The Bynk Zone: Why I hate haxies

Why I hate haxies

Let's get this out of the way first, I hate them all. I understand why people use them, I understand why people may even, (in extremely small numbers) truly need them. But as a support person, I hate them. It's not just Unsanity's APE - enabled spawn. I pretty much hate all of them. Because they make my life suck, and always have, regardless of OS.

Let's start with a casting call of other opinions in this, in something vaguely resembling order:

DrunkenBatman spaketh...

Rich Siegel of Bare Bones didst reply...

DrunkenBatman didst fire back, quite pithily...

Finally, some others chimed in, like Erik J. Barzeski of "NSLog();" and Cory Redlien, of "business on the mac".

For the most part, the whole DB/Rich Siegel thing can be distilled thusly:

DB likes Haxies and dislikes Bare Bones' haxie warning dialog. (The former is a legitimate opinion, the latter is right. Rich, the dialog blows monkey turds as written)

Rich dislikes haxies, and disagrees with DB's comments on how Bare Bones deals with them. (Both opinions, and legitimate, regardless of if you agree)

The problem I have with haxies cannot be truly appreciated unless you've ever had to ask someone over the phone, Have you done anything to your system recently, like installing new software or utilities? (For more fun, make sure you're in Massachusetts, and they're in a dialup-only hotel in Malaysia)

You always know what the answer will be: NO. Even if they're registering WindowShade while they're talking to you. So you've got to go through remote troubleshooting hell. Now, remote troubleshooting sucks anyway. As anyone in IT knows, two identical computers...aren't, not really. One will work fine, the other won't. There's always minor variations that cause issues. Hardware, OS, other software, it's always something. So IT people are fanatical about configuration control. If we're talking about desktops, or an environment like a lot of .edu institutions, where you just re-image everything daily, this is simple. But when you start talking about things like laptops, or corner office denizens, well, your ability to control slips away. Especially if it's a corner office denizen with a laptop. In that case, I recommend Jack Daniel's, or frozen vodka. (anyone who says alcohol can't make problems go away never worked in IS).

For IT, it's a struggle of hardware vs. software vs. environment vs. entropy, aka, "stuff just breaks". So when we realize that Glorious Leader has every haxie known to humans on their system, we get annoyed. We can't do anything about it, (Glorious Leader, remember?), but now we have a near - infinite number of possible variables to deal with. You can't troubleshoot infinite numbers variables. It's impossible, and that's what things like APE are: Infinite numbers of variables to every bug. So every time there's a problem with an APE - infected machine, (yeah, that is how I think of APE...an infection. It's bright and shiny and pretty, so it's like Catherine Zeta-Jones naked and willing with a video camera for proof, but telling you she's got the herp. You want to play, but do you want the risk?), we have to go through the "Okay, now let's temporarily uninstall all vestiges of <haxie/addon/whathaveyou>, reboot, and see if the problem repeats".

It sucks no matter what happens. If the problem repeats, it sucks because the presence of the haxie, (I'm using "haxie" as a generic term here, ala "aspirin", not as a sole, specific reference to Unsanity software. When you see "haxie", assume I mean all this crap), added extra steps to the call...removing the haxie, and the eventual reinstall of the haxie. (They NEVER let you close the call until the haxie has been reinstalled, as if your presence killed all haxie - installing brain cells) If the problem does go away, it sucks, because rarely will "don't run that haxie" work as a solution. They want to stick the fork in your eye, they just don't want it to ever hurt. So now you have to figure out which magical combination of applications and haxie settings will allow things to function "correctly".

When you work in support, no matter what, haxies suck. What is even worse is the "Well, we help find hidden bugs" line that so many haxie developers and defenders use. Here's the human side of that...If the bug never happens, the bug doesn't exist. It may be there, but it's not real to the HU-MON. A non-computer related example of what I mean. In 1978, my dad was run over by a car. I mean, literally. The wheels broke his lower right leg in four places, compound fracture mind you, the muffler hanger peeled back his right biceps neat as you please, skull fracture, cracked ribs etc. He was a mess. Spent many, many months in the hospital. After he came home, he was looking at the accident report and hospital write-ups, and saw that he had also fractured his pelvis. Since no one had TOLD him this, he was a bit miffed. When he called his doctor about it, the doc said, Tom, you were confined to a bed for three months, and in the hospital for what, six? You know what we do for a busted pelvis? We confine you to a bed until it heals. That was happening, and in the grand scheme of things, what would you knowing have meant with your other injuries? Nothing. It was meaningless for your treatment, and honestly, with all your other real problems, we just forgot to tell you.

