isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (08/18/88)
Ran into an interesting problem today. In my System Folder, I have a number of INITs. I decided I didn't want them on the desktop, so I checked off the INVISIBLE bit. Well, funny thing is that now they don't load. Since when does invisible = nonexistant? Comments from Apple? System 6.0, Mac II w/ 5 megs. Note that unchecking invisible restored them to normal load status. Ken Ken Hancock '90 | BITNET/UUCP: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu Personal Computing Ctr Consultant | -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER? I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.
bob@eecs.nwu.edu (Bob Hablutzel) (08/18/88)
> Ran into an interesting problem today. In my System Folder, I have > a number of INITs. I decided I didn't want them on the desktop, > so I checked off the INVISIBLE bit. Well, funny thing is that now > they don't load. Since when does invisible = nonexistant? > Comments from Apple? Yes. Invisible = nonexistant in System 6.0. This is a change from the past, and is, I think, in response to viri and their ilk. I have not seen any mention of this by Apple, but then I don't read documentation... > Ken Bob
leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (08/19/88)
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu(Ken Hancock) writes in comp.sys.mac >Ran into an interesting problem today. In my System Folder, I have >a number of INITs. I decided I didn't want them on the desktop, >so I checked off the INVISIBLE bit. Well, funny thing is that now >they don't load. Since when does invisible = nonexistant? >Comments from Apple? > Well I don't work for Apple, but the answer is that this is a FEATURE of the new system. In order to alleviate the problems with Viruses, the new system will NOT recognize invisable files so that a virus can not put an invisable file in your system file which does cruel things. Neat, huh? +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ + + Any thing I say may be taken as + + Leonard Rosenthol + fact, then again you might decide+ + President, LazerWare, inc. + that it really isn't, so you + + + never know, do you?? + + leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu + + + GEnie: MACgician + MacNET: MACgician + + Delphi: MACgician + + + + + +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
jln@eecs.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (08/23/88)
INIT 31 skips INIT files if either bit 7 or bit 14 is set in the Finder flags. Bit 14 is the "invisible" bit. Bit 7 is the "cached" bit. The use of the cached bit is an optimization. When INIT 31 sees a file of type INIT, cdev, or RDEV, if it can't find any resources of type INIT in the file, it sets the cached bit. The next time INIT 31 runs it sees the cached bit set, and skips the scan for INIT resources. I agree with the other people who responded to this query. I suspect that Apple is now refusing to execute invisible INITs as an attempt to foil viruses. For example, Scores uses invisible INITs. Unfortunately, Scores also has copies of it's INITs on visible files, so this trick doesn't foil Scores. I don't really object to this new "feature", but it would have been nice if Apple could have documented it. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University Bitnet: JLN@NUACC Internet: JLN@NUACC.ACNS.NWU.EDU