Live data from Hacker News

We need to document macOS

eclecticlight.co

101–110 of 266 posts

Re: We need to document macOS

#101

When I did some work on porting out product to macOS (so developers could run their server environment locally, though a few loons wanted to actually run macOS on servers), I was immediately struck by how awful and incomplete the documentation was. And, I've been working in the Linux world for a couple decades...where docs are copious but wrong about 50% of the time. In particular, the service launcher (launchd, ment…

> But, I'm kinda baffled why anyone would volunteer to provide free labor to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. Somewhat related, it has become Apple user/developer etiquette not to mention bugs without filing a bug report on Apple's closed issue tracker beforehand: https://blackpixel.com/writing/2012/02/radar-or-gtfo.html I can't believe how many hours I've wasted on detailed bug reports…

The big difference is that while bugs can only be fixed from the inside, the documentation can be greatly improved even without Apple’s buy-in.

Re: We need to document macOS

#102
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably depends on a personal workflow, but for me, Finder works perfectly, and I really miss it on Linux. I have a reasonably organized directory structure, and I navigate and do basic tasks like copying mostly using just a keyboard. I remember directory names and I just start typing their names and the Finder goes to them (actually, most file managers have this feature). Occasionally, I do 'ls | grep' or 'find'…

I agree. Years ago Finder left much to be desired, but with all the updates of the last few revisions I'm not left wanting for anything. People complaining about searching likely haven't tried smart searches, it's awesome. Can anyone specifically call out what their issues are with Finder besides "it sucks"? I really feel that I'm missing something here.

I have not used smart searches, and now I'm reading about them and it does look pretty cool. But that search bar should give me something sort of close to what I'm looking for in a couple strokes and it really doesn't.

I can specifically call out what my issues are with Finder.

- Where is my fucking folder tree. There was no reason to take it away other than "thinking different" just like the backspace key. Super special guys.

- Search bar does not behave in a way that I think comes close to useful for quick search.

- Why does the window default to something so small and not have an obvious way to set the default spawn size to something reasonable. At this point it should be context aware.

- I don't want more windows, I want tabs too.

- The sliding cell browsing is cumbersome, it sometimes forces you into a folder when you are trying to be in it's parent, it limits your view of your total file list, and in this view there is no way (that I know of) to utilize ordering without the dropdown, so you are stuck with hitting the first letter of the file you think might be there to try to get there quick.

- let me make symlinks from the UI.

- The list view is great for the most part, but since you don't have a tree you have to either loose your browsing context to move to a new folder or you have to open a new window... and it will be too small. Then when you try to drag things into the new window, that probably defaulted to the sliding cell view floating around to get where you want to go will inevitably have you dropping the file somewhere bad. This was the most egregious before Lion when "cut and paste" did not exist. You could enable something that called itself that but it didn't do it and used the trash? Mostly it was just delete.

- I can't preview a file in the list view without hitting space and blocking my view of my context.

- It appears to be designed to keep you away from the system HD. More and more so with every release. I want to look at my filesystem, it it's entirety, easily and without using "go".

- Because you can ONLY use finder for getting files from an application you are stuck with usually a default view that is just a directory dropdown. Then you open it up and it's the slider cell. Then you get trapped and you can't go up a single directory so you have to go to a directory that you used recently, hopefully.... if not you have to go to you user root and navigate down a train.

- If you're gonna be designed to keep normal users "safe" then maybe let me have a button that does "open ssh in directory."

- Drag and drop file copying is laggy as fuck and produces constant problems with relocating files. It's always been the same level of unpredictable and now I'm just trained to sit there and wait for the green +. If the UI is going to be so restrictive and drag copy centric, then this should be like lightning.

- Let me use cli applications from the UI. A right click is fine, a button is ok, a hot key is better. This is a Unix based system. Give me that option, out of the box.

- Without any customization, the program should be focused on less clutter, not more. The defaulting to opening new tiny windows that get left in a stack is bad. I sort of get the DMG open window install process when we were back in the CD days like 12 years ago. Now it's ugly, and shitty, and gives leeway to software providers to just do dumb illegible stuff. It seems that the rendering of the DMG install windows changes over time and that breaks the desired UI for older packages. This thing needs to die.

----

I want to be able to move down a tree looking at files like the cell does, with filtering, with a tree on the left, with easy file previews, to any place I can write on my system. Maybe that includes downloading a file from Chrome into /opt. File browsing is a noise heavy data intensive problem sometimes. If you are going to arbitrarily make the most basic tool on the system default to an oddly specific size, well then in use you should do some context detection and expand when there's a huge god damned list of files in the folder. I. Should. Always. Be. Able. To. Sort. And. See. My. Sorting. Options.

