apps? Does it matter for an application that we run once in a blue moon?
The time line on the right is useful to quickly move to about the right spot, then we have a finder. It's obvious that we are in Time Machine because of the full screen.
Clever Monkey - 18 Mar 2008 17:21 GMT >> Checking, I find I was mistaken. It does 1-hour settings, but at 15 >> minutes past the hour. This does seem excessive, especially when I'm at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keeps one per day for anything between 24 hours and one month old. If > you're concerned about using drive space unnecessarily, don't be. Even better: those directories are hard links, too, which is a very clever trick indeed.
 Signature clvrmnky <mailto:spamtrap@clevermonkey.org>
Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap" with my name to contact me directly.
Howard Brazee - 15 Mar 2008 22:35 GMT > > I don't want 15 minute intervals. > > http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 Interesting. I changed this as the article said. I first told it to always open that application with TextWrangler. Then I changed the time interval. At the first character change it asked if I wanted to unlock it, and I said yes. I finished the change and was asked for my password, which I supplied.
Then I closed TextWrangler and saw two windows saying "You cannot change the item "com.apple.backupd-auto.plist" to always open in the selected application,
The item is either locked or damaged in a folder you don't have permission to change. Error -5000). OK
I decided to open it again. TextWrangler wasn't the default, again only two instances of TextEdit were listed. I set it as the default again (which didn't take again). I discovered that that error window popped up when I started my edit (when such windows pop up behind my work, it's hard to notice that they are there). I saw that my previous fix had taken.
Why didn't my request to change default editors take? Why did that error message pop up behind my editor?
Lewis - 16 Mar 2008 01:09 GMT > Why didn't my request to change default editors take? because you don't have permissions to write to the FOLDER that file is in.
 Signature Bart: This is the worst day of my life. Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR.
Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 15:14 GMT > > Why didn't my request to change default editors take? > > because you don't have permissions to write to the FOLDER that file is > in. That's interesting - it implies that there is a file within that folder telling OS-X what applications are the defaults to open files within that folder. Is this a Unix thing or an OS X thing? I assumed that these settings were much more global than this.
Is there a way to set up the default so it works globally or so that it works in this folder?
Jolly Roger - 16 Mar 2008 17:27 GMT > > > I don't want 15 minute intervals. > > > > http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 > > Interesting. I changed this as the article said. I first told it to > always open that application with TextWrangler. Why? If you have Xcode installed, then the default application should be Property List Editor, which is a much better application to use to edit property list files.
BTW, when I tried this, the first thing that happened is an immediate error message displayed stating:
<http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/172/error1vq1.png>
You didn't mention this. That would be your first indication that maybe you shouldn't be trying to change the default application, no?
> Then I changed the time > interval. At the first character change it asked if I wanted to unlock > it, and I said yes. I finished the change and was asked for my > password, which I supplied. You mean it asked for an *administrator* username and password, right? When I edited the file, TextWrangler asked for an administrator password. This is the standard way TextWrangler allows non-admin users to edit files to which they would normally not have access, BTW.
I highly recommend all Mac users use a non-administrator account for day-to-day usage rather than an administrator account.
> Then I closed TextWrangler and saw two windows saying "You cannot change > the item "com.apple.backupd-auto.plist" to always open in the selected > application, > > The item is either locked or damaged in a folder you don't have > permission to change. Error -5000). I didn't see this error message at all. And when I look at the Info window for the file in the Finder, it lists TextWrangler as the default application.
> I decided to open it again. TextWrangler wasn't the default, again only > two instances of TextEdit were listed. I set it as the default again [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why didn't my request to change default editors take? Good question. I can't seem to duplicate that problem here. I may be ble to tell you why *you* are seeing the error though. Do this:
1. Open /Applications/Utilities/Terminal. 2. Enter this command: ls -alO /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd* 3. Copy the results and paste them in a reply to this message.
