noreply@mail.invalid (Patrick Machielse) schrieb:
> Michael Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick Machielse <noreply@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > My report was closed as a 'behaves correctly', so the chances of getting
>> > this functionality back before 10.6 are slim :-(
>>
>> This is weird. Mine was marked a duplicate of 5592259. You'd think mine
>> would be marked a duplicate of yours, or we'd both be marked a duplicate
>> of the same one.
So what shall do? Shall I move to ~/Library/Metadata/? I also could move ~/
documents/ but my stuff is an a document as much as .emlx is a document.
> The Apple response acually included the clumsy workaround procedure (use
> the Finder search, include System files) so they understood the problem,
> they just think it's a feature.
Yes, they really think that all the stuff in ~/Library (beside there own
indexable and findable stuff from Mail, Safari e.c.t) are system files which are
worth to get protected. The crux is that they are right if you think about a
system file as a file that can harm the system when it is faulty or changed.
But this is bad by design. ~/Library is user data and never should be able to do
so.
> One other thing that's new and which I find clumsy: when you exclude a
> folder from Spotlight, you cannot search it anymore in the Finder. Even
> if you explicitly navigate to the folder and simply want to search the
> file names you cannot do it anymore. Supposedly this is because the
> finder now always uses Spotlight, but I find it surprising that you
> can't find a file even though you can _see_ it right before your eyes in
> the Finder window.
Yes, they forgot there own definition about "objects" and "files".
>> I have to say that Leopard is disappointing in this respect. I don't think
>> it's been any buggier than any other new OS X release, but it seems to
>> have a lot more things that *should* be bugs but which Apple considers to
>> be features.
In a german group there was a joke. "Apple has doubled the personal of the
security department. Now they have a loyer and a press spokesmen."
Florian
Florian Zschocke - 17 Nov 2007 23:13 GMT
Florian Zschocke <edv@zschocke-berlin.de> schrieb:
>beside there own
must be: beside their own
> Yes, they forgot there own definition about "objects" and "files".
must be: forgot their definition
Please excuse my poor english.
Florian