🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7492@boulder.Colorado.EDU> you write:
>>A practical lesson in why you should never run software you don't
>>understand. This isn'g a problem with the System software OR GateKeeper.
>>It's pilot error. Read the documentation!

Chuq's tone may have seemed a little terse, but his statement is correct.
It was pilot error - no insult intended, the user in question simply made
a mistake.  It happens to everyone.

GateKeeper can be installed without reading documentation since I distribute
it pre-configured in an "observation" mode in which it observes but does not 
interfere with operations on your system.  I don't *recommend* installing it
without reading documentation, but that's another matter.

I do, however, find it odd that after running into problems with GateKeeper
that the user in question thought serious enough to merit a posting to the net,
that he did not also find the problem serious enough to merit an examination of
the GateKeeper documentation (either the release notes or the on-line help).

I am, as always, quite willing to receive email (or even normal mail) from
people having problems with GateKeeper.  I say so in the on-line help, and
even provide my email and US Mail addresses just to prove that I mean what I
say.  Unfortunately, some people choose to ignore my offer - I don't know
why.

>Let's not insult people on this net. Remember the Mac is the first popular
>computer to recognize that users do not always want or have time to read
>manuals.  Thus the phrase "pilot error" should be changed to "non-intuitive
>interface".  

Yes, let's not insult people on the net - myself included.  Any complex
software is going to require a glance at the documentation at some point in
its use.  An example of this would PageMaker - one of nicest programs I've
ever seen - it's user interface is (to my mind) simple and elegant, but 
nonetheless I had to make a brief excursion into my manuals when I wanted to
find out how to wrap text around graphics, or learn why I couldn't use the
image controls on an imported PICT image.  This is to be expected in complex
software - the proof that the user interface was doing it's job was that I
only needed to refer to the manual on the handful of occasions I did.

GateKeeper's user interface does it's job too - the fact that the user in
question could get something which exerts such fundamental control over the
operation of his system installed and operating on his system without 
reference to the documentation proves it.  But the documentation is necessary
and is not a dispensable item.  The Mac was not designed by (or for) people who 
decided that documentation was fundamentally wrong and shouldn't be used.  It
was designed to make computers easier to use - or, if you prefer, to make
computers (as much as possible) tools whose identities are determined by
the use to which they are put, as opposed to tools that attempt to mold the
operations they are charged with performing to their own identities.

And as to not forgetting that the Mac was intended to be easy to use, I assure
you there was no danger of my forgetting.  I bought my first Mac back in
1984 for that (and other) reasons.  Personally, I find this reminder somewhat
insulting.

>Documentation SHOULD be read when there is a problem, but on

No argument there.

>a complicated system with much interacting software (as with INITs, etc.),
>it may be difficult to determine what program is causing trouble.  More
>to the point, GateKeeper should have put up a message saying something like
>"Operation XXX being attempted - not allowed" (as does Vaccine), and StuffIt

Uhhh... GateKeeper DOES, DOES, DOES bring up alerts that say "GateKeeper
has monitored/vetoed an attempt by <ApplicationName> to violate <PrivilegeType>
against <VicitimName>."  It also mentions exactly what Toolbox/OS operation
was being used in the violation attempt and relates some of the more
relevant parameters for programmers who want to know exactly what's going on.
(Even more extensive information is written to the log file.)  This is VASTLY
more informative than ANY alert ever provided by Vaccine, and idependent of
such comparisons (which aren't the point here) it is also a succint and clear
indication of what GateKeeper is doing.

Of course, you won't see these alerts unless you're running System 6 or better
(GateKeeper utilizes the new Notification Manager) and have the "User Alerts"
option engaged in the settings area of the GateKeeper cdev.  This is all well
documented.  [I'm assuming here, that we're talking about GateKeeper 1.1,
by the way.]

>should error-check crucial operations and respond with "Operation XXX
>failed".  

You can say that again - provided that you don't single out StuffIt, since
it's a widespread problem.

>This putting the user first is what excited most of us about the Mac in the
>first place.  The old ways of writing a program just to perform a function, 
>and let the user beware should be falling by the wayside.  With the number of
>different software programs used by individual users rising exponentially, it
>seems, we programmers are need to think more about what the user may need
>than expect him/her to figure us out.

In response to this, please refer to everything I just said.

Good day, and happy computing,
----Chris Johnson
----Author of GateKeeper

P.S. I don't mean to sound mad with the user who posted the problem report
     from which all of this dialog suddenly sprang.  I don't think he dealt
     with the problem well, but I'd still like to invite him (and anyone
     else who has problems with GateKeeper) to send me email about those
     problems - I think you'll agree that I'm uniquely qualified to help.