Here's what my system shows:
# ls -alO /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd* -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 528B Oct 10 00:02 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-attach.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 541B Mar 16 11:24 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-auto.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 473B Oct 10 00:02 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist
> Why did that error message pop up behind my editor? I'm not sure why the error message displayed behind the editor. I suppose it's possible there was a delay in generating the message, and by that time you had already switched to the editor, so the Finder displayed it in the background.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 19:27 GMT In article
> > Interesting. I changed this as the article said. I first told it to > > always open that application with TextWrangler. > > Why? If you have Xcode installed, then the default application should be > Property List Editor, which is a much better application to use to edit > property list files. The only option I was given was two mentions of Text Edit. I didn't see "Property List Editor".
> > Why didn't my request to change default editors take? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Here's what my system shows: Last login: Sat Mar 15 16:22:19 on console Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$ ls -alO /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd* -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 528 Oct 11 23:21 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-attach.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 541 Mar 15 15:27 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd-auto.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 473 Oct 11 23:21 /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$
Jolly Roger - 16 Mar 2008 19:54 GMT > In article > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The only option I was given was two mentions of Text Edit. I didn't see > "Property List Editor". Then you don't have Xcode installed. Is that, in fact, correct?
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 23:22 GMT In article <jollyroger-D80CE0.13540316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > The only option I was given was two mentions of Text Edit. I didn't see > > "Property List Editor". > > Then you don't have Xcode installed. Is that, in fact, correct? At least spotlight doesn't find it. I assume you're correct.
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 00:05 GMT > In article > <jollyroger-D80CE0.13540316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > At least spotlight doesn't find it. I assume you're correct. You'd have a folder named "Developer" at the root of the startup volume. Xcode is something you would have to go out of your way to install. So unless you remember installing it, you probably don't have it.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Jolly Roger - 16 Mar 2008 19:55 GMT > > > Why didn't my request to change default editors take? > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.backupd.plist > Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$ Looks the same to me. How about this command then?:
ls -lO /System/Library/ | grep LaunchDaemons
My system shows:
drwxr-xr-x 131 root wheel - 4.3K Feb 22 09:17 LaunchDaemons
(BTW, I am running 10.5.2 on a Power Mac G5 (PowerPC), upgraded from 10.4.)
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 16 Mar 2008 23:23 GMT In article <jollyroger-1611B2.13554716032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Looks the same to me. How about this command then?: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (BTW, I am running 10.5.2 on a Power Mac G5 (PowerPC), upgraded from > 10.4.) Last login: Sun Mar 16 12:26:49 on ttys000 Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$ ls -lO /System/Library/ | grep LaunchDaemons drwxr-xr-x 124 root wheel - 4216 Feb 24 09:48 LaunchDaemons Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 00:06 GMT > In article > <jollyroger-1611B2.13554716032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > drwxr-xr-x 124 root wheel - 4216 Feb 24 09:48 LaunchDaemons > Macintosh-5:~ HBrazee$ Peculiar. Yours is exactly the same.
So can you take a screen shot of the error message you see when you try to change the default application for that property list file?
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 17 Mar 2008 01:40 GMT In article <jollyroger-C9C953.18060316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> So can you take a screen shot of the error message you see when you try > to change the default application for that property list file? Probably. I'll check this thread tomorrow with an easier newsreader, to find the name of the file I changed.
But I can't post screen shots in text newsgroups without making people angry.
Jolly Roger - 17 Mar 2008 05:04 GMT > In article > <jollyroger-C9C953.18060316032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But I can't post screen shots in text newsgroups without making people > angry. That's what http://imageshack.us is for. ; ) Upload the image there and paste the URL here.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 01:05 GMT I tried to do this change again.
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200710291721156 told me that I needed to navigate into /System » Library » LaunchDaemons. There you'll find a file named com.apple.backupd-auto.plist.
I didn't find it this time, so I searched for "backupd" in my finder and in my Spotlight without success. Searching for it caused my Time Machine drive to spin - I need to find Spotlight settings to stop this.
I found /Users/HBrazee/Library/LaunchAgents I found /Library/LaunchDaemons (it looks empty)
I tried to get to CD \ in terminal.
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 01:11 GMT > I tried to do this change again. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I didn't find it this time Well it's supposed to be there. The only way it got moved out of there is if you moved it. Remember what I said about how running as administrator is a bad idea?
Are you sure you were looking in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons and not /System/Library/LaunchAgents?
