31–40 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's at least one app for figuring out why every hourly backup takes half a gigabyte. It might require root privileges, but I doubt that.
Wait, is that not normal?
It's doubtful that this is Zoom doing anything in particular. Rather it's likely the OS doing the best it can to handle the URL for you. The OS has a mapping between the URL and the bundle identifier of the app, and apparently looked for the bundle on a disk that happened to be attached, after it didn't find it on your main disk. Which is perfectly reasonable in itself.
This is unexpected to me. If I remove an application I do not expect it to run. If the OS is willing to reach into the Time Machine backups will it also modify them? What if I delete an app, run it then install an update? Will it install to the backup? That would be very unexpected. Looking at multiple application directories is one thing but executing things from the backup directory is another.
> but executing things from the backup directory is another.
Time Machine backups are structured in a very non-proprietary way. Each backup is just a folder, protected from modifications, with hard links used to save space. If anything, I'd say good on Apple for supporting a backup format that works exactly like making a copy of a folder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unexpected to me. If I remove an application I do not expect it to run. If the OS is willing to reach into the Time Machine backups will it also modify them? What if I delete an app, run it then install an update? Will it install to the backup? That would be very unexpected. Looking at multiple application directories is one thing but executing things from the backup directory is another.
I checked before, and if I recall correctly, Time Machine backups are protected at the kernel level -- you cannot modify them, even with sudo. You can delete the whole backup, but you cannot modify part of it. > but executing things from the backup directory is another. Time Machine backups are structured in a very non-proprietary way. Each backup is just a folder, protected from modifications, with hard links used t…
It'll do that with any application on the Mac, this is not peculiar to Zoom. The Time Machine backup is, as far as the Finder is concerned, just another volume. It'll prefer applications on the root volume, but it'll launch them from other volumes as well.
Sort of sidetracking, but: afaik applications open from a browser via a custom protocol in a link, and for that the application has to be already installed—unless MacOS offers to search the app store (if it does, not sure). So, this suggests to me that either MacOS leaves protocol associations in place after uninstalling an app, and has the machinery to resurrect such an app from the backups, or Zoom leaves around a…
In OPs case, Zoom.app was still hanging out in his backup, ready to be launched (Time Machine backups are just a standard disk image)
I guess in some sense it is the price one pays for "it just works". The main problem I have is this seems like going to very far extremes in order to run the app no matter what and the tradeoffs were never discussed or put in front of people, which I find to be pretty unethical. Sort of like the privacy debate - the tradeoffs of everyone sharing their personal data were never really up for debate.
This is a bit of a charitable explanation. How can any project manager say, with a straight face, "we need to make sure the application is still available, even if the user deletes it." How can you accidentally delete an application? It is not like you press a button by accident and it is suddenly gone. Deleting an application requires the user to express intent and go through a process (go to the Applications folder…
Someone absolutely did, though. Remember last summer when it came out that uninstalling Zoom would leave a local webserver running that would automatically reinstall it if you accessed a Zoom link?
https://www.macworld.com/article/3407764/zoom-mac-app-flaw-c...
I guess in some sense it is the price one pays for "it just works". The main problem I have is this seems like going to very far extremes in order to run the app no matter what and the tradeoffs were never discussed or put in front of people, which I find to be pretty unethical. Sort of like the privacy debate - the tradeoffs of everyone sharing their personal data were never really up for debate.
This is a bit of a charitable explanation. How can any project manager say, with a straight face, "we need to make sure the application is still available, even if the user deletes it." How can you accidentally delete an application? It is not like you press a button by accident and it is suddenly gone. Deleting an application requires the user to express intent and go through a process (go to the Applications folder…
