jkoerbe@hubcap.UUCP (jon c koerber) (03/14/89)
For a couple of weeks now I have had absolutely no success in using Binhex, stuffit, or packit to dearchive files that I have downloaded from various places (stanford, cms, upenn, simptel, comp.binaries). It was strange, because I used to have no problems whatsoever. At first I thought that my node here just had bad lines or very often (non-spurrious) errors. Then After weeks of no successful downloading, I decided maybe it is my problem. Yesterday I hopped on my mac and using the Init-chooser began removing Inits, control panel documents, etc... while at the same time trying to un-stuff a file that I knew had no errors until it worked. Finally after about a half hour The file Un-stuffed correctly (not that stuffit told me there was any error before--it would just produce a file called "document"--no errs). The culprit turned out to be an init called "Gatekeeper". This problem may have already circled around the net, and if it did, sorry I missed it. But for those of you out there running system 6.0.1 still, and using gatekeeper with binhex or stuffit or packit for that matter , BEWARE! I found that If I want to temporarly disable Gatekeeper while doing any kind of dearcing, I have no problems. **************************************************************************** * Jon C. Koerber | * * Clemson University | ________ _______ _______ _ _ * * Clemson, S.C 29615 | / _______) / ______) (__ ___) / ) / ) * *===================== / /_____ / /__ / / / /___/ / * * "You owe me sooo (______ ) / ____) / / / ____ / * * much money..." _______/ / / /_____ / / / / / / * * JKOERBE@CLEMSON.UUCP (________/ (_______) (_/ (_/ (_/ * * JKOERBE@CLEMSON.BITNET ======================================= * ****************************************************************************
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/15/89)
> For a couple of weeks now I have had absolutely no success in using >Binhex, stuffit, or packit to dearchive files that I have downloaded from >various places (stanford, cms, upenn, simptel, comp.binaries). It was >strange, because I used to have no problems whatsoever. >The culprit turned out to be an init called "Gatekeeper". This problem may >have already circled around the net, and if it did, sorry I missed it. But >for those of you out there running system 6.0.1 still, and using gatekeeper >with binhex or stuffit or packit for that matter , BEWARE! Beware? GateKeeper is doing exactly what it's supposed to do -- protect you from viruses. Certain programs *have* to exhibit "virus-like" behavior, so Gatekeeper needs to be taught to trust them. If you'd read the GateKeeper documentation, it explicitly mentions StuffIt et all because they go in and muck around with resources. This is why GateKeeper is programmable -- so you can teach it which programs to trust. A practical lesson in why you should never run software you don't understand. This isn'g a problem with the System software OR GateKeeper. It's pilot error. Read the documentation!
rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) (03/15/89)
Actually, the GateKeeper release notes say that you have to give "other file" privileges to Stuffit or Binhex so that they can set the file type, creation date, etc. of the files they're recovering. I've had no problems with Stuffit under GateKeeper. Which version of Gatekeeper are you running? I'm using 1.0, without any problems (as long as I check periodically to make sure that I haven't denied privileges to a program that needs them). I had 1.1 installed for a while, and it's definitely better, but it seemed to corrupt my Lightspeed Pascal projects, so I got rid of it. Maybe 1.1 has a conflict with Stuffit also (although I doubt it; stuffit doesn't do anything that fancy with resources). Note: I'm not absolutely sure that GateKeeper 1.1 was causing my problems, but they went away after I got rid of it and recreated all my project files. Robert
nagel@blanche.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (03/15/89)
In article <4774@hubcap.UUCP>, jkoerbe@hubcap (jon c koerber) writes: |was any error before--it would just produce a file called "document"--no errs). |The culprit turned out to be an init called "Gatekeeper". This problem may This happens because Stuffit, et. al. require file(other) permissions. If you get the new version of Gatekeeper (1.1), you'll be able to monitor what applications need what privileges and eventually allow it to auto-prevent illegal accesses. In the old version, it was veto or nothing, causing problems such as you describe. The *real* problems are in the applications, though! GateKeeper certainly points out where programmers were lazy in detecting file/resource errors. Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science +----------------------------------------+ ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu | The world is coming to an end. | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | Please log off. |
xxiaoye@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (03/15/89)