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 03:06 GMT >Well it's supposed to be there. The only way it got moved out of there >is if you moved it. Remember what I said about how running as >administrator is a bad idea? And I tried to persuade the Genius to set me up that way, but kept telling me that I didn't need to until I gave up.
>Are you sure you were looking in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons and not >/System/Library/LaunchAgents? I'm sure (I pasted it from the utility you told me about). Looking at Time Machine, it has been backing up every 2 hours.
I get confused with a Mac about what /System is. We don't see the root, and we have two System directories.
How do I go to the correct directory from Terminal to see if the file might be hidden?
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 16:52 GMT > >Well it's supposed to be there. The only way it got moved out of there > >is if you moved it. Remember what I said about how running as > >administrator is a bad idea? > > And I tried to persuade the Genius to set me up that way, but kept > telling me that I didn't need to until I gave up. Ummm... I gave you complete steps for how to do it yourself right here. It's not complicated at all. Want tham again?:
Removing Admin Privileges From Your Normal Account
The initial user account Mac OS X creates during installation is an administrator account. But running with higher privileges than needed is never a good idea. You really shouldn't give your normal, every-day account administrator privileges. When you are logged in as administrator, everything you do, every program you run (directly or indirectly, purposefully or inadvertently) is executed with administrative privileges with access to more parts of the system than normal users. So if you make a mistake, or worse, if you unknowingly run a trojan / worm in that account, you can damage and alter critical system files with little or no acknowledgment from the system.
Mac OS X is designed such that you can accomplish all administrative tasks from a non-administrative account simply by entering the username and password of an administrator when prompted. So while you do need to *have* an administrator account, there's really not much of a reason to run as administrator for day-to-day use.
The secure thing to do is to create an account just for administration, then remove administrator privileges from your day-to-day account. Here's how to do it:
First, open and unlock the System Preferences > Accounts panel.
1. Open System Preferences. 2. Click Accounts. 3. Click the lock icon to unlock the panel (if needed).
Next, create a new administrator account:
1. Click the [+] button. A new user account sheet appears. 2. In the Name text box, enter "Administrator" (without quotes). 3. In the Short Name text box, enter "admin" (without quotes). 4. In the Password text box, enter a secure password. If you need help creating a secure password, click the little key icon to the right of this text box, and an assistant will help you come up with a secure password. 5. In the Verify text box re-enter the secure password. 6. Check the "Allow user to administer this computer" checkbox. 7. Click Create Account.
Next, remove administrator abilities from your normal user account:
1. Open System Preferences. 2. Click Accounts. 3. Click the lock icon to unlock the panel (if needed). 4. From the account list on the left side of the System Preferences > Accounts panel, highlight your normal user account name. 5. Uncheck the "Allow user to administer this computer" checkbox.
That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and the associated secure password.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 17:59 GMT >Ummm... I gave you complete steps for how to do it yourself right here. >It's not complicated at all. Want tham again?: I printed them up, but my understanding is not good enough that I'm willing to take this kind of step yet. Hopefully I will learn more, so that I'll be confident I'm not "just smart enough to get into trouble".
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 18:53 GMT > >Ummm... I gave you complete steps for how to do it yourself right here. > >It's not complicated at all. Want tham again?: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so that I'll be confident I'm not "just smart enough to get into > trouble". You apparently don't understand that every minute of every day you run as administrator you put your system at risk for malware, but also at risk of you inadvertently messing something up in system directories that would otherwise be protected. You have no reason not to do these steps ASAP.
The instructions are, in fact, written for people like you. They are purposefully not complicated and written in such a way that if you follow the steps to the letter, it works! Stop procrastinating and, as Nike says, Just Do It!
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 18:02 GMT >That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's >credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and >the associated secure password. So how is that safer than doing the same thing without typing in "admin"?
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 18:50 GMT > >That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's > >credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and > >the associated secure password. > > So how is that safer than doing the same thing without typing in > "admin"? Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction??
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 18 Mar 2008 19:31 GMT >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction?? Yes, but as I told you, my I know just enough to be dangerous. I've been told by several "experts", and read from several sources that I need to manually enter a password to have the ability to do all those bad things. They say that's why Macs are so safe.
Maybe they're all wrong. In many ways they seem less knowledgeable than you seem. But no matter what, it isn't a bad idea for me to try to increase my understanding.
