Oh, Stupid Finder
Somehow it got to be Friday again, which means it's Report an Apple Bug Friday again. Since last week's was a bit of a doozy, we'll downshift and pull out something generic and arbitrary (Because it's not lacking for material) from an app we all use, the Finder.
One of the things that's fascinated me when it comes to Mac OS X has been the Finder's ability to screw up the most mundane of things, over and over, almost as though it's in its nature. I'm not talking about say, completely locking up your Mac when a server disconnects, but rather something as simple as remembering what size a window should be, or what you see in the following screenshot...
Ignore the horrid sideways-scrolling label selection system which requires you to move your cursor precisely horizontally with a leeway of all of 5 pixels, which was greenlighted by an executive who'll remain nameless for now but used to be a programmer and now is in charge of things like broad-ranging user interface decisions rather than someone who has heard the term paper prototyping, as well as your desire to email me pointing out this is one hell of a run-on sentence.
Also ignore how the contextual menu now (with 10.3, I believe) includes the full name of the file, making the contextual menu a completely different size depending on the file name, which means muscle memory is nonexistent. So much stupidity in one contextual menu, but for now just focus on the fact that OS X believes I have three iTunes installed, and four QuickTime players. In reality, I have one of each installed.
This is a problem with something in OS X called LaunchServices, which is responsible for a whole range of things on OS X, including a whole slew of very scary security vulnerabilities over the last while. In this case, LaunchServices has a database which it adds to when an application registers with the system in some way, as well as what that application claims it can handle.
For reasons that seem to be quite arbitrary -- as is the case with most things with the Finder -- it has a habit of corrupting itself. People have told me they've seen this going back for awhile sporadically, but 10.4 was the first time I've seen it get this bad for me. Before 10.4, it was primarily about the Finder being randomly unable to remember what icon a file or folder was supposed to have over time, but now -- for the life of me -- I can't get it to understand I just have one of these things installed.
From what I can glean, LaunchServices has become voodoo even to Apple's own engineers, and at this point they aren't so much engineering it as prodding and hoping it wanders in the general direction of where they'd like it to go. No one really seems to know what's causing it to corrupt its database or get confused, but having multiple drives connected to one's system with any frequency seems to be a major trigger.
And yes, it can start to make the "Open With..." feature all but worthless, as consider what you're presented with when you're trying to open a text file or an image file...
Actually, "Open With..." becoming all but worthless is really just exacerbated by having quadruples of everything, the Finder was already walking around with its head in its ass if it thinks I'm going to want to open a file ending in .txt with Unsharp Mask.exe. It doesn't help that there are a gazillion little Adobe Action droplets hanging in there when I'm just wanting to open an image in Photoshop or JView, either...
When you write an app for OS X, one of the things you have to do is tell the System what file types it can accept. This is why sometimes you'll try to drag a file to an app and the System won't let you -- the author didn't specify the app could handle the type of data you're trying to throw at it.
Now, if Adobe is telling their droplets they can open a .txt file in this case instead of the Finder being stupid, that's on them. However, they're all over the image example above also which is something they can't -- as far as I'm aware -- do much of anything about if they want them to be able to accept images being dropped on them. With no way for the user to tell the system it's stupid to have those options in there, you're stuck with scrolling through a few pages of applications till you find what you want.
Anywho, the buginess in LaunchServices is made all the worse because there isn't -- again to my knowledge -- a built-in way for a normal user to fix the problem. The built-in Disk Utility won't fix it, nor will other disk utilities... You have to resort to terminal commands to either delete the database completely or try rebuild it. I've seen users reinstall over this, simply because they didn't know any better and thought it was indicative of a larger problem with their install.
There are some third-party utilities you can download now which will do it, but they generally don't fix the problem long-term, because if you happen to have the usage patterns that trigger it the bugginess isn't something you can fix. You can rebuild the database, and it might fix it for awhile, or even just make it less severe, but it'll come back soon it enough.