I understand to programmers that a bug is a bug is a bug, and even if it's never seen by users, it's still a bug. But to most everyone else, unless it causes problems, it's not a bug. I don't care if it's there for the entire life-span of the programs use, if the user doesn't see it, there's no bug, aka, what the eye don't see, the chef gets away with. So telling me that a haxie is doing me a favor by helping to find bugs is sophistry from the human POV. From that POV, the haxie is a bug - causing pain in the keister is what it is, and I'm not alone in this opinion. Unsanity in particular had a bad habit of refusing to tell its users where things were installed, because "That would only confuse them, and we're not doing anything wrong anyway", even though they were (with good reason), installing things in /System/Library/. (Yes, that's a quote, no I'm not naming names within Unsanity, and I still have the email exchange, it was fascinating, and a reason why I don't use Unsanity software. I hope they don't still do that, because it was as arrogant as anything they accuse anyone else of.)

So yes, Bare Bones really needs to rewrite that dialog, because aside from how the message it's sending could be taken, it's just too damned wordy. I don't like to read dialogs that long, and I read faster than everyone. But the idea of "We need you to uninstall the software that's diddling with our application so that we can narrow down the possible causes of the problem better" is neither unreasonable or arrogant. It's just good triage. What the haxie developers need to do is realize that they are always going to be viewed as the first cause of a problem, and instead of telling the world "It's not our fault!", accept the consequences of the use of their tool, and stop perennially trying to prove it's not their fault, because from the human side, if it doesn't work with the haxie, and it does work without the haxie, it's the haxie's fault, and I can tell you how any sane support person will fix the problem. (They should in fact, take some extra steps to further troubleshoot once the user's machine is happy again, but the first priority is to make the problem go away. If yanking the haxie does that, and makes it stay away, then that's the smart fix.)

But yeah, I really, really hate haxies, because in the end, they make work suck, and if they do that, they're bad.

Disclaimer...I've used exactly one in OS X for any amount of time: TypeIt4Me, and I had stopped using it for a long time because it was a buggy pain in the ass. Lately it's not, so I use it, and I do have a need for it, because not using it would make getting work done a lot harder. However, the second I don't need it, it's gone. But I don't expect application developers to ensure that they have no problems with TypeIt4Me. TypeIt4Me bears first response duties in the "Do no harm" line of thought.

Posted by John C. Welch at 10:40 | Permalink

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bynkii.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/109

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I hate haxies:

» More debating on haxies from Betalogue
John Welch gets involved with his own “I hate haxies” post. ... [Read More]

Tracked on December 7, 2005 11:49 AM

Comments

I use two haxies...Window Shade and Fruit Menu.

I'd love to be able to not use them, but the fact is that they make add essential features to my computer that make day-to-day use much better...to wit, a customizeable hierarchical Apple menu, and the ability to minimize windows in place, rather then using Apple's lame minimize-to-dock implmentation.

I can understand getting annoyed at things like Shape Shifter, which are just eye candy and has a lot of nasty side effects (beyond mere bad taste), but as long as Apple intentionally cripples their OS by leaving out essential interface features which were presnet in the OS 9 days, they are asking -- actually BEGGING -- third parties to develop these customer-demanded features. So I put a chunk of the blame on Apple.

Yeah, from a support standpoint (and a QA standpoint, mind you!) Haxies suck. But as a user, I depend on them.

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 5, 2005 03:43 PM

I thought about fruit menu, but never got around to it, and if you have panther, and a Classic system folder installed, you can use the "real" Apple menu via the classic menu

I just found though, that shoving folders in my dock gave me all that functionality, and in a single location.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 5, 2005 04:10 PM

Mike - you like those things because you are used to OS 9 - why not try and break away from OS 9 and do it the OS X way if the haxies cause problems? You don't NEED them...

