OS 9 Installers Quit All Apps

aquaticaquatic
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Why does an old OS 9 Installer, for example Cyberdog, have the power to kill OS X applications? I don't understand why it affects OS X and that was quite a surprise to me yesterday, is this fixed in Panther? Ack and CyberDog wouldn't even run in Classic

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    OS 9 installers always ran as root, as did everything in OS 9. Now in OS X some things run at the system or user level. Installers however still run as root, giving them the power to change everything they want. The reason for OS 9 installers quitting your OS X apps is because they run as root and so have the power to modify anything, even if it means closing open apps in a different system. Quite a few installers will quit all open Apps in order to avoid conflict with things.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    I absolutely hate installers that make you quit all apps and hate even more the ones that do it for you... Anyway, you can relaunch the apps during the install process if you want. Not much consolation, but at least I can do stuff while it's being installed.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    ryaxnbryaxnb Posts: 583member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Why does an old OS 9 Installer, for example Cyberdog, have the power to kill OS X applications? I don't understand why it affects OS X and that was quite a surprise to me yesterday, is this fixed in Panther? Ack and CyberDog wouldn't even run in Classic



    really, I could get cyberdog to run in classic.



    P.s. Cyberdog is recognized by Mac OS X's spellchecker! Wow!
  • Reply 4 of 15
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DMBand0026

    OS 9 installers always ran as root, as did everything in OS 9. Now in OS X some things run at the system or user level. Installers however still run as root, giving them the power to change everything they want.



    If this is true, then it is a serious security hole in OS X with Classic running. I remember not long time ago, that a Classic Netscape vulnerability has been identified and the only solution was to not run Netscape in Classic.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    If this is true, then it is a serious security hole in OS X with Classic running. I remember not long time ago, that a Classic Netscape vulnerability has been identified and the only solution was to not run Netscape in Classic.



    I think that's NOT true but I'm not sure.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    amoryaamorya Posts: 1,103member
    Any app can tell any other app to quit. (Including OSX apps.)



    It's up to the target app if it complies or not. Any decent app will at least pop up a dialog box if there are unsaved changes.





    Amorya
  • Reply 7 of 15
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    What if it's an app like Carracho Server where it is critical that it stay up yet doesn't have "changes" it will prompt to save? This just seems like a major Classic flaw. Classic is always listed on the What's New in OS X updates but this would be a nice hole to see plugged. It has no reason to affect OS X apps. For that matter I never saw why it even affected other OS 9 apps.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    What if it's an app like Carracho Server where it is critical that it stay up yet doesn't have "changes" it will prompt to save? This just seems like a major Classic flaw. Classic is always listed on the What's New in OS X updates but this would be a nice hole to see plugged. It has no reason to affect OS X apps. For that matter I never saw why it even affected other OS 9 apps.



    It's not a classic flaw. It's the application installer telling other applications to quit. There's nothing classic can do about that.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Yes there is. Why should it affect OS X?
  • Reply 10 of 15
    pensievepensieve Posts: 661member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Yes there is. Why should it affect OS X?



    The installer tells all apps to quit. I'm not sure what you're calling a flaw. That's how it's *supposed* to work. It's got nothing to do with classic being at fault.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorya

    Any app can tell any other app to quit. (Including OSX apps.)





    Telling other apps to quit is one thing, acting as root without enabled root account or asking for password is another. This anonther is what worries me (Windows-level insecurity). Is this true for the Classic environment, as DMBand0026 seems to indicate, or not? Could anyone enlighten us?
  • Reply 12 of 15
    dglowdglow Posts: 147member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Yes there is. Why should it affect OS X?



    I agree, and can see no good reason why carbon/cocoa apps should be affected. I mean, if you can restart the entire classic envionrment without even touching your OS X apps... then, what gives??



    I recall reading that OS X and Classic communicate through high-level system events, including AppleScript. My guess: there's an 'ask all apps to quit' event generated by the installer, which simply gets fowarded on to (and interpreted literally by) OS X's application environment.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    amoryaamorya Posts: 1,103member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Is this true for the Classic environment, as DMBand0026 seems to indicate, or not? Could anyone enlighten us?



    Yes, it's true.



    It's necessary because classic apps don't expect there to be any restrictions on the system. Classic was made for compatibility. If every app had to be rewritten to cope with the extra security, then Classic would not be doing its job.





    Amorya
  • Reply 14 of 15
    dglowdglow Posts: 147member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorya

    Classic was made for compatibility. If every app had to be rewritten to cope with the extra security, then Classic would not be doing its job.





    Yes, but what aspects of 'compatibility' or 'extra security' would demand the termination of apps running in a completely separate environment?
  • Reply 15 of 15
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    It's not a completely seperate environment, because a lot of people clamored for interapplication communication between Classic and OS X. So we have it. Now prepress guys can script Classic applications from OS X, and Classic installers can tell OS X apps to quit.



    This is a feature.



    If you have an uptime-critical application (somehow I'm thinking of something other than Carracho Server ) on a machine, you should be extremely circumspect about installing anything. You shouldn't have Classic running on a server unless you absolutely have to. If your server is your personal computer, you're in the habit of installing apps regularly, and you have Classic installed for other reasons, then you will have to be resigned to the fact that your uptime is negotiable. That's just how it is. Desktops and servers have different uses and different priorities.



    When people need servers to run reliably, they install everything they need to before taking them online, configure them to be as lean as possible, lock them down, and then let them run undisturbed.
Sign In or Register to comment.