Posted by drunkenbatmanSeptember 02, 2005, at 06:19 AM
Comments (48)
Posted by: Damian at September 2, 2005 07:03 AM
OMG, not the Finder again. Isn't it more than time it was re-written in Cocoa, anyway? It's an abortion. Half the problem comes from the Siracusas who, taking a leaf out of Violet Elizabeth Bott's book, said they would "thweam and thweam and thweam" if it wasn't re-written to imitate what was on the clapped-out and damn-near unusable horrible old 16-bit Mac OS. Apple should've let them. These idiots actually booed Steve Jobs onstage when he previewed a version of the NeXT file browser. Did you know the damn stupid thing puts one of those damn stupid resource forks in its damn stupid .DS_store files? Is someone on a *nix machine getting sent attachments from Mac users supposed to appreciate all the junk files that frequently accompany them?
Posted by: Romain at September 2, 2005 07:29 AM
All those useless Photoshop droplets suck really bad. Here, they are conveniently in a .DMG. Out of my sight, out of my mind and out of my contextual menus.
Posted by: at September 2, 2005 07:30 AM
Half the problem comes from the Siracusas who, taking a leaf out of Violet Elizabeth Bott's book, said they would "thweam and thweam and thweam" if it wasn't re-written to imitate what was on the clapped-out and damn-near unusable horrible old 16-bit Mac OS.
Hmm... Damian, I don't think that this is what Siracusa wants. I think what he is after is a consistent interface, which we all know is currently lacking. The Finder in pre-OS X was consistent. I would behave like a spatial file manager. These days, it wants to be a browser and a spatial file manager which screws things up a little.
I don't think Siracusa is against anything that was in the NeXT file manager. I think all he wants is a consistent file manager. I'm sure he is not against new, modern features being implemented, so long as they are not half assed implementations, and they work consistently.
Anyway, back to the article. I have not seen this problem crop up on my system. But then I don't have many external drives attached to my computer. I only really connect my iPod to my computer. I was thinking about getting an external hard drive since I seem to be running out of disk space, but I think I may have to reconsider this.
Me
Posted by: craftyc at September 2, 2005 07:39 AM
Sorry. I forgot to put my name in the above comment.
Me
Posted by: Kool at September 2, 2005 08:12 AM
Certainly a very annoying bug! It should be fixed, for sure, but until then, here is a solution to repair your system:
Type in your terminal:
/System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Frameworks/LaunchServices.framework/Support/lsregister -kill -r -domain local -domain system -domain user
Posted by: Macam at September 2, 2005 08:29 AM
I've had this problem reappear incessantly recently, and I find it amusing that not only did you vocalize the problem with LaunchServices, but also perhaps my larger pet peeve: The 5-pixel navigation to the sub-menu in the context menu, which while not too much of an issue with a mouse, it's a wretched pain to navigate with the trackpad on a PowerBook. The previous comment is correct though, that Terminal command will fix the issue -- temporarily. Also, that desktop wallpaper, from PixelGirlPresents if I'm not mistaken, is rather appropriate for the topic at hand.
Posted by: an interested party at September 2, 2005 08:29 AM
I use the finder less and less, not just because of bugs like this but because increasingly the whole 'manipulate windows with your mouse' is unmanageable. Too many windows, too time consuming to manage them. Try quicksilver, it handles your 'open with' issue elegantly and faster than the finder does to boot, as well as a host of other tasks one would normally use the finder for.
Posted by: Skatch at September 2, 2005 08:41 AM
Yeah, I've been seeing this problem for a while too. I've been wondering what causes it, so thanks for decoding what's going on.
Posted by: Daniel Morrison at September 2, 2005 09:02 AM
Just let me search.
I like iTunes. I click on the library, type a few letters in the search box, and I've found my song. Sometimes, I'm in a playlist and iTunes knows I don't want it to search outside the playlist.
