hostconfig process

[R.L. Grigg]

On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:03 PM, R.L. Grigg wrote:
>
>> On Aug 15, 2007, at 5:24 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:12 PM, R.L. Grigg wrote:
>>>> For the ARDAGENT case, it seems that ARDHelper parses the  
>>>> hostconfig file for the ARDAGENT=-YES- line, and if -YES-  
>>>> launches ARDAgent.
>>>
>>> It does not. I thought I made this clear.
>>
>> I guess you didn't make it clear to my system, cuz thats the way  
>> its working here.
>
> What makes you think this? I'd like to see your "proof".

'Proof is in the pudding' as they say. 'It just works' here the way I  
described -- even when Big Ben isn't chiming. I'm sorry if this  
violates Shoop's Law.

>
> Perhaps, just perhaps <wry smile>, there's some other factor that  
> is at play here and the presense of the line in hostconfig is an  
> ancillary effect.
>
> Perhaps if you ran fslogger you might know more ;)

Perhaps if you actually tried it, you might know more, too. ;)

>
> While it may "seem" like when the sun is directly overhead at high  
> noon that it causes Big Ben to strike twelve, this is in fact not  
> the case at all.
>
> Coincidence is not causality and correlation does not imply causation.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Dan, than are dreamt of  
in your philosophy."

>
>>>
>>>> For the sshd case, its launch is based on the .plist, but I'm  
>>>> still overlooking something:
>>>>     % sudo launchctl load -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/ 
>>>> ssh.plist
>>>>     Workaround Bonjour: Unknown error: 0
>>>
>>> No it's launch is not based on the .plist (especially since the  
>>> plist could have it disabled) it's launch is based on launchd  
>>> knowing if it's supposed to keep the service active because it's  
>>> loaded as a launchdeamom and is marked as being active. Note this  
>>> latter point. The plist could be there, it could be loaded and it  
>>> could not be active or configured to launch.
>>
>> This much I understand, but what is the mechanism involved here?
>
> launchd
>
> If you don't understand that then let's just say "kernel magicks"  
> and be done.

Funny, google doesn't return any results for "kernel magicks". Should  
I remove the quotes from the search string?

>
>>>
>>> As for what you're overlooking it's that you are still  
>>> approaching this from the wrong way and trying to mold your  
>>> observations to incorrect operations.
>>
>> Wow! I would have never guessed! Thats why these user lists are so  
>> helpful...
>
> You shouldn't need user lists for this.

By golly, since I havent gotten anything useful in response to my  
queries, I'd say you're quite right! A open and shut case of unreal  
expectations. My bad.

>
> "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.  
> Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of  
> theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes in "A SCANDAL IN  
> BOHEMIA" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>>> RTFM the Mac OS X Internals book. It's all quite simple.
>>
>> Not many of us have the luxury of sitting down to read a tome when  
>> we're getting yelled at to get things going asap. A useful tip  
>> from another user can help out tremendously in a pinch.
>
> Yet you appear to have plenty of time for wild theories, wild goose  
> chases, and babble.

Ha, that's what they accused Einstein of, the old fool.

>
> If indeed efficiency of time was of value to you, you might find  
> that reading about how things operate, even if just that section of  
> a book or a man page, might well reward itself and payoff with  
> interest compared to time spent chasing unrewarding misconceptions.  
> That is to say it's the lazy man that reads once, and then thinks  
> correctly.

Translation: Dan doesn't know the answer, and couldn't/wouldn't  
articulate it even if he did know.

>
> Instead you presume everyone else has plenty of time to waste  
> helping you when you could have helped yourself. That the time  
> required to solicit a useful tip from another is quicker than  
> finding the answer for yourself immediately. That is a luxury that  
> I doubt either of us have, and moreover pursuing the wrong course  
> is far more wasteful.

No, I presume that those who may wish to help might consider doing  
so. That's greatly appreciated. Those who don't can simply press the  
Delete button and move on. Fine again. Yet you feel compelled to  
reply with your best non-answers to people who aren't full-time SA's.  
This is fun!

(BTW, Dan, the Mail Delete button's documented in the OSX Manual, and  
its on the Mail toolbar too. Looks like you got some reading to do. ;)

Thanks!
Russ