Posted by: Eytan | December 5, 2005 05:07 PM

Haxies are always the first thing to break with an OS update, too. I hate them.

Posted by: tom barta | December 5, 2005 05:24 PM

But the idea of "We need you to uninstall the software that's diddling with our application so that we can narrow down the possible causes of the problem better" is neither unreasonable or arrogant. It's just good triage

It is. However, that just ain't what that dialog is about. :)

Posted by: drunkenbatman | December 5, 2005 05:28 PM

If I have to break away from the way things were done in the OS 9 days, and not use Haxies, I might as well switch to windoze.

Posted by: Fatal Claws | December 5, 2005 06:37 PM

Get over it! This is why you're getting out sourced! You have no value and have reduced a person's productivity machine to nothing better than an electronic typewriter. If IT spent more time figuring out how to support people rather than tell them what they can't do and more time helping the organization gain competitive advantage through the use technology and pushing the envelope rather than turning the PC into essentially dumb terminal, maybe outsourcing wouldn't be the threat it is! No IT would rather "lock down" the desktop and make their lives easier. Gawd forbid we figure out ways to support our users as they "use" the technology given them to work better the way that want to rather than within the limits we put in place. Imagine a world where users needs, the people that make the real money for the company, are priority one. Instead we have this "cost center" this "load on the air conditioning plant" telling the sales people making the 10 million dollar deal in Malaysia he can't have WindowShade! Can you say screwed up priorities? Reminds me of when I was in the Navy on submarines. The guys back aft that took care of the reactor often seemed to believe that the torpedos where there to protect the reactor rather than the reactor getting the ship where it needed to be to shoot the torpedoes. In this case it seems IT thinks the rest of the company is there to keep them employed and use the technology as little as possible, the way they say, so not to overly burden them. uh huh....what ever!

Posted by: Jeffsters | December 5, 2005 07:48 PM

I've recently re-installed Tiger (bad RAM corrupted the OS) and haven't reinstalled Fruit Menu. It has forced me to work the OS X way and actually use Spotlight. I find it slower than using selected haxies. For me the most efficient Finder of all time was System 7 with NowMenus installed. Putting a bunch of folders in the dock is NOT a replacement for a folder in a menu where you can easily get at all the contents including those of sub-folders.
I understand your pain, however, tech support is nearly impossible when you have to cope with system hacks and add-ons. When I worked in SQA we ran clean systems, sometimes even without the latest updates or patches. When Microsoft "fixes" something it often breaks four others. Apple updates also tend to break stuff, particularly haxies.

Posted by: Clarus | December 5, 2005 08:01 PM

DB: No, that's how you choose to interpret that dialog. Your beef is with a really poorly - written alert dialog, nothing more. Bare Bones pointing out, "Hey, you have a bunch of system mods that could have caused this application crash. To help us determine if it's a bug and keep this from happening, we'd like you to disable and uninstall those mods, then see if the crash happens again", is neither arrogant, nor wrong, nor controlling.

If you want to bitch about bad writing in a dialog, I'll join you. I don't refer to something as "Blowing monkey turds" because I think it's the pinnacle of clear communication.

However, and I will never bend on this, it is the writer of the mod, and the mod frameworks, (if applicable), to ensure proper function with applications NOT the application writer. You can pith until you're drained, that simple point is irrefutable.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 5, 2005 08:05 PM

Jeff,

here's a simple test. You have 4,000 user machines to take care of. You must keep them running 24x7x365. You are not allowed, in any way shape or form, to control their configuration or settings up to and including security.

You must sleep 8 hours per night and take 80 hours of uninterrupted vacation per year.

Have fun.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 5, 2005 08:07 PM

Clarus, considering that a Mac running Now Utilities had an uptime measured in reboots per day, I fail to see how that made you efficient.

I can easily get to all the contents of any folder in my dock. Currently, I have thirteen. Works quite well, and believe me, my dock NEVER moves. As Andy Ihnatko said, my dock is like a debutante's luggage for a 3 - month tour of Europe...FULL.

