Sign In
Register
Help
I believe I've read here more than once people advising us to repair permissions after downloading software updates on the Mac.
Today I read in my March Macworld that permissions repair runs automatically after every software update.
Any advice or comments?
redundant permissions repair?
MultiQuote
#3
nnager 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 15-February 02
Posted 11 February 2006 - 03:14 PM
Running Repair Permissions automatically at intervals I set is one of the dividends I get from the Macaroni shareware: http://www.atomicbird.com/
In my case, I have it done in the background every three days, but that's arbitrary. Because it's run in the background, I do not have to think about it or spend any time launching Disk Utility, selecting the boot volume and clicking on Repair Permissions. The exceptions: I manually run Repair Permissions just before and immediately after any OS Software Update and also more frequently when I am in the midst of beta testing.
Because I do not keep my Mac on through the night, my primary use of Macaroni is for automated daily, weekly and monthly Unix Maintenance that OS X would perform on its own in the wee hours of the morning.
Another dividend is having Macaroni do a scheduled removal of localizations (foreign languages) that I do not use.
Respectfully, Norm
In my case, I have it done in the background every three days, but that's arbitrary. Because it's run in the background, I do not have to think about it or spend any time launching Disk Utility, selecting the boot volume and clicking on Repair Permissions. The exceptions: I manually run Repair Permissions just before and immediately after any OS Software Update and also more frequently when I am in the midst of beta testing.
Because I do not keep my Mac on through the night, my primary use of Macaroni is for automated daily, weekly and monthly Unix Maintenance that OS X would perform on its own in the wee hours of the morning.
Another dividend is having Macaroni do a scheduled removal of localizations (foreign languages) that I do not use.
Respectfully, Norm
#5
jmincey
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,228
- Joined: 27-August 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 03:23 PM
"I agree with Typhoon."
And Apple's engineers developed and provide this function to the Mac user why? Because it's utterly unnecessary?
As I have said many times in these forums, the name of this function is misleading. It's more accurate to call it "Restore file/folder permission defaults." We get hooked on the word, repair, and then go off into rhetorical orbit about that rather than to respond to what this function actually does.
And Apple's engineers developed and provide this function to the Mac user why? Because it's utterly unnecessary?
As I have said many times in these forums, the name of this function is misleading. It's more accurate to call it "Restore file/folder permission defaults." We get hooked on the word, repair, and then go off into rhetorical orbit about that rather than to respond to what this function actually does.
#6
nnager
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 522
- Joined: 15-February 02
Posted 11 February 2006 - 03:29 PM
According to Apple's Disk Utility documentation:
In reply to:
Testing and repairing disk permissions:
User permissions associated with files, folders, or applications can become damaged and prevent a file or application from opening. Permissions problems can also cause your computer to run slowly. . . .
Testing and repairing disk permissions:
User permissions associated with files, folders, or applications can become damaged and prevent a file or application from opening. Permissions problems can also cause your computer to run slowly. . . .
#7
jmincey
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,228
- Joined: 27-August 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 03:34 PM
Ha -- what a novel idea, to consult Apple's online help and documentation. I suppose that if permissions are changed somehow such that applications no longer run or they run more slowly, then that would indeed qualify as a kind of "damage" which would need repair.
I once installed software which reset my /Applications folder to read-only, and in the process caused much of my software to fail. So it's fair to say in such a case that something was "broken" and that a repair of a sort was warranted.
Also, I see no evidence that the permissions repair is run automatically upon all Apple software updates. An optimization is generally done -- and this consists of an update_prebinding function, but I doubt strongly that a file/folder "repair" is involved in the process.
I once installed software which reset my /Applications folder to read-only, and in the process caused much of my software to fail. So it's fair to say in such a case that something was "broken" and that a repair of a sort was warranted.
Also, I see no evidence that the permissions repair is run automatically upon all Apple software updates. An optimization is generally done -- and this consists of an update_prebinding function, but I doubt strongly that a file/folder "repair" is involved in the process.
#8
jdb8167
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,583
- Joined: 30-August 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:00 PM
In reply to:
I once installed software which reset my /Applications folder to read-only, and in the process caused much of my software to fail.
Really? That should no longer be the case in modern versions of OS X. I regularly run with a non-admin account which renders the Applications folder to be read-only with no problems. If you are running your day-to-day account as an admin you run a higher risk of some malware being able to install itself and run automatically. I acknowledge that the real risk of this is low but I don't find any reason to run my day-to-day account as admin and the added security is comforting.I once installed software which reset my /Applications folder to read-only, and in the process caused much of my software to fail.
There are several folders which are writable to admins without a password which are read-only to normal accounts.
#9
jdb8167
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,583
- Joined: 30-August 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:06 PM
In reply to:
Today I read in my March Macworld that permissions repair runs automatically after every software update.
I really don't believe that this is true. If someone has a reference that explains when and why Software Update does this I would be grateful.
Today I read in my March Macworld that permissions repair runs automatically after every software update.
#10
jmincey
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,228
- Joined: 27-August 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:12 PM
"Really? That should no longer be the case in modern versions of OS X."