Now the Finder. I want to click on a folder full of PHP files and start typing to find the one I want (maybe even in a subdirectory). No dice. By the time I'm presented with the contextual (search in this folder) option, I'm sick of waiting and the UI has completely changed on me. Ugh.
Posted by: l0ne at September 2, 2005 09:34 AM
I must say, in all the releases of the OS I've installed (10.2.6 onward) I've never ever seen any evidence of LaunchServices corruption on my system.
Ever.
Also some more things:
- Adobe droplets have a nasty habit of associating themselves with text files. It's a fault on their side if I'm not mistaken.
- The Finder manages a very aggressive icon cache that may result in icon changes being ignored (especially true of applications and other kinds of bundles). LS may not be entirely at fault for this. If I have icon trouble, the first thing I do is restarting the finder through the lovely ctrl-option-click on Finder icon in Dock combo.
- Anyone want to explain to me why in this enlightened age of bundle identifiers and UTIs and MIME types I still need a creator code to make the Finder open documents with my own app? (Note: if I don't have a creator code, my app shows up in the "Open with" part of the document's Info window, but the Finder reverts the selection whenever I try to choose it.)
Posted by: SMacTech at September 2, 2005 10:07 AM
How about 10.4 trying to launch older versions of applications in the trash? A giving a stupid -10660 Error, or something close to that.
I have seen 10.4 not show filetype icons at all, or using generic document icons.
Hurry 10.4.3
Posted by: Ian Ruddle at September 2, 2005 10:09 AM
This problem is exacerbated if you have made mirrored, bootable backups (I use Deja Vu, but the problem existed with Carbon Copy Cloner as well). I've told Spotlight not to index these drives, but LaunchServices is very aware of them and seems to prefer the apps on external drives over those on my machine. There is also no recognition that some of the applications on external drives are older versions - they appear in name only. Not sure if this is an additional bug or just added detail to the annoyance stated here.
Posted by: Rainer Brockerhoff at September 2, 2005 11:09 AM
If I may be pardoned a brief plug... my Zingg! contextual menu allows you to restrict or expand an "Also Open With..." list. You also can set certain applications to always be on the list, which I usually do for BBEdit and Resorcerer.
Posted by: Oliver at September 2, 2005 11:22 AM
I've experienced the same thing in Panther, although i only ever had two of the same app show up in the menu (not four!). I had the problem with Mplayer OS X i believe, and solved it by deleting the app, logging out and in, then re-installing it again.
Not sure how you'll do that with quicktime tho... :-p
Posted by: Ronald Pomeroy at September 2, 2005 11:24 AM
Wow - I hate to be the odd man out - but I've never seen this behavior on my system - actually - any of my systems (going all the way back to the public beta of 10.0).
I noticed you're skinning OS X with some theme. Is is even remotely possible the skinning SW is mucking with the database and screwing it up ?
RP
Posted by: Pascale Soleil at September 2, 2005 11:30 AM
"which was greenlighted by an executive who'll rename nameless for now but used to be a programmer and now is in charge of things like broad-ranging user interface decisions rather than someone who has heard the term paper prototyping, as well as your desire to email me pointing out this is one hell of a run-on sentence."
Marry me.
Posted by: Fall Prospect at September 2, 2005 12:34 PM
Does "Summer Prospect" want to get with "Fall Prospect?" Here I am.
Posted by: Twist at September 2, 2005 01:46 PM
I am another odd man out since I have only rarely had this problem and not to this extent. Every now and then I will see the same application twice but never on a scale like this. All the Photoshop droplets do annoy the heck out of me though especially since I can't get Photoshop CS to create native droplets of my own under 10.4 for some reason (it creates them as Classic applications).
Posted by: ssp at September 2, 2005 02:35 PM
Amusing bug... and one in the Finder that I haven't seen myself yet for a change :)
Right at the topic you mention, I really think it'd be useful if the Finder presented your recent selections at the top of that list once it has more than a handful of items. Because it's unlikely that you'll use more than three items regularly.