I stopped running system mods in System 7 about 1995, I got tired of all the workarounds for something that was supposed to increase efficiency. I found that any loss of productivity due to those mods being gone was MORE than made up by being able to regularly get through the day without having to reboot.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 5, 2005 08:11 PM

Allow me to ask for just a wee bit of clarification here. You have tossed the term "haxie" around quite a bit, without really defining its base meaning. Should we, for the sake of argument say that it's any application that relies on non-Apple-approved techniques in general, or more specifically that allow its code to run in any/every application's memory space (i.e. Mach_override/inject)? I would be interested in a list of all the apps that are considered to be "haxies."

FWIW, I rely on a small handful of utilities, namely Windowshade, FruitMenu, LabelsX and DefaultFolder to overcome the worst of OS X's usability shortcomings (and they are legion. FTFF already, damnit!!!). I have found this approach to be quite successful, with uptimes measurable in months, and never an anomalous behaviour that has occurrede only when these "haxies" were running. YMMV, I suppose.

Not to suggest making work for any IT-type folks, but perhaps it would be reasonable to actually integrate some of the most commonly used (and useful) haxies into your supported image. Yes, this isn't the "purist" approach, but it is a nod to reality and usability, and shows some concern for the needs of your users (who you work for).

Posted by: Jon | December 5, 2005 09:18 PM

I've had precisely zero requests for haxies from any of my users. There's nothing they've needed that the OS doesn't already provide in a usable predictable fashion.

They don't use the OS anyway, they use Applications, as it should be. The OS should never be the primary application you use on your Mac.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 5, 2005 09:56 PM

Another reason why I don't, is that I'm then creating more troubleshooting work for myself and my users, along with making even security updates FAR more complicated than they need to be.

What is always the biggest set of problem children with system updates?

Haxies.

What don't my users have any problems with because we work together well?

System updates.

Considering that on my birthday, i get, every year, close to a case of really good booze as a "thank you" from them, I'd say i'm doing pretty damned well.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 5, 2005 10:10 PM

Agree, agree, agree. And not even from an IT perspective so much as a user perspective:
http://www.gilgamesh.ca/index.php/2005/12/05/die-haxies-die/

Here's how I define haxies, btw:
In the same way that an OS enables applications, a haxie enables user interface enhancements. (Or just UI eye candy.) Some give you easier ways to access applications. Some change the way that you manage files. And some just sing a little song, replace the desktop with blinking lights, and turn your mouse into a Christmas tree.

Posted by: John Koetsier | December 5, 2005 10:28 PM

To further your health metaphor (i.e.-infection)–I understand your haxitosis but your skill is reviving dead or near dead networks and PCs. If a surgeon followed the same logic he could say he sees too many people because of what they do to themselves. They smoke, they eat to much, they stress out, etc, etc. They infect their systems with bad things then they look to doctors to bail them out. Bottomline, it's human nature to customize, individualize, & personalize–whether it's our bodies or our computers.

Oh yeah, I use and paid for Windowshade and Fruit Menu and they work for me. I feel that rolling a window up instead of parking it in a dock is faster and it should be my right to choose. Nobody ever said any of our jobs have to be easy. That goes if you're in IT or an MD or simply a ME.

P.S.– I've had doctors save my ass and IT guys save my butt. I'm just greatful they both enjoy their job.

One last observation/question. How do you feel about programs or haxies like Comic Life? And who has to produce something for it to be a haxie. Come to think of isn't MS Word really just a big corporate haxie that has caused IT guys as as much grief over the years as the Ma and Pa haxies have?

Posted by: Mr.E | December 5, 2005 11:24 PM

SIGH

No, Word, or {whatever program you hate} is NOT a haxie. They're not designed to inject code into every running user process's memory space, and change stuff en masse.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 12:55 AM

The whole "i should be able to customize my computer however I like" line of thought is also completely invalid in a corporate environment.

To be blunt, it's not your computer. It's the computer assigned to you. When you're gone, someone else will get it. When you're talking about hundreds or thousands of them, configuration control just isn't some draconian Evil IT Thing. It's a necessity.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 07:04 AM

I agree with John here. In the corporate environment, especially in larger environments, computer standards are very important.