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 22:30 GMT > >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction?? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than you seem. But no matter what, it isn't a bad idea for me to try > to increase my understanding. If you have specific questions about this topic, please do ask.
Like I said, the steps are simple and written in such a way that if you follow them precisely, nothing will go wrong. Note that the method I describe with those steps does not change any files in your current user account. It's not harmful. There's no reason you cannot or should not switch to a normal account now.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:40 GMT >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction?? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >If you have specific questions about this topic, please do ask. OK. I'll ask again. Why is it more secure to be prompted for my name and password than just for my password?
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 01:47 GMT > >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction?? > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > OK. I'll ask again. Why is it more secure to be prompted for my > name and password than just for my password? You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted for an administrator's name and password. The key point is that YOU aren't an administrator, so you're not normally running with administrator privileges. So you can't do anything that requires privileges until you enter a name and password.
When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY password. For instance, you can drag and drop programs into /Applications.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:52 GMT >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted >for an administrator's name and password. The key point is that YOU >aren't an administrator, so you're not normally running with >administrator privileges. So you can't do anything that requires >privileges until you enter a name and password. Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password? Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference.
>When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require >you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY >password. For instance, you can drag and drop programs into >/Applications. OK, so that's a difference I understand.
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:58 GMT > >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted > >for an administrator's name and password. The key point is that YOU [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password? > Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference. What you are failing to grasp is that when you are an administrator, you are allowed to make changes to some parts of the system that normal, non-admin users would not be allowed to make - and *without password authentication*.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 15:45 GMT >> Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password? >> Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >non-admin users would not be allowed to make - and *without password >authentication*. The rest of my post included:
>>When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require >>you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY >>password. For instance, you can drag and drop programs into >>/Applications. > >OK, so that's a difference I understand. Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 02:10 GMT > >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted > >for an administrator's name and password. The key point is that YOU [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are there times when I am asked for a non-administer password? > Otherwise, I'm failing to see the difference. You're always asked for an administrator password. If you're an administrator, it will simply ask for your password. If you're not an administrator, it will ask for the name and password of an administrator account.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 02:34 GMT > > >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted > > >for an administrator's name and password. The key point is that YOU [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > administrator, it will ask for the name and password of an administrator > account. No, not always. There are some files and directories, for instance, that may be modified by anyone in the administrator group without bringing up an authentication prompt.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 02:40 GMT In article <jollyroger-9F0744.20344118032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > > >You're not being prompted for YOUR name and password, you're prompted > > > >for an administrator's name and password. The key point is that YOU [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > may be modified by anyone in the administrator group without bringing up > an authentication prompt. I already mentioned that in another post. My point here was to describe what it does in the cases where it DOES prompt for a password, and how this differs depending on whether you're running as an administrator or normal user.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 02:43 GMT > I already mentioned that in another post. My point here was to describe > what it does in the cases where it DOES prompt for a password, and how > this differs depending on whether you're running as an administrator or > normal user. My bad - I didn't realize that wwas you. : )
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:55 GMT > > >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction?? > > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > password. For instance, you can drag and drop programs into > /Applications. Precisely.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Daniel Cohen - 19 Mar 2008 10:59 GMT > When you're running as an administrator, some system operations require > you to enter your password, but others can be done without entering ANY > password. For instance, you can drag and drop programs into > /Applications. And you can delete items from Applications, which can be even more dangerous if you don't know what you are doing.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:52 GMT > >> >Did you not read the couple of paragraphs in the introduction?? > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > OK. I'll ask again. Why is it more secure to be prompted for my > name and password than just for my password? Inherently? It's not. It's more secure to be prompted *at all* when you normally would not be prompted. Also, by asking for the administrator user name as well as the password, it clues you in that what you are doing will modify protected system resources, and makes it so that if someone you know obtains *your* password for *your* account, they won't be able to compromise your system.
Again: It is always a good idea to run *without* escalated privileges. Anyone who has any real experience with computing security will agree with this.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 02:13 GMT >Again: It is always a good idea to run *without* escalated privileges. >Anyone who has any real experience with computing security will agree >with this. I agree. I just to have a better knowledge about how it works.
