Shut Down quit shut down. Please quit Shut Down.



  • A friend of mine who uses a Mac got this message one day:

     

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


  • Shut down? SHUT DOWN? SHUT UP!!!11!!



  • best.

    error.

    ever. 



  • Wow.... I've been using a Mac (starting with System 9 on my own box, though I had exposure as far back as System 7) and various incarnations of OSX since 10.0) and have never seen that error.


    I'm impressed though - perhaps I'm not torturing my computers enough to get them to generate these errors?



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Wow.... I've been using a Mac (starting with System 9 on my own box, though I had exposure as far back as System 7) and various incarnations of OSX since 10.0) and have never seen that error.

    I'm impressed though - perhaps I'm not torturing my computers enough to get them to generate these errors?

    Nah, this error is caused by a badly-written program named "Shut Down".

    When the Mac receives a command to shut down, it sends a "quit" message to every current user process in sequence. If any of those processes either (a) send back a reply saying "can't do it" or (b) don't reply but don't quit either, then the user is presented with a dialog box which says "The application <application name> canceled shut down. To try again, quit <application name> and choose Shut Down from the Apple menu."

    I'm guessing that "Shut Down" told the OS to shut down, but then put up a dialog box and won't budge until the user dismisses the dialog. You can do it in AppleScript in about six lines.



  • Got it! ^^^



  • @The Vicar said:

    @too_many_usernames said:
    Wow.... I've been using a Mac (starting with System 9 on my own box, though I had exposure as far back as System 7) and various incarnations of OSX since 10.0) and have never seen that error.

    I'm impressed though - perhaps I'm not torturing my computers enough to get them to generate these errors?

    Nah, this error is caused by a badly-written program named "Shut Down".

    When the Mac receives a command to shut down, it sends a "quit" message to every current user process in sequence. If any of those processes either (a) send back a reply saying "can't do it" or (b) don't reply but don't quit either, then the user is presented with a dialog box which says "The application <application name> canceled shut down. To try again, quit <application name> and choose Shut Down from the Apple menu."

    I'm guessing that "Shut Down" told the OS to shut down, but then put up a dialog box and won't budge until the user dismisses the dialog. You can do it in AppleScript in about six lines.

    You ruined it. 



  • Maybe it's a trojan o.O

     

    Shut Down.app running in the background all the time. 



  • @Raggles said:

    Maybe it's a trojan o.O

     

    Shut Down.app running in the background all the time. 

    Well THAT can't be...

    I mean, it's a MAC.

    we all know macs can't get any malware...  don't you watch television?  ;) 



  • @misguided said:

    @Raggles said:

    Maybe it's a trojan o.O

     

    Shut Down.app running in the background all the time. 

    Well THAT can't be...

    I mean, it's a MAC.

    we all know macs can't get any malware...  don't you watch television?  ;) 


    Not that they [i]can't get malware[/i] so much as that there [i]isn't any right now[/i]. Newly-descovered security holes, yes. (Fewer than Windows, but that's not the point -- "fewer" means nothing unless it means "none".) Exploits actually found in the wild, no. Avoid Microsoft Office (Macro viruses), don't run as administrator, and don't type an administrative password unless you know why you need it, and -- at least to date -- you're pretty much safe.

    Contrast that with the Microsoft "I just had an idea for a new network service, let's turn it on by default in the next version of Windows without testing it for security holes" attitude, and you have the reason why Macs get such good press.

    Linux doesn't get good press for reasons which Linux programmers never seem to understand. The best summary, I think, can be found at
    (I'm not going to try to link it. This forum software should be on the main page, as others have commented.)



  • @The Vicar said:

    Linux doesn't get good press for reasons which Linux programmers never seem to understand. The best summary, I think, can be found at
    (I'm not going to try to link it. This forum software should be on the main page, as others have commented.)

    While cups is certainly ugly, you're missing the point if you think that this matters a damn. There are plenty of similar disasters in all the other major systems - trying to get SMB network printing to work sanely on a Windows network is just crazy, and almost nobody understands all of it (why the hell are there four completely independent copies of the printer settings (paper size to tray assignments, etc) stashed in different registry places, each with their own apparently identical settings dialog? When are the different ones used? I've never found anybody who can explain all of them, although I know which one is the right one to use). Heck, macosx just used cups last time I checked.

    Good press has got nothing to do with the software. All the software sucks (generally, Windows sucks more, but none of it is particularly good). Good press is generated by throwing money at marketing departments.

    Linux doesn't get good press because it doesn't throw millions into marketing. Period.



  • @asuffield said:

    @The Vicar said:
    Linux doesn't get good press for reasons which Linux programmers never seem to understand.

    While cups is certainly ugly, you're missing the point if you think that this matters a damn. There are plenty of similar disasters in all the other major systems - trying to get SMB network printing to work sanely on a Windows network is just crazy, and almost nobody understands all of it (why the hell are there four completely independent copies of the printer settings (paper size to tray assignments, etc) stashed in different registry places, each with their own apparently identical settings dialog? When are the different ones used? I've never found anybody who can explain all of them, although I know which one is the right one to use). 

    ...aaaaaand you just proved my point about Linux programmers not even understanding the problem. Thanks for the assist. (Seriously, did you actually [i]read[/i] the essay? If you had, you would have seen the statement, repeated several times, that CUPS was merely being used as an example of a broader problem.)

    @asuffield said:

    Heck, macosx just used cups last time I checked.