Personally, I use certain haxies at home, including WindowShade and ShapeShifter. But, as someone supporting other people's computers, I can't stand it when people add stuff to their systems at work. I support mostly Windows PCs, and most of the stuff they're installing is about a million times worse than anything Unsanity (not to pick on Unsanity, btw, as I said, I'm one of their paying customers) does to your system. I'm not talking just the stuff that installs tons of spyware (or IS spyware), even with non-malicious software, many of these third party add-ons are just poorly tested by the developers and end up causing major problems.

But even on the Mac end, anything you add to your system is a potential problem, and non-essentials like these don't belong on your work computer.

If there is a system enhancement you think would be an actual benefit to your productivity, you should at least discuss it with your support personel and try to make a legitimate case for it.

Posted by: G. Krueger | December 6, 2005 09:33 AM

There's nothing they've [haxies] needed that the OS doesn't already provide in a usable predictable fashion.

Except, of course, for non-braindead window management. 'Minimize to dock' is an abomination, and is completely useless whenever you are doing more than putting on a demo of how great the dock is. Expose is only a partial solution for those of us who work on more than one thing at a time.

it's not your computer. It's the computer assigned to you.

Agreed. Nor it it your computer, however. This is what I need to remind myself when someone installs things on one of the machines for which I am responsible without telling me. Admittedly I have only a dozen or so machines to take care of, so it's certainly a different issue of scale, but I have (painfully)
learned to be a touch more flexible when working with users to learn what they really need to use their computers more productively and easily.

Posted by: Jon | December 6, 2005 09:48 AM

Mike - you like those things because you are used to OS 9 - why not try and break away from OS 9 and do it the OS X way if the haxies cause problems? You don't NEED them...

Actually, I only run two haxies (Windowshade and FruitMenu) and neither of them have ever caused me any problems.

And I don't buy the "OS 9 way" vs the "OS X way" unless by "OS X way" you mean "less efficient."

The Dock is fine as a basic launch bar, but it is not a substitute for a hierarchical, customizeable system-wide menu (and by "customizeable" I don't just mean a folder full of apps I can launch). And the dock certainly fails as a way to minimize windows; Windowshade is a much more intuitive and better use of screen real estate and human interface.

Apple really needs to listen to their customers. If Haxies were only run by a few people, none of these debates would be happening. A lot of people are seeking out and running haxies because Apple is refusing to make basic interface improvements to the operating system that are demanded by customers. And those customers are voting with their feet (or mice, as the case may be) and buying and using haxies like Windowshade.

Hey, sometimes Apple hits a home run (Expose was genius)...but other times their stubborness hurts everyone.

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 6, 2005 09:48 AM

There's nothing they've [haxies] needed that the OS doesn't already provide in a usable predictable fashion.

Actually, no.

Let's go down the list.

Font Card: Makes all font menus display the actual font in the menu so you know what you are getting. NOT provided by the OS (except by opening a separate real-estate-hogging palette), and then only in cocoa.

FruitMenu: Allows for extensive sutomization of the Apple menu. Not provided by the OS in any form.

Menu master: Allows customized command keys. Partially provided by the system, but not as reliable or customizeable.

Mighty Mouse: Allows cursor customization. Not provided by the system, but in fairness this is asthetic only.

Shape Shifter: Allows themes. Not provided by system, but in fairness, this is also purely asthetic.

Window shade: Allows for effective minimization in place of windows and vastly improved window management. Not provided by system except in a most minimal fashion.

Xounds: Adds sounds to interface. Provided by system only in a very minimal fasion and not customizeable.

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 6, 2005 09:55 AM

I've worked in Mac tech support for about 7 years, and I think your complaint about haxies may be almost quaint. Most of the people I support wouldn't be able to figure out how to even install a "haxie" if presented with the documentation a week in advance. But it's important to note that I say this not because I have contempt for the users I support. Yes, they do crazy things that occasionally fill me with the same sense of awe one gets from staring at spectacular mountain range. On the other hand, I feel that many IT departments
actually strangle the life out of computer use. Computers are there for people
to use. It's ridiculoius that some IT departments panic if they hear that someone wants to use a Mac. The mere presense of the machine seems to threaten the lock-step mentality...I would hate to see that happen in the world of Mac
support.