First, this was back in the days of Panther -- but there are still plenty of Panther users out there. Second, the renegade software I ran rendered the Applications folder read-only to me -- even though I was an admin class user -- and some software suddenly ceased to function properly. I had to run "sudo" (or I logged in as root -- I don't remember which now) in order to run chmod and fix the damage myself.
But the larger point is that it can on occasion be useful to have a function which restores permissions to their default values on all system-related and applications-related files/folders.
First, this was back in the days of Panther -- but there are still plenty of Panther users out there. Second, the renegade software I ran rendered the Applications folder read-only to me -- even though I was an admin class user -- and some software suddenly ceased to function properly. I had to run "sudo" (or I logged in as root -- I don't remember which now) in order to run chmod and fix the damage myself.
But the larger point is that it can on occasion be useful to have a function which restores permissions to their default values on all system-related and applications-related files/folders.
#11
Typhoon14
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,391
- Joined: 02-February 01
Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:27 PM
In reply to:
And Apple's engineers developed and provide this function to the Mac user why? Because it's utterly unnecessary?
As I have said many times in these forums, the name of this function is misleading. It's more accurate to call it "Restore file/folder permission defaults." We get hooked on the word, repair, and then go off into rhetorical orbit about that rather than to respond to what this function actually does.
And Apple's engineers developed and provide this function to the Mac user why? Because it's utterly unnecessary?
As I have said many times in these forums, the name of this function is misleading. It's more accurate to call it "Restore file/folder permission defaults." We get hooked on the word, repair, and then go off into rhetorical orbit about that rather than to respond to what this function actually does.
On the very rare occasions where a bad piece of software / user doing something stupid causes permissions to be altered, it can be very handy. However, permissions do not change away from their defaults during normal use, and there is absolutely no reason to run permissions repair on a regular basis or set it specially to run at certain intervals unless you just really enjoy seeing that progress bar advance. If you're having system issues, and have reason to suspect they're permission-related, then by all means, run the repair, but otherwise just leave it alone.
Permissions repair has become a snake-oil cure that people perform just because it makes them feel like they're doing something useful to maintain their system. The truth is, if your OS X system is running fine, there are really no "regular" maintenance tasks that need to be performed. I never do anything "special" to maintain my system unless I'm having problems.
#12
jmincey
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,228
- Joined: 27-August 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 04:31 PM
Typhoon14, I agree with you completely on your elaborated points above -- except for the very last one. One day the state of the art will attain this self-maintaining system we all aspire to develop or have. But I'm from the ounce of prevention school and I do think some fine-tuning of the system now and then can prevent larger problems in the future.
One example of this is file system corruption. Very minor problems in this regard may not impinge on system performance, but the user is well advised (after a rare system crash) to boot to single-user mode and run fsck -yf. If the user fails to do this, (on grounds that the computer is humming along just fine), he could find that this was a progressive condition which got worse over time (as file system problems tend to do). And why wait until the boot blocks themselves are compromised before taking a modest preventive step?
One example of this is file system corruption. Very minor problems in this regard may not impinge on system performance, but the user is well advised (after a rare system crash) to boot to single-user mode and run fsck -yf. If the user fails to do this, (on grounds that the computer is humming along just fine), he could find that this was a progressive condition which got worse over time (as file system problems tend to do). And why wait until the boot blocks themselves are compromised before taking a modest preventive step?
#13
Joe_Guy
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 01-January 04
Posted 11 February 2006 - 05:00 PM
The article was written by David Pogue & Chris Stone.
The idea of automatic permission repair after downloading a software update makes sense and seems logical. Especially since the procedure has been advised by many "experts".
I assume David & Chris know what they are talking about. Do others here believe they are wrong?
The idea of automatic permission repair after downloading a software update makes sense and seems logical. Especially since the procedure has been advised by many "experts".
I assume David & Chris know what they are talking about. Do others here believe they are wrong?
#14
Typhoon14
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,391
- Joined: 02-February 01
Posted 11 February 2006 - 05:34 PM
In reply to:
One example of this is file system corruption. Very minor problems in this regard may not impinge on system performance, but the user is well advised (after a rare system crash) to boot to single-user mode and run fsck -yf. If the user fails to do this, (on grounds that the computer is humming along just fine), he could find that this was a progressive condition which got worse over time (as file system problems tend to do). And why wait until the boot blocks themselves are compromised before taking a modest preventive step?
One example of this is file system corruption. Very minor problems in this regard may not impinge on system performance, but the user is well advised (after a rare system crash) to boot to single-user mode and run fsck -yf. If the user fails to do this, (on grounds that the computer is humming along just fine), he could find that this was a progressive condition which got worse over time (as file system problems tend to do). And why wait until the boot blocks themselves are compromised before taking a modest preventive step?
Notice I only said maintenance was unnecessary as long as the system was running fine. The first thing I do if I have to hard restart the system for any reason is to pop in my DiskWarrior CD.
Apple really does need to do something to improve how well the HFS+ filesystem holds up during unexpected reboots. Even with journaling enabled, significant directory damage is quite common during a hard reboot. This is one area where Microsoft's NTFS filesystem is a good deal better.