It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to do it that way.
At any rate, changing this has been bumped up on my to-do list - probably Thursday.
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 02:32 GMT > >Again: It is always a good idea to run *without* escalated privileges. > >Anyone who has any real experience with computing security will agree [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to > do it that way. The default configuration isn't horrible. You need to enter a password to make changes to the guts of the OS and system-wide configuration files. Without a password, you can only update a few places, like /Applications and /Library, but not /System.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Daniel Cohen - 19 Mar 2008 10:59 GMT > > It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals > > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > files. Without a password, you can only update a few places, like > /Applications and /Library, but not /System. When one know what one is doing, having an admin and a non-admin account is definitely the best thing.
If Apple set it up like that, plenty people who didn't know much about Macs would be calling for support because "I tried to put this in the Applications folder, and I was told I couldn't do it", and things like that.
There's always a balance between security and simplicity.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 14:54 GMT > > > It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals > > > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Applications folder, and I was told I couldn't do it", and things like > that. I disagree. First of all, you aren't told "You can't do that". You are asked for the administrator name and password. There's a big difference.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 20:12 GMT In article <jollyroger-7F6C8A.08541219032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > > > It's funny that both Apple professionals and Microsoft professionals > > > > don't make this the default - and seem to get angry when users wish to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I disagree. First of all, you aren't told "You can't do that". You are > asked for the administrator name and password. There's a big difference. Actually, you get an alert saying that you can't do it, with buttons "Authenticate" and "OK". You don't get asked for the administrator name unless you click on Authenticate. I can see how this might be confusing for grandma. Not to mention that I think the OK button should actually be Cancel (OK is usually used to mean "Go ahead and do whatever you were warning me might be dangerous").
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Daniel Cohen - 19 Mar 2008 20:41 GMT > > If Apple set it up like that, plenty people who didn't know much about > > Macs would be calling for support because "I tried to put this in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I disagree. First of all, you aren't told "You can't do that". You are > asked for the administrator name and password. There's a big difference. The truth is perhaps halfway between what I initially said and what you have just said.
To double-check, I just tried to move an item into the Applications folder.
The resulting message was
The item ... could not be moved because Applications cannot be modified"
Close enough to "You can't do that".
The alert user will see that there are buttons marked Authenticate and OK, with OK the default. If that user clicks on Authenticate, they would then, as you say, be asked for an administrator name and password.
But there are plenty of non-alert people around who would just click on OK because it is the default - or perhaps would even ask for help without clickin anywhere.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 22:25 GMT > I just tried to move an item into the Applications > folder. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > OK, with OK the default. If that user clicks on Authenticate, they would > then, as you say, be asked for an administrator name and password. I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see "Authenticate"!
> But there are plenty of non-alert people around who would just click on > OK because it is the default - or perhaps would even ask for help > without clickin anywhere. Yep - I see what you mean now.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 20 Mar 2008 20:25 GMT >I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that >dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see >"Authenticate"! I also noticed some differences between your directions to create an admin account and my current version of 10.5. You probably wrote them up a while ago and haven't checked recently.
That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it was).
Jolly Roger - 20 Mar 2008 20:44 GMT > >I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that > >dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it > was). Oh good catch. You're right. I'll fix them up. Thanks.
 Signature Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jolly Roger - 20 Mar 2008 20:51 GMT > >I see what you mean now. Apparently, I have grown so accustomed to that > >dialog box that I no longer read the text, and immediately see [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it > was). Fixed. Thanks again.
 Signature Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Howard Brazee - 21 Mar 2008 15:56 GMT >> That said, the directions were close enough (and showed how simple it >> was). > >Fixed. Thanks again. No problem. It's hard to notice when something like this changes - it's not as though this is a task you perform often.
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 15:48 GMT >When one know what one is doing, having an admin and a non-admin account >is definitely the best thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Applications folder, and I was told I couldn't do it", and things like >that. Maybe hide them better - although they don't need to do it the way they hide the Unix root.
I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default configuration (for all kinds of computers).
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT > >When one know what one is doing, having an admin and a non-admin account > >is definitely the best thing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default > configuration (for all kinds of computers). Same here!