jkoerbe@hubcap.UUCP (jon c koerber) wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For a couple of weeks now I have had absolutely no success in using Binhex, stuffit, or packit to dearchive files that I have downloaded from various places (stanford, cms, upenn, simptel, comp.binaries). It was strange, because I used to have no problems whatsoever. At first I thought ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are you running the latest version of GateKeeper ? I have used it extensively with StuffIt with absolutely no problem! The latest version is 1.1. It was posted to comp.binaries.mac a short while ago. It is also available on sumex. And be sure that you give StuffIt/Binhex/PackIt some File other/Res other priviledge (I forgot whether they need Res other though). GateKeeper is completely safe (for me at least), provide that you follow the author's instructions about testing, giving priviledges, etc. ________________________________________________________________________ Xiaoxia Ye INTERNET/BITNET/UUCP: xxiaoye@eleazar.dartmouth.edu Dartmouth College For more info: finger xxiaoye@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
emb90619@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Eric M Berdahl) (03/15/89)
The documentation enclosed with Gatekeeper notes that BinHex, StuffIt, PackIt and other programs do "virus-like" stuff according to Gatekeeper. You must therefore use the Gatekeeper cdev (Control Panel device) to grant permissions to those programs. This is given in some detail in the Gatekeeper instructions packaged with the program (the MacWrite document, not the online help). Eric M. Berdahl PsiWare Software not inc. emb90619@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (03/17/89)
>A practical lesson in why you should never run software you don't >understand. This isn'g a problem with the System software OR GateKeeper. >It's pilot error. Read the documentation! Let's not insult people on this net. Remember the Mac is the first popular computer to recognize that users do not always want or have time to read manuals. Thus the phrase "pilot error" should be changed to "non-intuitive interface". Documentation SHOULD be read when there is a problem, but on a complicated system with much interacting software (as with INITs, etc.), it may be difficult to determine what program is causing trouble. More to the point, GateKeeper should have put up a message saying something like "Operation XXX being attempted - not allowed" (as does Vaccine), and StuffIt should error-check crucial operations and respond with "Operation XXX failed". This putting the user first is what excited most of us about the Mac in the first place. The old ways of writing a program just to perform a function, and let the user beware should be falling by the wayside. With the number of different software programs used by individual users rising exponentially, it seems, we programmers are need to think more about what the user may need than expect him/her to figure us out.
emb90619@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Eric M Berdahl) (03/17/89)
In article <7492@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) writes: >[deleted previous quote] > >Let's not insult people on this net. Remember the Mac is the first popular >computer to recognize that users do not always want or have time to read >manuals. Thus the phrase "pilot error" should be changed to "non-intuitive >interface". Here here and 'nuff said. >[deleted stuff about when dox should be consulted] >to the point, GateKeeper should have put up a message saying something like >"Operation XXX being attempted - not allowed" (as does Vaccine), and StuffIt >should error-check crucial operations and respond with "Operation XXX >failed". Exactly! In fact, GateKeeper 1.1 does do just that if you tell it to (by choosing the correct radio button in the control panel). StuffIt on the other hand, well... maybe in the next release. In fact, GK 1.1 is much improved over the original. Of course, one still needs to read dox to find the (AS the author puts it) "programs from hell". Eric M. Berdahl PsiWare Software not inc. emb90619@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/18/89)
>>A practical lesson in why you should never run software you don't >>understand. This isn'g a problem with the System software OR GateKeeper. >>It's pilot error. Read the documentation! >Let's not insult people on this net. Remember the Mac is the first popular >computer to recognize that users do not always want or have time to read >manuals. Thus the phrase "pilot error" should be changed to "non-intuitive >interface". Yes and no. The reason I said what I did was because this person accused GateKeeper of being broken -- in public -- when it was doing what it was *supposed* to do. It was obvious that he not only didn't he read the documentation, but he never even brought up the on-line help button (which is about the size of Milwaukee). Let me ask who was insulted here: the poster who bitched about GateKeeper being broken for doing it's job, or Gatekeeer (and it's author, who happens to also be on the net), who's program was vilified publicly by someone with no idea what was going on. Yes, I was harsh. But if you're going to open your mouth and make ugly statements without any basis in fact, if you're too lazy to read the documentation when you have problems, you should expect to get your stupidity shoved back down your throat. Look at an analagous situation: I buy a television. I don't read the documentation, so I don't know I have to attach an antenna to it to get good reception. My reception is horrible, so I publish an article in Consumer Reports about what a rotten television this is. Who's at fault: the television? The television manufacturer? Or the person stupid enough not to know how to use the device *and* talk about it like an expert in public? I don't think I gave anything out that wasn't deserved and wasn't already tossed into the ring by the original poster. IF you're going to scream about something on the net, know what you're talking about.