If any of this is available, please give me protips.

Re: We need to document macOS

#103
post #30

Just in case no-one read the leaflets that came with their new Mac, Apple has fairly comprehensive macOS documentation online: https://support.apple.com/macos A lot of this is built into your Mac also, at Help > Mac Help in the Finder. For those who prefer physical books, I've always found the "Missing Manual" series to be excellent.

How come I never see them come up in Google searches? I have seen it come up when looking for conditioning your battery or the shortcut keys for Target Disk Mode. But more often I'll search for a runaway process name or an OS message that is spamming Console. The top results are Apple Discussion posts that go on for pages, but often don't have a clear result. I also recently was trying to learn more about macOS' init…

For the processes, it's not that the documentation doesn't exist, it's that they're very low-ranked in search results (and many who know that they're looking for a process name know to try 'man foo' before a web search) [0]. Any documentation rarely describes exactly a problem someone is experiencing but a discussion forum might, so those are the links that come up first in a search.

As for message in logs, I don't tend to find those in other *nix documentation either.

[0] https://developer.apple.com/legacy/library/documentation/Dar...

Re: We need to document macOS

#104
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, I'm kinda baffled why anyone would volunteer to provide free labor to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. Somewhat related, it has become Apple user/developer etiquette not to mention bugs without filing a bug report on Apple's closed issue tracker beforehand: https://blackpixel.com/writing/2012/02/radar-or-gtfo.html I can't believe how many hours I've wasted on detailed bug reports…

The big difference is that while bugs can only be fixed from the inside, the documentation can be greatly improved even without Apple’s buy-in.

Not efficiently. And others volunteering their time to reverse engineer documentation on an ever moving target sounds like an exercise in folly.

Especially when the first party could hire technical writers for a fraction of the cost of developers and make this problem disappear.

Re: We need to document macOS

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, I'm kinda baffled why anyone would volunteer to provide free labor to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. I give away tons of my time for OSS, but I'm not about to get out and push if I've paid for a luxury car. > I'd rather put my time into something that is free and open for everyone, including my future self. Actually, the word "rather" isn't strong enough: I would never give my l…

It's not Apple's work to do. It's not in their interest to document everything. What applies to internal APIs applies to lesser extent to the detailed workings of the OS, like the init system, themeing, etc.. If it is documented, people will depend on it, or write low-level tweaking tools that Apple doesn't want to exist. What is good for customers and developers might not be good for Apple, and vice versa. (A separa…

This only follows if Apple indeed wants to kill macOS.

If they want users... then you kind of need to have even low level documentation. Because the kind of serious apps and third party feature adds that make an OS bearable to use depend on them.

Re: We need to document macOS

#106

When I did some work on porting out product to macOS (so developers could run their server environment locally, though a few loons wanted to actually run macOS on servers), I was immediately struck by how awful and incomplete the documentation was. And, I've been working in the Linux world for a couple decades...where docs are copious but wrong about 50% of the time. In particular, the service launcher (launchd, ment…

> In particular, the service launcher (launchd, mentioned in the article), and various other system level things (including logs, also mentioned in the article), have so little official documentation as to be laughable.

God launchd's documentation is so woefully incomplete it's soul-crushing, even more so as they deprecate "legacy" subcommand (which are "community documented" as various souls tried to understand how to make them work) and the documentation for the "replacements" is even worse. I'm not a sysadmin, I don't really care for launchd, but every time I want to set up a cron I waste an hour trying to coerce it into doing something useful before just falling back onto crontab.

Not to mention the… idiosyncratic command lines which makes even documented tools a chore to use fucking `lipo`:

    lipo  [-info]  [-detailed_info]  [-arch arch_type input_file] ...  [ input_file] ...  [-arch_blank arch_type] [-create] [-thin arch_type] [-replace arch_type filename] ...  [-remove arch_type] ...  [-extract arch_type] ...  [-extract_family arch_type] ...  [-verify_arch arch_type ...]  [-output output_file] [-segalign arch_type value] ...
the various options are mostly exclusive which is documented but weird as fuck, but then say you want to check if a given binary contains a specific arch

    -verify_arch arch_type …
         Take one input file and verify the specified arch_types are 
         present in the file.  If so then exit with a status of 0 
         else exit with a status of 1.
You'd expect `lipo -verify_arch x86_64 `, but no, since it can take multiple arch rather than repeat -verify_arch you must put it at the tail: `lipo -verify_arch x86_64`, if you don't you get a screenful of garbage telling you that you gave an incorrect architecture flag, which architecture flags are valid and re-printing the synopsys.