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 20 Mar 2008 20:26 GMT >> I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default >> configuration (for all kinds of computers). > >Same here! You would.
Jolly Roger - 20 Mar 2008 20:43 GMT > >> I think that Jolly Roger's suggestion should be the default > >> configuration (for all kinds of computers). > > > >Same here! > > You would. *grin*
 Signature Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. I do not read posts from Google Groups. Use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 00:51 GMT > >That's it. Now whenever you are asked for an administrator account's > >credentials, you can enter user name "Administrator" (or "admin") and > >the associated secure password. > > So how is that safer than doing the same thing without typing in > "admin"? If you're an admin user, you can update some things without having to type a password at all. For instance, you don't need to enter a password to copy a program into /Applications.
So by running as a non-admin, anything you do that tries to update a system-wide file or folder will require you to enter the admin username and password.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Daniel Cohen - 18 Mar 2008 21:00 GMT > Mac OS X is designed such that you can accomplish all administrative > tasks from a non-administrative account simply by entering the username > and password of an administrator when prompted. So while you do need to > *have* an administrator account, there's really not much of a reason to > run as administrator for day-to-day use. That's more than 99% true, but not 100%. I have run across a program that rejected an admin name and password when run from a non-admin account, but worked fine from an admin account. But such cases are very rare, and I can see arguments for saying that a program that behaves that way should not be used.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 22:26 GMT > > Mac OS X is designed such that you can accomplish all administrative > > tasks from a non-administrative account simply by entering the username [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rare, and I can see arguments for saying that a program that behaves > that way should not be used. Now that you mention it, so have I. It's called DNS Enabler:
<http://cutedgesystems.com/software/DNSEnabler/>
This is the only piece of software I know about that doesn't allow you to enter administrator credentials from a non-admin account. And now that I look at it...apparently, the developer of DNS Enabler took my comments to heart and released a new version that does accept administrator credentials from a non-admin account:
<http://cutedgesystems.com/software/DNSEnablerForLeopard/index.html>
So now that makes it zero applications I know of. : )
To which one(s) are you referring?
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Daniel Cohen - 18 Mar 2008 23:58 GMT > > That's more than 99% true, but not 100%. I have run across a program > > that rejected an admin name and password when run from a non-admin > > account, but worked fine from an admin account. But such cases are very > > rare, and I can see arguments for saying that a program that behaves > > that way should not be used.
> To which one(s) are you referring? One of the earlier versions of ClamXav. The program worked fine from a non-admin account, but if you tried to set up a schedule from a non-admin account it asked for an admin name and password and then rejected them. This was fixed in a later version.
It caused grief for quite a few of us, who wondered if we had mistyped the password, or what was happening.
 Signature http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 00:21 GMT > > > That's more than 99% true, but not 100%. I have run across a program > > > that rejected an admin name and password when run from a non-admin [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It caused grief for quite a few of us, who wondered if we had mistyped > the password, or what was happening. I bet! : ) Thanks for sharing.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Jolly Roger - 18 Mar 2008 16:54 GMT > >Are you sure you were looking in /System/Library/LaunchDaemons and not > >/System/Library/LaunchAgents? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How do I go to the correct directory from Terminal to see if the file > might be hidden? It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like this:
ls -al /System/Library/LaunchDaemons
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:43 GMT >It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like >this: > > ls -al /System/Library/LaunchDaemons That found a lot
Last login: Tue Mar 18 17:21:37 on console Macintosh-6:~ HBrazee$ ls -al /System/Library/LaunchDaemons total 976 drwxr-xr-x 124 root wheel 4216 Feb 24 09:48 . drwxr-xr-x 63 root wheel 2142 Mar 18 17:09 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 678 Sep 23 23:15 bootps.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 513 Oct 9 20:20 com.apple.ATSServer.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 741 Jan 20 13:09 com.apple.AppleFileServer.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 460 Sep 23 19:59 com.apple.CoreRAID.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 727 Jan 19 11:23 com.apple.DirectoryServices.plist -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 528 Oct 14 01:04 com.apple.DirectoryServicesLocal.plist ...
But it doesn't appear to be what I was looking for.
Barry Margolin - 19 Mar 2008 01:49 GMT > >It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like > >this: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > But it doesn't appear to be what I was looking for. It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file. Maybe you should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine backup.