Posted by: something at September 2, 2005 03:05 PM
I was under the impression that what was happening here was that it was showing you every copy of an applicaiton available to you. So, if I have iTunes on my computer and a second networked computer also had iTunes, I could actually launch the networked file of iTunes to play a file.
Posted by: Daiya at September 2, 2005 03:57 PM
I've often noticed duplicated entries in the "Recent Places" part of the dropdown in various File Open and File Save dialogs. Would that be part of the same issue discussed here?
Posted by: sundoggy at September 2, 2005 03:58 PM
Hey DB, or maybe somebody else can answer this, which someone sort of brought up above. Wasn't the Finder supposed to be re-written ground up in Cocoa, like a couple major releases ago? I thought it was going to be like 10.2. Wouldn't this offer some performance advantages (assuming it's not super buggy)?
I have had this problem before, but not with my current install of 10.4.2. I'm always amazed at the number of bugs you encounter DB.
BTW, on last week's safari bug fest. The new release has fixed most problems for me, and it's back to being snappy again. However, during the last few weeks I've become a real Firefox fan. The main reason I like safari now is because of all the extra functionality I get from Saft.
Posted by: Simone Manganelli at September 2, 2005 04:10 PM
Oh my god. What is it with you people chanting "Make the Finder in Cocoa! Make the Finder in Cocoa! Make the Finder in Cocoa!"? Does anybody REALLY give a crap what programming language the Finder is written in?
What drunkenbatman is railing on is how utterly annoying and worthless the Finder can be at times because of specific lame design decisions, despite the fact that it is the most important application in Mac OS X. Rewriting it in Cocoa is NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. It's the programmers who need to find and fix the behavior of the Finder (or rewrite it using some good interface common sense) -- Cocoa is not some magical programming language that automatically fixes all bugs and interface oddities.
Remember iMovie 2, how it was written in Carbon, and then along came iMovie 3 (written in Cocoa), and it was HORRENDOUSLY SLOW? That's the point -- Cocoa isn't a panacea, and in this case isn't the solution at all.
Arg, I really hate it when people say "I want XXX written in Cocoa!" What you should be saying instead is "I want XXX specific behavior changed so that it is more intuitive, perhaps by doing XXX instead." Which is what drunkenbatman is doing.
Please stop chanting "Cocoa! Cocoa! Cocoa!" unless you know what you are talking about. Rant over.
-- Simone
Posted by: at September 2, 2005 04:51 PM
Thanks, DB. Now I'm never going to the finder without seeing those two girls.
Posted by: hawaiiano at September 2, 2005 05:17 PM
Amen, Simone.
Posted by: Vincent at September 2, 2005 05:21 PM
You're the man, I noticed this behaviour not in the finder but in the dictionary menu of script editor. Imagine the pain to select the applescript dictionnary you want.
I ran the terminal command, and dupplicates disapeared. So thanks to have nailed the cause of the issue
Posted by: dhaveconfig at September 2, 2005 05:25 PM
I really wish I knew what caused this, as I've seen it on a couple of friend's machines, but NEVER on any of my couple of hundred staff and lab machines.
ever.
I've seen my machine get kind of confused when I had three or four partitions, all with different versions of OS X, but y'know, that's kind of understandable...
Posted by: Simone Manganelli at September 2, 2005 07:32 PM
dhaveconfig -- you bastard. I call upon the Apple OS gods to wreak havoc upon your Mac OS X installation so that random bugs start cropping up everywhere. (I'll settle for a well-behaved/well-designed Finder, but failing that, I'd like my revenge please.)
-- Simone
Posted by: ex2bot at September 2, 2005 10:26 PM
What about rewriting the Finder in Cocoa? Let's catch up to the 21st century people!
ex2bot
Posted by: cre8ive at September 2, 2005 10:44 PM
The 'open with' contextual menu weirdness has been pretty common for me at the studio running 10.3.9. So far I have to say 10.4.2 at home doesn't seem to present the same issue.