Posted by: Max | December 6, 2005 12:09 PM

There's nothing they've [haxies] needed that the OS doesn't already provide in a usable predictable fashion.

Except, of course, for non-braindead window management. 'Minimize to dock' is an abomination, and is completely useless whenever you are doing more than putting on a demo of how great the dock is. Expose is only a partial solution for those of us who work on more than one thing at a time.

That is completely and totally subjective, and absolutely unprovable across all users. It's also only valid if you're used to something else. I don't see a lot of people who never used OS 9 caring.

it's not your computer. It's the computer assigned to you.

Agreed. Nor it it your computer, however. This is what I need to remind myself when someone installs things on one of the machines for which I am responsible without telling me. Admittedly I have only a dozen or so machines to take care of, so it's certainly a different issue of scale, but I have (painfully)
learned to be a touch more flexible when working with users to learn what they really need to use their computers more productively and easily.

Was there some part of my statement on how none of my users have ever asked for haxies? I really thought i was pretty straightforward on that.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 01:09 PM

Again, you can't show that the majority of Apple customers want OS 9 behaviors. I'll make a bet that most customers that have never used OS 9 don't care about the OS 9 Apple Menu or OS 9 Window behaviors.

There's absolutely no reliable data showing how many Mac users USE haxies every day. Not "downloaded, played with, but eventually stopped using", but use them every day. So any statements implicating some vast upset majority of Mac users relying on Haxies is hyperbole at best.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 01:12 PM

My users applications already do this. Ironically, Carbon applications are much better about this than Cocoa applications. But then, outside of Apple - provided applications, most of your enterprise - grade productivity applications and design applications are Carbon.

In any event, it's not a problem for everyone.

FruitMenu: Allows for extensive sutomization of the Apple menu. Not provided by the OS in any form.

Mike, you're wrong, and if you like, I'll send you the screenshot to prove it.

Menu master: Allows customized command keys. Partially provided by the system, but not as reliable or customizeable.

The only time i've had to help users with this was Adobe's insistence on hijacking OS commands like CMD-H, which, outside of Acrobat, is QED.

(ignoring the asthetic entries)

Window shade: Allows for effective minimization in place of windows and vastly improved window management. Not provided by system except in a most minimal fashion.

Better to whom? I hated WindowShade in OS 9. Nothing worse than having a bunch of floating titlebars obscuring stuff. The Dock is a much more elegant way to deal with this, as when the window is minimized, it's completely out of the way.

Xounds: Adds sounds to interface. Provided by system only in a very minimal fasion and not customizeable.

And in a cube farm, the fastest way to create pure, unadulterated hatred you can find. There's nothing worse than trying to work over Bob's "Beavis and Butt-Head" sound set.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 01:18 PM

Nice rant, what's that have to do with support issues created by random system hacks?

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 01:21 PM

There's absolutely no reliable data showing how many Mac users USE haxies every day. Not "downloaded, played with, but eventually stopped using", but use them every day.

You are right. However, anecdotally, I think it must be a decent number of users, otherwise, we wouldn't be discussing this here or on drunkenbatman or elsewhere...no one would care.

FruitMenu: Allows for extensive customization of the Apple menu. Not provided by the OS in any form.

Mike, you're wrong, and if you like, I'll send you the screenshot to prove it.

With a combination of manually creating various folders full of aliases and applescripts, you could put something in the dock that mimics the customizeability and power of the traditional Apple menu (or Fruit Menu). You can even use hidden characters in names to get the order set right. Still, FruitMenu is faster and easier to set up, and does a few things that you can't do with the dock at all -- for example, keep a folder of automatically-updated recent items sorted by type. And FruitMenu is in the upper left corner of the screen, not in my (very overstuffed and screen-real estate hogging unless hiding is turned on which is annoying in its own way) dock.

