7 ms·

How about the non-modifiable hidden system partition? Inability to create directories under / That alone has stopped me moving my Macs to the latest OS after t

How about the non-modifiable hidden system partition? Inability to create directories under / That alone has stopped me moving my Macs to the latest OS after testing.

thoughtsimple 6y ago
Turn off System Integrity Protection. Not a good idea but it will let you make unnecessary changes to /.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  All they really did was make it harder to thoughtlessly do. If you can't cope with the procedure needed to make changes to the write-protected folders, maybe whatever it is you wanted to write there isn't actually that important.
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    That doesn't make sense. What is in / that is dangerous? Finder hides all of /etc and /bin and /usr for the "protection" of normal users, just like the default view for Windows Explorer under C:\Windows\System. But you can still change the contents on Windows, or see the directories in Terminal on macOS. Should they hide those directories when you use Terminal too? After all, /etc is important. Your reasoning would also stand up there - perhaps whatever files you were attempting to modify under /etc wasn't actually that important. When does the "you cannot easily modify files on your own machine" stop? Would you also accept the inability to change your wallpaper with such glee? Perhaps the wallpaper you wanted wasn't actually that important.
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      > That doesn't make sense. What is in / that is dangerous? There have been examples of (un)installer scripts removing substantial parts of your system, steam for example. Linux in this case https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671 https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671, but not generally unthinkable on MacOS. It's generally good if the system puts up barriers to prevent such occurrences. You're entirely welcome to disable these protections, but MacOS is designed to protect Joe User who may have substantially less knowledge and who has no general need to mess around in /etc
      - 72deluxe 6y ago
        It seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist, as if edge cases were the reason to apply blanket restrictions. It's like banning knives because there's been a few stabbings. It removes the general utility due to misuse by a few.
        viro 6y ago
        "solving a problem that doesn't exist" ... um I nuked plenty linux machines by removing the wrong file early in my linux days. Hell I nuked a couple OS X machines when I first got Mac. Turning off SIP isn't that hard ... if you consider it hard you probably need to keep it on.
        72deluxe 6y ago
        But typing the correct command also isn't that hard!
    - filleduchaos 6y ago
      > What is in / that is dangerous? ...it's...the root of your entire system? Are you really asking me why `rm -rf /` is a meme, or are you just being contrarian? > Finder hides all of /etc and /bin and /usr for the "protection" of normal users And you can change Finder's preferences to show those folders, like any actual macOS user that's qualified to be making changes to those folders should know. If you lack both the curiosity and the ability to look up how to enable that option, then you frankly have no business modifying them yourself. If whatever you wanted to copy or edit there wasn't important enough for you to take ten seconds to look up how to do it and then follow through with the instructions, then why on earth would you be complaining about it to anybody?
      - 72deluxe 6y ago
        I'm not being contrarian, I am asking why I wouldn't be able to modify my filesystem. It's quite simple. I can also do rm -rf ~/Documents or rm -rf /Applications or rm -rf /Library which has a similar devastating effect to my life/machine - should we block that too? I can also fling a hammer into the screen and break the screen - should we put extra thick glass on the screen? I guess I have no business using a MacBook if it is possible to break the screen. I can also pour liquid into the keyboard - should the keyboards be waterproof? I guess I am not qualified to use a Macbook and have no business using one if I spill a drink. Using the keyboard is dangerous too because someone can type dangerous commands. Let's stop people using it. Only those with sufficient "curiosity" and those "qualified" should use it, right? How do I get "qualified"? I am saying that as it is my machine, I get to decide which parts are dangerous. But I no longer can because someone the other side of the world has decided that I am cannot create a directory under /. I do not ever modify /etc using Finder. Should I only be allowed to edit files under there using Finder or is Terminal permitted? I guess if we follow this "lock down" and "only those qualified" route that you encourage, we'll soon see permission prompts to do anything anyway.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
I'm genuinely curious: why do you want to create new directories at the root level? Is this something you're just used to doing and it breaks your customary way of working? Is it a "general principle" thing (which I suspect is a lot of the objection the HN crowd really has at the root, no pun intended)? I've been using OS X-based Macs since 2002 and used Linux and FreeBSD for a decade before that, and I don't recall ever having an actual need to create a root-level directory.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > why do you want to create new directories at the root level? Why not? It's his system, he should be able to do whatever he likes. On most Linux I can rm -rf / all day long and nobody cares. What's the problem with creating root level directories?
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    I didn't say there was a problem with it; I just asked what the reason for wanting it was. > On most Linux I can rm -rf / all day long and nobody cares. So let me turn this around: Why do you think a system that doesn't make it difficult to completely destroy it with one command is a bad idea? "It's my system, I should be able to do whatever I like" is an answer, to be sure. (N.B.: in fact, "rm -rf /" won't work without "--no-preserve-root" in most Linux distributions, AFAIK, and I presume sudo.)
    - suyjuris 6y ago
      > Why do you think a system that doesn't make it difficult to completely destroy it with one command is a bad idea? This does not seem very charitable. It is fine if the system warns you about doing potentially dangerous operations (which --no-preserve-root amounts to) but it must not prevent you from ignoring that warning.
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      DOS survived perfectly fine with deltree, whereupon it was possible to delete your file system. The decision on which bits of the system I can destroy should be mine, not theirs. That's the issue. At the moment, I am getting pushed out of my machine, bit by bit. Every binary I run is getting report to Apple etc. It is also possible to destroy the system by dropping your MacBook from a very great height. Should it be padded to cope with this eventuality?
mayoff 6y ago
man synthetic.conf: > synthetic.conf describes virtual symbolic links and empty directories to be created at the root mount point.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  That doesn't actually create real directories; it's just symbolic links. For certain use cases (nix) this isn't enough.

How about the non-modifiable hidden system partition? Inability to create directories under / That alone has stopped me moving my Macs to the latest OS after testing.

thoughtsimple 6y ago

Turn off System Integrity Protection. Not a good idea but it will let you make unnecessary changes to /.

filleduchaos 6y ago
All they really did was make it harder to thoughtlessly do. If you can't cope with the procedure needed to make changes to the write-protected folders, maybe whatever it is you wanted to write there isn't actually that important.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  That doesn't make sense. What is in / that is dangerous? Finder hides all of /etc and /bin and /usr for the "protection" of normal users, just like the default view for Windows Explorer under C:\Windows\System. But you can still change the contents on Windows, or see the directories in Terminal on macOS. Should they hide those directories when you use Terminal too? After all, /etc is important. Your reasoning would also stand up there - perhaps whatever files you were attempting to modify under /etc wasn't actually that important. When does the "you cannot easily modify files on your own machine" stop? Would you also accept the inability to change your wallpaper with such glee? Perhaps the wallpaper you wanted wasn't actually that important.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    > That doesn't make sense. What is in / that is dangerous? There have been examples of (un)installer scripts removing substantial parts of your system, steam for example. Linux in this case https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671 https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671, but not generally unthinkable on MacOS. It's generally good if the system puts up barriers to prevent such occurrences. You're entirely welcome to disable these protections, but MacOS is designed to protect Joe User who may have substantially less knowledge and who has no general need to mess around in /etc
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      It seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist, as if edge cases were the reason to apply blanket restrictions. It's like banning knives because there's been a few stabbings. It removes the general utility due to misuse by a few.
      - viro 6y ago
        "solving a problem that doesn't exist" ... um I nuked plenty linux machines by removing the wrong file early in my linux days. Hell I nuked a couple OS X machines when I first got Mac. Turning off SIP isn't that hard ... if you consider it hard you probably need to keep it on.
        72deluxe 6y ago
        But typing the correct command also isn't that hard!
  - filleduchaos 6y ago
    > What is in / that is dangerous? ...it's...the root of your entire system? Are you really asking me why `rm -rf /` is a meme, or are you just being contrarian? > Finder hides all of /etc and /bin and /usr for the "protection" of normal users And you can change Finder's preferences to show those folders, like any actual macOS user that's qualified to be making changes to those folders should know. If you lack both the curiosity and the ability to look up how to enable that option, then you frankly have no business modifying them yourself. If whatever you wanted to copy or edit there wasn't important enough for you to take ten seconds to look up how to do it and then follow through with the instructions, then why on earth would you be complaining about it to anybody?
    - 72deluxe 6y ago
      I'm not being contrarian, I am asking why I wouldn't be able to modify my filesystem. It's quite simple. I can also do rm -rf ~/Documents or rm -rf /Applications or rm -rf /Library which has a similar devastating effect to my life/machine - should we block that too? I can also fling a hammer into the screen and break the screen - should we put extra thick glass on the screen? I guess I have no business using a MacBook if it is possible to break the screen. I can also pour liquid into the keyboard - should the keyboards be waterproof? I guess I am not qualified to use a Macbook and have no business using one if I spill a drink. Using the keyboard is dangerous too because someone can type dangerous commands. Let's stop people using it. Only those with sufficient "curiosity" and those "qualified" should use it, right? How do I get "qualified"? I am saying that as it is my machine, I get to decide which parts are dangerous. But I no longer can because someone the other side of the world has decided that I am cannot create a directory under /. I do not ever modify /etc using Finder. Should I only be allowed to edit files under there using Finder or is Terminal permitted? I guess if we follow this "lock down" and "only those qualified" route that you encourage, we'll soon see permission prompts to do anything anyway.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

I'm genuinely curious: why do you want to create new directories at the root level? Is this something you're just used to doing and it breaks your customary way of working? Is it a "general principle" thing (which I suspect is a lot of the objection the HN crowd really has at the root, no pun intended)? I've been using OS X-based Macs since 2002 and used Linux and FreeBSD for a decade before that, and I don't recall ever having an actual need to create a root-level directory.

perryizgr8 6y ago
> why do you want to create new directories at the root level? Why not? It's his system, he should be able to do whatever he likes. On most Linux I can rm -rf / all day long and nobody cares. What's the problem with creating root level directories?
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  I didn't say there was a problem with it; I just asked what the reason for wanting it was. > On most Linux I can rm -rf / all day long and nobody cares. So let me turn this around: Why do you think a system that doesn't make it difficult to completely destroy it with one command is a bad idea? "It's my system, I should be able to do whatever I like" is an answer, to be sure. (N.B.: in fact, "rm -rf /" won't work without "--no-preserve-root" in most Linux distributions, AFAIK, and I presume sudo.)
  - suyjuris 6y ago
    > Why do you think a system that doesn't make it difficult to completely destroy it with one command is a bad idea? This does not seem very charitable. It is fine if the system warns you about doing potentially dangerous operations (which --no-preserve-root amounts to) but it must not prevent you from ignoring that warning.
  - 72deluxe 6y ago
    DOS survived perfectly fine with deltree, whereupon it was possible to delete your file system. The decision on which bits of the system I can destroy should be mine, not theirs. That's the issue. At the moment, I am getting pushed out of my machine, bit by bit. Every binary I run is getting report to Apple etc. It is also possible to destroy the system by dropping your MacBook from a very great height. Should it be padded to cope with this eventuality?

mayoff 6y ago

man synthetic.conf: > synthetic.conf describes virtual symbolic links and empty directories to be created at the root mount point.

saagarjha 6y ago
That doesn't actually create real directories; it's just symbolic links. For certain use cases (nix) this isn't enough.