 Signature Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 01:54 GMT >It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file. Maybe you >should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine >backup. Hmm. That brings up another question. Let's say I created a file sometime in the past. I notice now that it is gone. I have no idea when it disappeared, and not a very good idea when it was created.
Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine?
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:56 GMT > >It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file. Maybe you > >should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine? 1. Open /System/Library/LaunchDaemons in a Finder window. 2. Click the Time Machine icon in the dock. 3. Click the up arrow in Time Machine until you see the file appear.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 15:50 GMT >> Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine? > >1. Open /System/Library/LaunchDaemons in a Finder window. >2. Click the Time Machine icon in the dock. >3. Click the up arrow in Time Machine until you see the file appear. Hmmm, in a crowded folder this could get tedious. Maybe a search feature will be available in a future version of Time Machine.
Lewis - 19 Mar 2008 16:41 GMT >>> Is there a way to search for it in Time Machine? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hmmm, in a crowded folder this could get tedious. Maybe a search > feature will be available in a future version of Time Machine. Tried the Search field in the Time machine finder window?
 Signature Lithium will no longer be available on credit
Howard Brazee - 20 Mar 2008 00:41 GMT >> Hmmm, in a crowded folder this could get tedious. Maybe a search >> feature will be available in a future version of Time Machine. > >Tried the Search field in the Time machine finder window? I may have done it wrong - but it searched the backup of the computer for that backup. I want to search the folder or file for all backups.
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:55 GMT > It seems like you may have accidentally deleted the file. Maybe you > should check to see whether there's a copy of it in the Time Machine > backup. Nah. He's just scrolling down far enough to see it. Items in ls listings sort capital letters to the top, by default. The com.apple.backupd-auto.plist appears below what he shows above as a result.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:59 GMT In article <jollyroger-19AD50.19550618032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Edit:
> Nah. He's just NOT scrolling down far enough to see it. Items in ls listings > sort capital letters to the top, by default. The > com.apple.backupd-auto.plist appears below what he shows above as a > result.
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 01:50 GMT > >It's simple - you just specify the full path in the ls command - like > >this: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > com.apple.DirectoryServicesLocal.plist > ... The list is a *whole* lot longer than that, and one of the items in the list is indeed com.apple.backupd-auto.plist. All you need to do it look.
If you'd rather look in a Finder window, issue this command in a terminal window:
open /System/Library/LaunchDaemons
> But it doesn't appear to be what I was looking for. What *are* you looking for, exactly, if not com.apple.backupd-auto.plist?!
 Signature Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter.
JR
Howard Brazee - 19 Mar 2008 02:26 GMT >The list is a *whole* lot longer than that, and one of the items in the >list is indeed com.apple.backupd-auto.plist. All you need to do it look. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >What *are* you looking for, exactly, if not >com.apple.backupd-auto.plist?! My mistake. It didn't look like it did when I first looked at the files via the finder. But since the finder now doesn't show anything, I was mistaken to assume it had showed everything the first time.
Hmmm. I just looked using the finder. Now I see everything. Odd.
I just clicked on it and told it to open with. I listened to my backup drive run (why?) and then a "choose application" window popped up. I selected TextWrangler.app, checked "Always Open With", and hit Open. I got the following error window:
http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1rc5kd6.jpg
I clicked again - the "Open With" didn't take.
Jolly Roger - 19 Mar 2008 02:33 GMT > >The list is a *whole* lot longer than that, and one of the items in the > >list is indeed com.apple.backupd-auto.plist. All you need to do it look. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My mistake. It didn't look like it did when I first looked at the > files via the finder. I'm betting you just didn't realize the sorting is done differently on the command line in 'ls'.
> But since the finder now doesn't show anything, > I was mistaken to assume it had showed everything the first time. > > Hmmm. I just looked using the finder. Now I see everything. Odd. Probably because you were looking at the Library folder in the local domain (/Library) or the user domain (~/Library) that time, rather than the Library folder in the system domain (/System/Library).
> I just clicked on it and told it to open with. I listened to my > backup drive run (why?) and then a "choose application" window popped [quoted text clipped - 4 |
|