Still, maybe it'll be squished with the other 400 or so bugs that are apparently being addressed for the 10.4.3 update. Good to see Apples attention to detail shining through. ;)
Posted by: at September 2, 2005 10:46 PM
Amongst other Finder issues, the 'open with' contextual menu weirdness has been pretty common for me at the studio running 10.3.9. So far I have to say 10.4.2 at home doesn't seem to present the same issue.
Still, maybe it'll be squished with the other 400 or so bugs that are apparently being addressed for the 10.4.3 update. Good to see Apples attention to detail shining through. ;)
Btw, I'm a Pathfinder user as well.
Posted by: DWalla at September 3, 2005 12:24 AM
Goes along with the #1 bug fix demands from users.
FTFF!!!!!
Posted by: Colin Barrett at September 3, 2005 01:51 AM
Responding to Simone's statement (I think I know you from the Wiretap Beta mailing list):
Really, the issue isn't "REWRITE XXX IN COCOA," I really think it's more like "REWRITE XXX!" There comes a point when things get so fucked up that they just need to be killed off and rewritten (I cite Adium 1.6.3c as an example. *shudder*).
As to why the "IN COCOA" thing probably got started in the first place is because Cocoa would be a GREAT language to write the Fnder in. Tons of great methods in Foundation in AppKit for writing something Finder-like.
Also, this sentence disturbs me greatly: "Please stop chanting "Cocoa! Cocoa! Cocoa!" unless you know what you are talking about." Is having such an elitist attitude really a good thing? Rather than "Sit down and shut up," why not "Hey there! You seem to be enthusiastic, but you're wrong on points A, B and C for reasons X, Y and Z. Any more questions, feel free to ask!" We were all neophytes once, give people some slack, and maybe they'll turn into knowledgeable, helpful members of the community. I've seen it happen time and time again.
Posted by: Simone Manganelli at September 3, 2005 03:16 AM
Colin --
Rewriting, per se, won't necessarily solve all the Finder problems. If you want to help make the Finder better, you pinpoint specific issues that need to be dealt with and you explain what could be done to make it better. If taking all the problems together and deciding that rewriting the Finder will help fix the specific problems, then by all means go ahead and do the rewrite. But focus on the goal, not the process, because the Finder could be a pile of horse poo that is downloaded and installed on your computer and I don't really care as long as it worked well.
I may be a bit "elitist" and harsh, but this is one of the most annoying things that Mac users can say about a certain piece of software. It's gotten so much traction that when a program doesn't work correctly and when it's not written in Cocoa, many Mac users immediately jump to the conclusion that it must need to be written in Cocoa. Not only that, but people can easily recognize when an application is a Cocoa application. So because Cocoa offers so many things "for free", like the cool little dot in the middle of close boxes, or the font panel, or whatever else makes Cocoa such a great programming language (really, it's actually the APIs, but we'll overlook that distinction here), it makes people assume that Cocoa is the end-all-be-all of everything when it really isn't. (I program in Cocoa and I know that it's awesome to work with, but I don't delude myself into thinking that Cocoa should be used for every single project.)
Since it's such a broad misconception, I'm going to be harsh and up-front about it, and sure, I'll come off as "elitist", and say things like "horse poo" and I'll make fun of people who are chanting, "Cocoa! Cocoa! Cocoa!" To me, this whole thing about needing to rewrite everything in Cocoa is akin to saying "Mac just released a new iPod today!" It's annoying as hell, and I'm not afraid to say it. Me ranting to them for this one pet peeve of mine is not going to stop them from becoming a helpful member of the community.
I'm sorry for being harsh and sarcastic, but with regards to this issue, I can't help it. It just bugs me to no end.
-- Simone
Posted by: PXLated at September 3, 2005 04:06 AM
Another odd man out. Can't recall ever seeing this.
Posted by: Uli Kusterer at September 3, 2005 05:55 AM
> Ignore the horrid sideways-scrolling label selection system
> which requires you to move your cursor precisely horizontally
> with a leeway of all of 5 pixels, which was greenlighted by an
> executive who'll rename nameless for now but used to be a
> programmer and now is in charge of things like broad-ranging
> user interface decisions rather than someone who has heard the
> term paper prototyping, as well as your desire to email me
> pointing out this is one hell of a run-on sentence.
I wouldn't have noticed. But then I'm German ;-)
Posted by: Kool at September 3, 2005 06:39 AM
> Not only that, but people can easily recognize when an application is a Cocoa application. So because Cocoa offers so many things "for free", like the cool little dot in the middle of close boxes, or the font panel, or whatever ...
There you have it! That's exactly the reason why people like Cocoa applications! Because all the "free" stuff is in there. They like having services available and being able to spell check each and every textfield. Sure, every Carbon application can get that as well, but if the developer uses Cocoa they can be quite sure most if not all of this stuff is in there.
So here you go: COCOA!! COCOA!! COCOA!! :-P
Posted by: steve at September 3, 2005 08:40 AM
The Mac _is_ all about Cocoa. If it wasn't for Cocoa, we may as well use Linux.
When users can tell what language an application is written in, and it's very easy to tell when it's not written using the Cocoa libraries, then that's a very firm and undeniable hint to stop screwing around with crap like Java and C++.
Objective C and Cocoa is the reason to program on a Mac, the reason to use a Mac, and the reason to buy a Mac to keep enjoying the benefits of that programming environment.
Posted by: Jerry Kindall at September 3, 2005 12:32 PM
No, the reason to use a Mac is for the popular Mac productivity applications, the majority of which are written to the Carbon API because they have been around for years if not decades.
If you can tell by looking at a program whether it's written to Carbon or Cocoa, and care, you've got better eyes than I do.
Posted by: Sfenerule at September 3, 2005 01:43 PM
My G4's "Open With >" has looked the same through 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4. However, multiple instances of the same app DO show up in the selection of applications to be enabled, or not, in the Accounts Prefs for my and two other non-admin user IDs.
We'll need the Finder ported to Cocoa in time for the coming side-jump to the Cell architecture...
Posted by: Simone Manganelli at September 3, 2005 06:42 PM
Like I said before, who GIVES A CRAP whether it's written in Carbon or Cocoa?
"They like having services available and being able to spell check each and every textfield. Sure, every Carbon application can get that as well, but if the developer uses Cocoa they can be quite sure most if not all of this stuff is in there."
And that's EXACTLY the attitude that I'm trying to stop and the attitude of many Mac users that's quite frustrating. Every Carbon application can get these things as well, so a good programmer who pays attention to detail will be able to masquerade his Carbon application as a Cocoa application. But Cocoa is NOT the feature. It's the services and the spell check in each text field and the dot in the close box. If you want those things, then by god, TELL THE DEVELOPER YOU WANT THOSE THINGS. Saying that you want it written in Cocoa is worthless, because it would probably take more time to rewrite it to get those little things you want, rather than just taking the time to add them to a Carbon application.
The Mac is NOT all about Cocoa. The Mac is about a platform that has much better UI consistency and much better usability than Windows. Don't get me started on Linux. Talk about piss-poor usability... keystrokes are not standardized across applications, you get to choose your display manager (like I REALLY care), you get to fiddle with configuration files to get some things to work, and worst of all, developers don't know how to make a good UI or how to leave out worthless preferences that only one person in a million will EVER use. Windows is better, but it still is a usability nightmare compared to the Mac -- why in the world would I want to do a two-step keystroke sequence, and why would I want a window that encloses other windows of a single application? (That is the one thing I hate the MOST about Windows -- those annoying "metawindows", ARGH!) And then there's all those "wizards" that wouldn't need to be there if they made an intuitive interface in the first place.
The Mac is about USABILITY. And Cocoa is one part of that. It helps to make the process of creating applications with good UIs easier. But that's all it does. A developer can choose to use Carbon to create a similarly good UI -- they just have to work a little harder at it. But that doesn't mean that you should rewrite it in Cocoa, because it's possible that the developer does not know many of the intricacies or quirks of Cocoa, and therefore it will have other downsides (like performance). You should use the programming language that makes it easier for you to create an application that has the features you want and has a good UI. (And Apple, for it's part, has been trying as best it can to make Carbon and Cocoa more consistent so that you won't be able to notice the difference between the two.)
Jerry -- if you can't tell the difference between Carbon and Cocoa applications, then I'm very surprised. You can often tell Cocoa applications from Carbon applications by a number of things: does every text field support system-wide spell check? Does it have a standard toolbar with the customization palette and the command-drag feature to rearrange buttons? Does it put a dot in the close box as soon as you change something after saving a document? Does it allow you to use services? If you said yes to all these questions, then the application you're using is likely a Cocoa application. It's almost a dead giveaway.
These are simple usability enhancers that Cocoa gives for free, but CARBON CAN DO THOSE TOO. It's just that many Carbon programmers don't concentrate on adding those things to their applications. If you want them to add those things, then, like I said before, TELL THEM! But telling them to rewrite their program in Cocoa is lame and is annoying and should merit a slap in the face. By doing so, you the user are saying that you know more about programming than the programmer does, and that's certainly not true.
And if you think that Carbon should go away, then please YOU go away, or at least go and read all the archives at daringfireball.net .
ANYWAY, getting back to what set this all off... drunkenbatman and Siracusa and John Gruber all rant on the Finder about SPECIFIC design issues and problems with the Finder. These are design issues, which are usability issues. drunkenbatman and Siracusa and John Gruber all care about how the consistency of the Mac platform makes it such a great platform, and then they see all this crap cluttering up the Finder and they get scared that the Mac will eventually degenerate to a Windows state of things. But the Mac OS programmers can easily change and fix these problems even while keeping the Finder written in Carbon. There's nothing that mandates the Finder to need to be written in Cocoa. And all their rants are about usability, which means converting to Cocoa would not help at all, since the same design decisions would lead to the same problems.
It's like the whole thing with filename extensions -- converting the Finder to Cocoa will not make file extensions magically become awesome pieces of metadata; they'll still be shit compared to type/creator codes or UTIs or whatever else you can possibly think of. Cocoa does not change that.
So if you have a problem with a Carbon application (or a Cocoa application for that matter), and you want some feature to be added, talk about that specific feature, not about Carbon-ness or Cocoa-ness.
Ugh.
-- Simone
Posted by: Simone Manganelli at September 3, 2005 06:54 PM
... and that comment was longer than drunkenbatman's entire article. Oh well!
Posted by: Sandy at September 4, 2005 10:09 AM
Cocoa: I hear it's good with marshmallows.
Sign me Uber-Casual
Posted by: paulpro at September 4, 2005 06:18 PM
As far as I have been able to tell, it's an issue that only exists when there *are* multiple copies of apps available.
What has solved it for me is not the terminal command advised in these comments, but keeping all boot drives or drives with applications in external firewire cases which I only connect when needed.
This seems to prevent the multiple application names showing up in my contextual menu.
Of course, it could be something completely different, or LaunchServices indeed screwing up.
Posted by: Troy at September 5, 2005 10:46 PM
DB, Change
greenlighted by an executive who'll rename nameless for nowto
greenlighted by an executive who'll remain nameless for now
PS: Blogger seems to have cleaned out a bunch of the spamblogs - any chance of allowing them back in one day?
Posted by: at September 7, 2005 04:10 PM
I've seen this, I think it is caused by having cloned backups.
And that's why I use PathFinder :)