    It uses CUPS for the guts of its printing system. (And it even has the ugly web interface to prove it.) But the GUI for adding printers, which was the focus of this article, has nothing to do with the one provided by CUPS. (Unless you go through the aforementioned ugly web interface.) The Mac OS X interface for adding printers is a custom one, and it does all the stuff that the article suggests a good GUI should do. (Well, okay, I can't say "all" because I haven't tested it against most network printer types. But the printer detection in 10.4 hasn't failed me yet on any of the printers I [i]have[/i] configured.)

    By the way: as of July 2007 (roughly 15 months after the essay was written) Apple actually owns the rights to CUPS, and the guy who was the creator of the project is an employee. See

    http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475

    I wonder whether the issues raised in the article will be fixed. I'm guessing "no".

    Which is a pity, but I can't blame Apple if that's the case. Any time Apple touches open source stuff at all, no matter what they do, the open source community reacts as though Apple is a cross between the Borg and a leper colony, and the complaints about each perceived slight go on for a period of time geometrically out of proportion to the actual weight of the offense. If, tomorrow, Apple suddenly brought out CUPS version 2.0 with precompiled PPDs and autodetection for every printer ever made by anyone, a fully-documented powerful and flexible command-line interface, and a completely intuitive GUI for GNOME, KDE, Windows, and Mac OS X, which took half the CPU cycles of the current version, had no bugs, and fit in a 10 KB tarball, it would be at least a year before the open source community would finish the [i]initial[/i] round of complaints about how horrible Apple was.

    @asuffield said:

    Good press has got nothing to do with the software. All the software sucks (generally, Windows sucks more, but none of it is particularly good). Good press is generated by throwing money at marketing departments.

    Linux doesn't get good press because it doesn't throw millions into marketing. Period.


    If that were true, then (a) IBM would have solved Linux's problems, because they [i]have[/i] thrown millions into marketing Linux, and (b) Mac OS X would be getting substantially worse press than Windows Vista -- Apple's marketing budget goes almost entirely to the iPod and iPhone, while Microsoft buys one heck of a lot of advertising space for Vista. Strangely, Linux is still perceived by the general public as an OS for tinkerers and masochists, and Vista is still... well, I was going to say "going down in flames" but that's not exactly true -- two engines have failed, and a third is emitting smoke, and the pilot is high on PCP, but there's plenty of fuel and the copilot is still completely capable of finishing the flight as long as the crew doesn't panic.

    The first step is admitting you have a problem, yes?



  • @The Vicar said:

    @asuffield said:
    @The Vicar said:
    Linux doesn't get good press for reasons which Linux programmers never seem to understand.

    While cups is certainly ugly, you're missing the point if you think that this matters a damn. There are plenty of similar disasters in all the other major systems - trying to get SMB network printing to work sanely on a Windows network is just crazy, and almost nobody understands all of it (why the hell are there four completely independent copies of the printer settings (paper size to tray assignments, etc) stashed in different registry places, each with their own apparently identical settings dialog? When are the different ones used? I've never found anybody who can explain *all* of them, although I know which one is the right one to use).

    ...aaaaaand you just proved my point about Linux programmers not even understanding the problem.

    You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm one of them. I'm a sysadmin, who has to support all three platforms on a fairly regular basis. Your failure to check such basic facts is telling. 

    Thanks for the assist. (Seriously, did you actually [i]read[/i] the essay? If you had, you would have seen the statement, repeated several times, that CUPS was merely being used as an example of a broader problem.)

    And I can assure you that the problem is just as broad in windows and macosx, and pretty much every other application under the sun. This problem has got nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with the completely fucked up software industry.

    @asuffield said:

    Good press has got nothing to do with the software. All the software sucks (generally, Windows sucks more, but none of it is particularly good). Good press is generated by throwing money at marketing departments.

    Linux doesn't get good press because it doesn't throw millions into marketing. Period.


    If that were true, then (a) IBM would have solved Linux's problems, because they [i]have[/i] thrown millions into marketing Linux
     
     
    IBM have been marketing Linux on the server. IBM does not market Linux on the desktop and hence to the end-user, because they do not even have a desktop division (they sold it to Lenovo because it's just not part of their business strategy). If your IT budget isn't measured in millions, IBM doesn't care that you exist.
     
    As a stange coincidence, Linux has been rapidly growing and getting good press on the server.
     
    Oh, wait. That's not a strange coincidence, after all. 
     
     
     
    (b) Mac OS X would be getting substantially worse press than Windows Vista -- Apple's marketing budget goes almost entirely to the iPod and iPhone, while Microsoft buys one heck of a lot of advertising space for Vista.
     
     
    You must have been reading some different press. End users barely know what Vista is, and they all think it's a good thing (at least, the ones who don't own it yet).
     
    Anything you read on slashdot? Not in the mainstream press.


  • @asuffield said:

    You must have been reading some different press. End users barely know what Vista is, and they all think it's a good thing (at least, the ones who don't own it yet).
     
    Anything you read on slashdot? Not in the mainstream press.

    At least here in Austria, news about Vista have made it to the mainstream press. Bad news, naturally (Dutch consumer protection board attacking MS for Vista, demanding a free downgrade to XP for all).



  • If your IT budget isn't measured in millions, IBM doesn't care that you exist.

    I'm not even sure that they care even if it does...

    IBM is really only in to the big fish.  That and enforcing licensing on their vendors.  They're big in to that too.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @asuffield said:
    You must have been reading some different press. End users barely know what Vista is, and they all think it's a good thing (at least, the ones who don't own it yet).
     
    Anything you read on slashdot? Not in the mainstream press.

    At least here in Austria, news about Vista have made it to the mainstream press. Bad news, naturally (Dutch consumer protection board attacking MS for Vista, demanding a free downgrade to XP for all).

    Oh yeah, that was cool. Nice to see there's still a few government departments with balls. Futile, but cool. 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.