chrisj@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Johnson) (03/18/89)
In article <7492@boulder.Colorado.EDU> you write: >>A practical lesson in why you should never run software you don't >>understand. This isn'g a problem with the System software OR GateKeeper. >>It's pilot error. Read the documentation! Chuq's tone may have seemed a little terse, but his statement is correct. It was pilot error - no insult intended, the user in question simply made a mistake. It happens to everyone. GateKeeper can be installed without reading documentation since I distribute it pre-configured in an "observation" mode in which it observes but does not interfere with operations on your system. I don't *recommend* installing it without reading documentation, but that's another matter. I do, however, find it odd that after running into problems with GateKeeper that the user in question thought serious enough to merit a posting to the net, that he did not also find the problem serious enough to merit an examination of the GateKeeper documentation (either the release notes or the on-line help). I am, as always, quite willing to receive email (or even normal mail) from people having problems with GateKeeper. I say so in the on-line help, and even provide my email and US Mail addresses just to prove that I mean what I say. Unfortunately, some people choose to ignore my offer - I don't know why. >Let's not insult people on this net. Remember the Mac is the first popular >computer to recognize that users do not always want or have time to read >manuals. Thus the phrase "pilot error" should be changed to "non-intuitive >interface". Yes, let's not insult people on the net - myself included. Any complex software is going to require a glance at the documentation at some point in its use. An example of this would PageMaker - one of nicest programs I've ever seen - it's user interface is (to my mind) simple and elegant, but nonetheless I had to make a brief excursion into my manuals when I wanted to find out how to wrap text around graphics, or learn why I couldn't use the image controls on an imported PICT image. This is to be expected in complex software - the proof that the user interface was doing it's job was that I only needed to refer to the manual on the handful of occasions I did. GateKeeper's user interface does it's job too - the fact that the user in question could get something which exerts such fundamental control over the operation of his system installed and operating on his system without reference to the documentation proves it. But the documentation is necessary and is not a dispensable item. The Mac was not designed by (or for) people who decided that documentation was fundamentally wrong and shouldn't be used. It was designed to make computers easier to use - or, if you prefer, to make computers (as much as possible) tools whose identities are determined by the use to which they are put, as opposed to tools that attempt to mold the operations they are charged with performing to their own identities. And as to not forgetting that the Mac was intended to be easy to use, I assure you there was no danger of my forgetting. I bought my first Mac back in 1984 for that (and other) reasons. Personally, I find this reminder somewhat insulting. >Documentation SHOULD be read when there is a problem, but on No argument there. >a complicated system with much interacting software (as with INITs, etc.), >it may be difficult to determine what program is causing trouble. More >to the point, GateKeeper should have put up a message saying something like >"Operation XXX being attempted - not allowed" (as does Vaccine), and StuffIt Uhhh... GateKeeper DOES, DOES, DOES bring up alerts that say "GateKeeper has monitored/vetoed an attempt by <ApplicationName> to violate <PrivilegeType> against <VicitimName>." It also mentions exactly what Toolbox/OS operation was being used in the violation attempt and relates some of the more relevant parameters for programmers who want to know exactly what's going on. (Even more extensive information is written to the log file.) This is VASTLY more informative than ANY alert ever provided by Vaccine, and idependent of such comparisons (which aren't the point here) it is also a succint and clear indication of what GateKeeper is doing. Of course, you won't see these alerts unless you're running System 6 or better (GateKeeper utilizes the new Notification Manager) and have the "User Alerts" option engaged in the settings area of the GateKeeper cdev. This is all well documented. [I'm assuming here, that we're talking about GateKeeper 1.1, by the way.] >should error-check crucial operations and respond with "Operation XXX >failed". You can say that again - provided that you don't single out StuffIt, since it's a widespread problem. >This putting the user first is what excited most of us about the Mac in the >first place. The old ways of writing a program just to perform a function, >and let the user beware should be falling by the wayside. With the number of >different software programs used by individual users rising exponentially, it >seems, we programmers are need to think more about what the user may need >than expect him/her to figure us out. In response to this, please refer to everything I just said. Good day, and happy computing, ----Chris Johnson ----Author of GateKeeper P.S. I don't mean to sound mad with the user who posted the problem report from which all of this dialog suddenly sprang. I don't think he dealt with the problem well, but I'd still like to invite him (and anyone else who has problems with GateKeeper) to send me email about those problems - I think you'll agree that I'm uniquely qualified to help.