Re: We need to document macOS

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your delusion that paying "availible [sic] providers" the large price tag they put on their electronics and 'doing plenty of customization' make them "your" tools is the reason I don't take you seriously; "your vernacular" is more an indicator than an issue in that regard. > The second they shape up, someone else delivers me an answer, or I write something to get me out of this platform, there I go. The first two are…

Can you elaborate on what technology choices I'm missing? Lets just say specifically the Finder issue. Is the solution to use Linux as my desktop environment? I mean this honestly, I'm not trying to be flip. Can you give me some examples of the solutions that other people have moved to years ago that you are referencing? I am very open to the fact that I could have just totally missed the train to a better creative t…

I use `find . | egrep -i foo` to find foo on OS X.

  ~/Downloads$ find . | egrep -i lisp
  ./ANSI_Common_Lisp_-_Paul_Graham.pdf
  ./lisp_in_small_pieces.pdf
  ./onlisp.pdf
It works well on an SSD. I also wrote a script called `narrow` which lets you pass in several terms to narrow the results by.

  ~/Downloads$ find . | narrow self pdf
  ./An Efficient Implementation of SELF, a Dynamically-Typed Object-Oriented Language Based on Prototypes.pdf
  ./Optimizing Compiler Technology for SELF, a Dynamically-Typed Object-Oriented Programming Language [10.1.1.87.4221].pdf

  ~/Downloads$ find . | narrow racket h$
  ./racket/collects/raco/main.lch
  ./racket/collects/setup/main.lch
  ./racket/include/escheme.h
  ./racket/include/mzconfig.h
  ./racket/include/scheme.h
  ...
I know this isn't too helpful of an answer. It isn't responsive to your argument that the GUIs have stagnated. But it's possibly a way to get what you want.

Re: We need to document macOS

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your delusion that paying "availible [sic] providers" the large price tag they put on their electronics and 'doing plenty of customization' make them "your" tools is the reason I don't take you seriously; "your vernacular" is more an indicator than an issue in that regard. > The second they shape up, someone else delivers me an answer, or I write something to get me out of this platform, there I go. The first two are…

Can you elaborate on what technology choices I'm missing? Lets just say specifically the Finder issue. Is the solution to use Linux as my desktop environment? I mean this honestly, I'm not trying to be flip. Can you give me some examples of the solutions that other people have moved to years ago that you are referencing? I am very open to the fact that I could have just totally missed the train to a better creative t…

> Lets just say specifically the Finder issue. Is the solution to use Linux as my desktop environment?

Yes, especially with KDE's Dolphin file manager which is more or less the pinnacle of GUI file browser.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkWuVCKpiXs

it becomes especially good when you start taping in its scripting capabilities and the wealth of scripts available: https://store.kde.org/browse/cat/102/.

Re: We need to document macOS

#109

When I did some work on porting out product to macOS (so developers could run their server environment locally, though a few loons wanted to actually run macOS on servers), I was immediately struck by how awful and incomplete the documentation was. And, I've been working in the Linux world for a couple decades...where docs are copious but wrong about 50% of the time. In particular, the service launcher (launchd, ment…

> But, I'm kinda baffled why anyone would volunteer to provide free labor to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.

YES! MacOS users don't need to document macOS as a volunteer project, they need to demand Apple to give them their money's worth.

Re: We need to document macOS

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, I'm kinda baffled why anyone would volunteer to provide free labor to one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world. I give away tons of my time for OSS, but I'm not about to get out and push if I've paid for a luxury car. > I'd rather put my time into something that is free and open for everyone, including my future self. Actually, the word "rather" isn't strong enough: I would never give my l…

It's not Apple's work to do. It's not in their interest to document everything. What applies to internal APIs applies to lesser extent to the detailed workings of the OS, like the init system, themeing, etc.. If it is documented, people will depend on it, or write low-level tweaking tools that Apple doesn't want to exist. What is good for customers and developers might not be good for Apple, and vice versa. (A separa…

If the experience of developing for the OS is terrible because the documentation is terrible, well...an operating system without a thriving application ecosystem is an operating system that is not long for this world. No matter how good the OS may be. Computing history is littered with the corpses of better operating systems (Amiga and BeOS and every UNIX other than Linux come to mind) that didn't have the app ecosystem to keep them alive.

Obviously, Apple isn't hurting, but it can take a long time for anyone to notice that a huge tree is rotten in the middle. I don't know if that's true of Apple; they've been pretty successful in the transition to mobile, and their iOS ecosystem seems very healthy, but, if the terrible docs are a company-wide issue, it might be a slow-moving disaster. Docs are unsexy enough to where I could believe Apple would completely fuck them up, just because nobody wants to work on the unsexy stuff and nobody thinks about it when things are going so well for the company.

Post reply on HN