I disagree. WindowShade to me is faster, more intuitive, and fist better into my workflow. But to each his own...it is great that the Dock works well for you (and others). I am glad I have a choice.

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 6, 2005 01:40 PM

IMHO, we're all talking variations of the age old adage: use the right tool for the job. The jobs vary radically (often through personal interpretation), so will the tools.

In some corporate environments, a cookie cutter scheme can be implemented because the computer needs of users is nearly identical. In others, it varies too much to have any standardization.

I use a ton of "haxies": FruitMenu, WindowShade, MenuMaster, Default Folder X, etc. When I have problems I turn them all off to diagnose. This is the crux of the issue: How does the small developer get people to turn off all haxies & test BEFORE calling for support? This is a human issue that needs to be solved. Posturing that all haxies are bad and should be banned just isn't going to work in the real world. IMHO Dashboard and Expose are worse than any haxies I use.

Posted by: CyborgSam | December 6, 2005 01:40 PM

It's not a case of cookie-cutterism. It would not be a lot of work to use APE to make quite the keylogger, data breach mechanism. There are for many companies, regulatory issues at play here.

As well, when you have to deal with hundreds of machines, being able to count on the configuration and make assumptions is critical to providing timely support. If you can't even guarantee what your UI will *look like* much less if that theme hack is causing problems, the number of machines that can be supported by one person drops rather quickly.

It's fun to say "Oh, that's just 'TEH EVUL IT ASSHOLES!!!'", but in a larger configuration, there's far more that comes into play.

If nothing else, haxies make upgrade planning a nightmare.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 01:50 PM

Incorrect. my OS 9 Apple Menu is in my Menubar, it's via the Apple - supplied and supported OS 9 Menubar widget, and it's yet to cause any problems or delays in upgrading my OS.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 01:52 PM

So I should launch the entire classic environment just to access the Classic Apple menu (I don't use any Classic applications)?

I'd rather just use the dock if that were my only alternative :-)

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 6, 2005 02:28 PM

Mike,

You really need to just enable the Classic menu item. It doesn't USE classic for this, it just gives you access to the Classic Apple Menu.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 03:00 PM

If you are referring to the Classic menu (what gets turned on when you select "Show Classic Status in Menu Bar" fromthe Classic PreferencePane, then the Classic environment has to be loaded into memory (i.e. classic is "started up" even if no classic apps are open).

Enable this menu item on a machine without a Classic System Folder installed and you'll see it is not terribly useful :-)

If I am overlooking something obvious, please clue me in!

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 6, 2005 03:09 PM

just to toot my own horn a bit, I interviewed Jason Harris of Unsanity about the stigma against Haxies at DB's Evening at Adler. Now that this discussion has blown up, I think everyone should listen to his opinion: Listen Here.

Posted by: Justin Williams | December 6, 2005 03:18 PM

I have issues with Unsanity that have little to do with Haxies, and everything to do with things like not wanting to tell peopel where they install stuff, cloaking themselves so detecting APE and its plugins harder, not really uniinstalling things, and a general "It's never our fault, we make application developers troubleshoot better" attitude about them.

Were they to start acting less like teenaged haxx0rs and more like grownups on this, my attitude would be much better towards them.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 03:37 PM

Incorrect. It simply provides a link to that folder, as a check of top shows me that Classic is not running at all.

Enable this menu item on a machine without a Classic System Folder installed and you'll see it is not terribly useful :-)

If I am overlooking something obvious, please clue me in!

You need a Classic system folder for the Apple menu to be there, but you don't need classic running, and until I switch to an Intel - based Mac, it gives me the classic apple menu in a supported manner, chock full of OS X applications, and i don't have to worry about versions and system updates

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 04:23 PM

For those who are complaining that Apple leaves "critical usability functionality" out of OS X, which therefore has to be provided by haxies, let me ask you this: when has Apple ever catered to the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" mentality? What makes Apple's products so phenomenal is that you often don't have a choice in every single tiny little matter, and instead you're forced to do things the way Apple wants you to. By providing a limited number of options—the majority of which are perfectly usable if you force yourself to break out of your mold a bit and use them—Apple can focus on innovating and adding new functionality instead of catering to a small subset of users who wish Safari made extensive use of drawers (I'm sure someone could provide a decent argument =P ).