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (03/19/89)
In article <27475@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Let me ask who was insulted here: the poster who bitched about GateKeeper >being broken for doing it's job, or Gatekeeer (and it's author, who happens >to also be on the net), who's program was vilified publicly by someone with >no idea what was going on. > Everybody seems to be taking things a little too personally around here. Describing a problem with a program is not an insult unless specific and personal statements with value judgments are made (eg. the next quote). Anyone who is a professional programmer knows that this is simply a part of the job to respond to difficulties users have with a program (not a favorite part of the job, I'll agree). >Yes, I was harsh. But if you're going to open your mouth and make ugly >statements without any basis in fact, if you're too lazy to read the >documentation when you have problems, you should expect to get your >stupidity shoved back down your throat. > >... the person stupid enough not to >know how to use the device *and* talk about it like an expert in public? > These are unnecessarily inflammatory remarks that are in no way appropriate for this newsgroup. I dont remember the exact words used in the original posting, but they were nothing like this. >I don't think I gave anything out that wasn't deserved and wasn't already >tossed into the ring by the original poster. IF you're going to scream about >something on the net, know what you're talking about. The whole point of posting a question to the net is to get an answer to learn what you're talking about. I do agree that if the program in question can be identified, one should read documentation first, and one should never "vilify" a program on the net if you DONT know what you're talking about. Nobody should be casting stones here. I posted what I said about programmers paying attention to the users needs and limitations because of a personal bias. I have done graduate work in human-computer communications and feel very strongly about getting the machine to serve the user, much like a good teacher in a class who tells you there are no stupid questions (even though there are, of course). In the long run, this will hopefully reduce the computer paranoia among the "illiterate" masses and make us all more productive (like the Mac was supposed to do). Hell, it may even generate more demand for more and better software, giving us programmers job security unmatched even by Teamster's Union members. (Unless those boys in reusable design environments, ala HyperCard, put programming in the hands of the User - then we're all in for some trouble) PS: One of main reasons the "illiterate" masses are that way (aside from lack of equipment) is that the few times they've been on a computer, they have been made to feel stupid by the machine (error messages like "Illegal operation" instead of "I dont know what you mean by...", or no message at all). Let's not contribute to this disincentive to computer use, unless we want to maintain an elite of "smart" users only. PPS: I received mail from the author of GateKeeper, Chris Johnson, who seems genuinely willing to help and has done exactly as I suggested (better, even) in providing alerts. Apparently these alerts run only under System 6, so that the original user may not have had System 6 since he/she had to systematically remove INITs to identify GateKeeper. If he did, I'm sure he's learned his lesson from this net exchange. GateKeeper is obviously an excellent program and service to the Mac community. ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard University of Colorado "Serendipity empowers" fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu
fons@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (03/19/89)
Has anyone else noticed that occasionally the GateKeeper 1.1
settings display gets corrupted? I have noticed this when I open
GateKeeper several times. It is not permanent however, when I
reboot, all the settings I gave it are fine and it works
normally. I have not as of this point tried to reproduce the
conditions under which it occurs ... but was wondering if anyone
else had seen the problem.
I am using 6.0.2 with a 5 MB Mac II, running the SUM SHIELD
init, Moire 2.12, MacEnvy (I should probably move this I know),
QuickKeys, SuitCase II, Kolor and Logout. This is not (at the
moment anyway) really meant to serve as a serious bug report, but
rather an inquiry as to whether anyone else has seen the problem.
Paul Fons
University of Illinois
Coordinated Science Laboratory
1101 W. Springfield Av.
Urbana, Illinois 61801 U.S.A.
email: Fons@uiucvmd.bitnet or...
Fons@uxh.cso.uiuc.edubillkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (billkatt) (03/20/89)
In article <20200025@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu> fons@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > Has anyone else noticed that occasionally the GateKeeper 1.1 >settings display gets corrupted? I have noticed this when I open >GateKeeper several times. It is not permanent however, when I >reboot, all the settings I gave it are fine and it works >normally. I have not as of this point tried to reproduce the >conditions under which it occurs ... but was wondering if anyone >else had seen the problem. > I am using 6.0.2 with a 5 MB Mac II, running the SUM SHIELD >init, Moire 2.12, MacEnvy (I should probably move this I know), >QuickKeys, SuitCase II, Kolor and Logout. This is not (at the >moment anyway) really meant to serve as a serious bug report, but >rather an inquiry as to whether anyone else has seen the problem. > Paul Fons Happens to me all the time. I have a 5 MB Mac II with a similar INIT setup, but no Moire. -Steve Bollinger