Haxie, haxie, haxie
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Pascal recommendation?
Next: The iPad Is Here
From: Steven Fisher on 27 Jan 2010 11:55 In article <260120102202393481%star(a)sky.net>, Davoud <star(a)sky.net> wrote: > This is called "projection" -- projecting your own experience on the > entire human population. Perhaps it's in response to similar by Unsanity. I had the latest version of APE installed some years ago, without any actual haxies installed. iPhoto was crashing. On a hunch, I removed APE. No crash. I added it back in: Crash. I verified the problem on another Mac and sent crash logs and detailed instructions to Unsanity. Unsanity had at the time a pretty sweeping statement about the safety of APE itself. And they removed it after reproducing and fixing the bug. No, wait. They fixed the bug in the next release, but didn't remove the statement. It's still there: "Can Application Enhancer or its modules crash your system? Application Enhancer itself is not known to have ever caused a crash itself..." Unsanity *knows* otherwise. I haven't used any haxies since. Steve
From: Jolly Roger on 27 Jan 2010 12:30 In article <sdfisher-027389.08554127012010(a)mara100-84.onlink.net>, Steven Fisher <sdfisher(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > In article <260120102202393481%star(a)sky.net>, Davoud <star(a)sky.net> > wrote: > > > This is called "projection" -- projecting your own experience on the > > entire human population. > > Perhaps it's in response to similar by Unsanity. > > I had the latest version of APE installed some years ago, without any > actual haxies installed. iPhoto was crashing. On a hunch, I removed APE. > No crash. I added it back in: Crash. I verified the problem on another > Mac and sent crash logs and detailed instructions to Unsanity. > > Unsanity had at the time a pretty sweeping statement about the safety of > APE itself. And they removed it after reproducing and fixing the bug. > > No, wait. They fixed the bug in the next release, but didn't remove the > statement. It's still there: > > "Can Application Enhancer or its modules crash your system? Application > Enhancer itself is not known to have ever caused a crash itself..." > > Unsanity *knows* otherwise. I haven't used any haxies since. Just to point out what is obvious to me: The key word in their statement is "system". They are saying APE is not known to have ever caused a *system* crash. System crashes (kernel panics or hard lock-ups are significantly different from application crashes and malfunctions. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: nospam on 27 Jan 2010 13:33 In article <jollyroger-3E05D4.11301727012010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > "Can Application Enhancer or its modules crash your system? Application > > Enhancer itself is not known to have ever caused a crash itself..." > > > > Unsanity *knows* otherwise. I haven't used any haxies since. > > Just to point out what is obvious to me: > > The key word in their statement is "system". They are saying APE is not > known to have ever caused a *system* crash. System crashes (kernel > panics or hard lock-ups are significantly different from application > crashes and malfunctions. that, and they say it hasn't caused a crash *itself*. that may be true but it's deceptive. the problem is not that ape is installed, but when something uses ape where problems occur. thus, they can blame someone else. it's very misleading and no doubt, very intentional.
From: Ed H. on 27 Jan 2010 21:51 In article <michelle-17B3CC.14474526012010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > The following is from Macworld: > > Hey, remember Unsanity? That developer became famous�perhaps even --snip-- Whatever the shortcomings, I really did like Window Shade and miss it and didn't have any problems with it (as far as I know). -- Ed H.
From: James Leo Ryan on 27 Jan 2010 22:14
On 2010-01-27 20:51:05 -0600, Ed H. said: > Whatever the shortcomings, I really did like Window Shade and miss it > and didn't have any problems with it (as far as I know). I guess it is "to each his/her own" as I felt Window Shade was perhaps the most "gag-a-maggot" feature of the earlier Mac operating systems. Perhaps that strong reaction is because I'm one who keeps as much as possible nothing on my desktop. -- James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft(a)me.com |