Take the Apple Menu, one of the things I hated about OS 9 was that people could customize the Apple menu to the point where it reached bloated and unusable levels. Yes, it proved useful at times, but it's nice from a support standpoint to be able to assume that every person who clicks on the Apple menu on their Macintosh will be presented with the same set of menu items.

I would rather Apple keep innovating than sit still while minor usability issues are discussed to death. Yes, I enjoy increased efficiency, but I also enjoy the simplicity of the Mac and the fact that things work one way whether I'm at school or at home or at Uncle Eugene's house. I also work in IT and realize just how much easier it is to support people who haven't customized their computer to death. If you know what you're doing, and are willing to take the risk, do what you'd like to your computer; just remember, you'll always be in the minority, because the 99% of computer users who don't tinker to death with their computers are the 99% who are least likely to sit here and debate this. They've got better things to do. Like use their computers.

Posted by: Peter Woods | December 6, 2005 04:26 PM

Ah, so I gotta go find the DVD that came with my Mac in order to get a classic system folder installed.

Nice to know that's there, but I'll stick with FruitMenu for now. I am technically adept and know how to troubleshoot (including disabling APE), and in this case, it is my computer so I'll take the risk :-)

Posted by: Mike Silverman | December 6, 2005 05:07 PM

Heh...Mike, you're HARDLY an average user ;-)

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 06:50 PM

haxies may suck, but without "silk", lotus notes is all but unusable at higher screen resolutions.

(luckily, i am in development, the support guys come to us for help when things are strangely broken -- and lotus notes is on the way out where i work)

Posted by: sean broderick | December 6, 2005 08:13 PM

Lotus Notes is all but broken before you install it :-P

What a pile of crap that client is.

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 6, 2005 08:15 PM

In these rants, it's always said that haxies / input managers etc are causing problems. Perhaps I'm just lucky but (in my admittedly moderate use of them) I've just never seen them cause any problems.

If those problems are so common, why don't the people who experienced them list a handful, so the world can get a better idea that these problems actually exist. And, on a more technical level, people creating those 'haxies' are more aware of the problems they should look out for.

[And no, I don't mean to say problems don't exist at all. It's just that everybody claims they do, but nobody wants to present any.]

Posted by: ssp | December 7, 2005 04:06 AM

"That would only confuse them, and we're not doing anything wrong anyway"

Sounds like Sony-BMG.

Posted by: Damian | December 7, 2005 04:30 AM

John, I don't tell you enough how much I love your rants. I empathize brother, I empathize.

I'm still working on a much smaller scale than you, my department of Mac users is under 15, but I'd love the opportunity to be managing a few hundred Macs, let alone a few thousand (good god man!).

Posted by: SWGS | December 7, 2005 11:23 AM

well, i'm not running that many macs now, but i've run numbers all over the place, so I have a firm grasp of the problems

Posted by: John C. Welch | December 7, 2005 11:24 AM

The originating issue of a poorly worded warning dialog has now been shifted to the argument of haxies vs. no haxies. The real argument should center around priorities. John has every right to complain about haxies, specfically regarding IT support issues, because system and application usage disruptions have a direct effect on operational costs. Every time an employee's productivity grinds to a halt becuase Shape Shifter prevents Bare Bone's software from running properly means John has to fix it, and this is a signifcant cost to his employer.

However, when you are your own IT support, and you want to run FruitMenu or WindowShade, the argument between haxies vs. no haxies is moot becuase the only cost of both time and money is your own. However, it is still a matter of priority, because if either of the aforementioned haxies brings down BBEdit, it is up to you to decide which is more important, the haxie or BBEdit.

As for me, I can tell you anything is more important to me than running that total abomination of software that is otherwise called ShapeShifter. I also vehemently hate the candy "lickable" look of Aqua's default appearance, which is why the first thing I do after an initial install of the OS is turn on Graphite in System Preferences and I'm set until the next iteration of OSX.

Posted by: Patrick M. | December 7, 2005 01:29 PM

Why I hate haxies

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment