repair permissions???

[fisherking]

just saw this: https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/55635/riparacapo

what's the point? (no really, i'm asking... ). if apple, in their limited wisdom, removed the function as unnecessary, why do some people want it back? just trying to understand...

 

[Ritsuka]

The same reason as homeopathy, placebo feels nice.

 

[fisherking]

The same reason as homeopathy, placebo feels nice.

hmm. i actually believe some homeopathy works. but that's a separate debate. if apple removed this functionality, telling us it's not relevant to el capitan, why do some people want it back? "placebo feels nice"...guess that IS true...

 

[thewap]

just saw this: https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/55635/riparacapo

what's the point? (no really, i'm asking... ). if apple, in their limited wisdom, removed the function as unnecessary, why do some people want it back? just trying to understand...

I think Apple's logic was that when your OS gets updates your system permissions get repaired anyway. That however does not address possible issues that may arise between updates, or users who may not want to update their OS for whatever reason.

 

[leman]

what's the point? (no really, i'm asking... ). if apple, in their limited wisdom, removed the function as unnecessary, why do some people want it back? just trying to understand...

Because this people don't understand how OS X works. Repair permissions fixed permission flags on system directories that could be occasionally changed due to buggy installers. In 10.11 no third party can write to these directories. Hence, the operations itself becomes unnecessary.

There are some people that claim that repair permission is still necessary for third-party drivers. However, I fail to see how Apple should be responsible for a buggy third-party driver.

 

[chrfr]

There are some people that claim that repair permission is still necessary for third-party drivers. However, I fail to see how Apple should be responsible for a buggy third-party driver.

The funny part about that is that repairing permissions never handled 3rd party files anyway.

 

[fisherking]

The funny part about that is that repairing permissions never handled 3rd party files anyway.

actually.. is that correct? i've seen apps like Dreamweaver listed in the actions in Repair Permissions (back in the day, ie yosemite, etc).
just confused...

 

[leman]

The funny part about that is that repairing permissions never handled 3rd party files anyway.

I am not 100% sure, but I think that "repair permissions" went over the package recipes and fixed the permission based on that. So it would also affect third-party stuff, as long as the appropriate recipe was written. But again, I am not sure.

 

[chrfr]

actually.. is that correct? i've seen apps like Dreamweaver listed in the actions in Repair Permissions (back in the day, ie yosemite, etc).
just confused...

If there's a installer package receipt, repair permissions may address it and set the files listed in the receipt back to permissions defined in that receipt, but there's no certainty that process sets permissions back to what Apple expects them to be in a given location.

 

[fisherking]

at the end of the day, if apple designed the OS, and tells us permissions repair is no longer needed...wouldn't that suggest that it is in fact no longer needed?

and where's Conflict Catcher now that i need it?