System settings that aren’t in System Settings
eclecticlight.co
eclecticlight.co
First I do a
defaults read > 1
defaults read > 2
diff 1 2
defaults write com.apple.ical "Show Week Numbers" -bool true
You can likely get a lot of this by just creating a new user.
This file acts like a skel file and holds all the standard settings for new users created on that machine. This can be used to customize settings and folders.
Edit: seems to support doing a diff and reverting/modifying right in yadm, i just do t really use thst bit myself: https://yadm.io/docs/common_commands#
Power management settings, for example, will break some System Settings panes when manually written, in addition to not effectively modifying the relevant setting. Those, you have to modify with the `pmset` command instead.
The end game of this type if thing is NixOS where your OS is created from a declarative and reproducible Nix file as are all of it's programs as well as their dependencies.
It doesn't feel nearly as 'safe' as NixOS, in that OS upgrades are less predictable and can break a lot of things (not limited to Nix). But all-in-all, it's really not bad, and for some use cases it might be better.
The built-in options are listed in the modules docs starting here: https://daiderd.com/nix-darwin/manual/index.html#opt-system....
but you can also define custom ones without writing new modules via CustomPreferences and CustomSystemPreferences: https://daiderd.com/nix-darwin/manual/index.html#opt-system....
I track all of my `defaults` settings (aside from power management) in version control this way on my work machine. :)
I installed a capture card recently that needed a kernel extension and after agreeing a confirmation box to install the extension I couldn’t find anywhere in the settings to remove it. In the end I just deleted the file and rebooted.
I had Teams in the browser ask if it could access files in my Downloads directory which I mistakenly agreed to, this took a good ten minutes to find and revoke and I can’t remember off the top of my head where the setting even was.
A lot of this is down to more granular privacy and security settings but it’s difficult to find the settings you are looking for.
Constant pop up’s every time a new app wants to look at those files… so get a n admin populists that just be felt with. It’s not a huge deal for a single instance, but when it’s coming up 4 or 5 times a day…
Ill I want is a per-volume checkbox “treat as internal”.
[Edit] Either way, I’m gonna use it from now as a synonym for “tell [someone]”. Thank you for the inspiration!
I took it to mean "Gaslight" (in this case, gaslight the OS to believe that a removable disk is not removable).
“Mark as internal” seems like a really crude fudge when the real problem is you can’t give access to single directories rather than a whole drive. Also a “don’t remind me again” option on the external drive pop-up.
Although it’s an annoying workaround.
The other thing is that on Linux that would probably work consistently once it's done whereas on macOS you'd always be waiting for it to break, or it would need to be set up again after every update etc.
Sadly, on macOS it always feels like you're fighting against Apple to use your machine how you want - a certain amount of the bad experience feels like dark patterns because you didn't pay Apple's through-the-roof storage prices in the first place. The same is true of how Mac's limit external displays in software but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Are Apple’s prices “through the roof”? They seem comparable/equal to Google’s
And what dark patterns exist if you only use the free plan?
Really? I thought this limitation was in hardware (which is just as bad and just as much Apple's choice)
Nothing security related is unencrypted on the externals… it’s just my steam library, downloaded ai models, stuff like that.
I previously gave access to an app to access removable storage (because there was no more granular way to just give the app access for a single folder - which is a serious freaking defect if anyone from Apple is reading this - that’s just plain bad), did some editing, then revoked the access.
The problem is the access wasn’t revoked and it could still access the whole drive. Checked the settings pane - definitely no access to removable drives (and no full disk access), went back to app and it could still access.
Went through tcc on the command line and it showed that the access was revoked but still it persisted reboots.
In the end I had to completely reset the machine and start from scratch just to revoke that drive access.
macOS really needs another Snow Leopard “no new features” release.
This has always been a myth. Snow Leopard had some massive changes "under the hood", and OS X 10.6.0 was very buggy, as can be seen by the release notes for 10.6.1, 10.6.2, etc.
What people remember fondly about Snow Leopard was in actuality the 2 full years of bug fixes that occurred after its release.
What Apple needs to do is end the yearly major OS release cycle. It doesn't leave enough time to fix the bugs before Apple engineers start working on new features for the next release.
Yes.
> it's not a myth at all.
The myth is that no flashy new user-visible features meant that Snow Leopard was a "stable" release. It wasn't a stable release, any more so than any other major new OS version. Snow Leopard became stable over time, after many minor bug fix releases.
Note the specific words I was replying to: "macOS really needs another Snow Leopard “no new features” release."
macOS doesn't need any new major OS updates. Snow Leopard didn't help. Mac OS X 10.6.0 was in fact much buggier than Mac OS X 10.5.8 preceding it. What macOS needs is a long series of minor bug fix releases.
This is crucial: as soon as you acknowledge that 10.6.0 was much buggier than 10.5.8, the whole idea that "we need another Snow Leopard" goes out the window.
Unfortunately as an iOS developer just not upgrading isn't an option - Xcode drops support for the previous version of macOS a few months after the release, and submitting to the app store requires using recent versions of Xcode. You can lag at most about a year behind.
What hostile application is running on your computer that you fear about giving drive access as opposed to folder access? Uh.. So if you do.... What will that app do? Why are you using such an app then?
Isn't the idea like if you install an application on your own machine, it shouldn't be hostile to you and the app is trusted so why should I "fear" that the app has some access?
I mean, the redesign of Preference is more difficult to navigate and has some rought edges, but this setting is where one would roughly expect it.
I think an ideal system would make answering all three easy.
At one point my Logitech GHUB drivers bugged out and wouldn't launch anymore. Interestingly, the G502 mouse still had a 1000hz polling rate, even after uninstalling the drivers and every trace (as far as I could find).
After trying for over a year to install new drivers, they released a version which added 2 new kexts that they don't remove on uninstall. The only way to uninstall them is to go into safe mode, disable SIP and remove them.
Sounds good to me.
Still, I admit that the whole settings structure is confusing and Apple should implement something similar to VsCode where you can globally search for all existing settings.
From that list I see (Trackpad) and goes on to other options
I typed posi and the Second option is Desktop & Dock
I typed Hig and the second option is under Appearance.
The search works for me.
On a Mac that's roughly equivalent to uninstalling Internet Explorer. One does not merely uninstall iTunes.
And it also lacks any visual cues, so if you're used to some icon in the main settings apps, you'll not see it in regedit
Better starting point would be Group Policy, which is mostly a layer over the registry but containing pretty good descriptions of what a setting does. It has a Powershell module, so combining that with fzf and a preview pane which shows the description might ctually be pretty neat, but probably not very fast.
(by the way, is it possible to change settings within the OS via this search interface?)
Maybe you could use one with nix-darwin on OSX? Not sure.
https://support.apple.com/guide/script-editor/access-scripts...
The other day, someone was complaining that they couldn't read their screen, and I (foolishly) indicated that I could fix it easily, because "I'm an expert."
I ended up searching through multiple pages of settings, in order to find the one they needed.
At least they got a good laugh out of it.
Zoom's settings are right up there, with Apple's.
Information architecture often tends to follow political and organizational structure, as opposed to good common sense usability structure.
App settings that aren’t found in the app
I often am enabling or disabling cellular data access to applications. Unfortunately this setting lives in 2 places and is difficult to reach.
There is a list of all apps in the cellular settings that allows changing this but the list has 100s of apps, has no search/filter and cannot be sorted alphabetically.
You can also go the app specific settings in the settings app but this also sucks to get to because spotlight search sucks and the actual list is again, not in alphabetical order. (Apples own built in 50+ apps are strewn about in a haphazard order).
The system settings app itself has been undergoing changes to make it more similar to iOS, I like that now I can find things on the same place they’re on my phone… but it gets confusing for more desktop-specific items (e.g. display/screen saver/night shift options are in different sections etc)
But more importantly - you know you can have the same config in multiple places
I just went to systems settings. I searched for mai...
I see the top hit is internet accounts. No other option internet account does describe mail so I click it. Up pops a bunch of choices as well as an add account button...
What is the problem?
This is at the bottom of this page. I still don't understand the problem.
This is Apple babysitting their users. Apple needs to make sure that if their customer think that email is configured certain services are active. If an Apple customer has to make sure that each service is configured and it should be done by whatever email client the customer chooses.
I disagree that the issue is severe. My assumption is that if one is setting up another email application the host operating system assuming they will provide the users of the alternative email client will also provide the mechanism for making it the default email client.
That is not an unreasonable assumption for the host OS to make in my view. Email is a little different than browsers in at least 2 respects
The biggest difference is that an established legal precedent that a host OS should provide a direct interface for selecting the default browser. The browser is also a single protocol application http:.
The second is that an email client is multiple protocols. Do you want different default accounts depending if it's pop or imap? What about sending which accounts to do you to use and how.
All of these options are in Mail.app and I have used many variations where default account might not cut it.
I'm also willing to drop the whole thing because I bet at some point it won't be an issue if it is an issue.
But once you get used to the Apple way then you tend to not question these things as much.
Right. It is not the place of some random 'app' to administer my fucking system. I never, ever want my web browser or text editor or any other app to nag me with some intrusive pop-up about making it the default (in general or for some specific file type).
From my perspective, the whole 'the app should handle it' attitude is another perverse adaptation to Apple neglecting to build competent power user features (in this case an administrative interface for default application associations), like the slew of apps in the ecosystem trying desperately to hack in decent window management, audio stream management, middle click via trackpad (lmfao), key remapping, etc., etc. The whole culture of the OS and its userbase just takes it for granted that huge classes of functionality will and even should be implemented by various 'apps' leveraging otherwise invisible, sometimes undocumented, and always breakage-prone OS behaviors.
Somewhat related: It's not the place of some random web site to administer my fucking system. I never, ever want any web site (looking at you, Google!) to nag me with some intrusive pop-up about installing their freaking browser just because I'm looking at their site.
Alternative spelling: Once you get brainwashed by the Reality Distortion Field you tend to not question Apple.
How to recognise when people have been: When they deny not only that they've been brainwashed, but the existence of the RDF.
At least 75% the person is simply mistaken. Then you the people that insist there couldn't possibly be any logic to this thing makes know sense to me.
They are just completely wrong.
2. Choose settings.
3. Set as default.
You never once have to touch the apple apps. That setting is in the stock apps because these are set to the default on a blank install and by putting it here, you now have the option to change it when the app launches.
HN tries too hard to invent drama.
I saw it when I touched the Mail.app, though
So tell me again why complaining about the lack of the most basic thing: being able to configure your system via a dedicated system configuration app is "invented drama"
Your explanation is also irrelevant as it doesn't address the issue why it's NOT in the system settings app, not why it's also in some other app
They want to paint it like it's anti competitive or some dark pattern as if the consumer's choice to buy an apple computer was not influenced by the software that it comes with.
For a lot of users changing email settings from the email app's settings makes the most sense, going to the system settings to change email isn't their first thought.
In a similar thought, a mac user goes to the Finder to change default apps for file associations. So the thinking here by some users is that this should also be moved to the system settings?
While I can see both sides of having it in one place or another. I also see the value of not putting the same setting in many different places. I also think there is value in simplifying the system preferences and that it's pedantic to argue that it must be one place or another.
I think the current method makes more sense. I have no objection to Apple also implementing in system settings but who cares.
That doesn't make any sense. If it is a setting that influences the system it should be a system setting not in some different program I might or might not use.
In practice, 'it just works' often simply means 'you cannot configure it'.
It's not a claim about simplicity, robustness, compatibility, etc. It's about taking a stance against configuration.
This default mail app thing is just another case of it, on the less extreme side of the spectrum (you cannot configure it for now... first you have to do some stupid bullshit).
But they take it too far for my tastes. And the lack of configurability makes those times when the UX is disagreeable or just plain wrong feel like an insult as well as a defect.
> "intuitive" is just fricking hype
I think I remember my dad once saying that there's only one intuitive user interface for mammals: the nipple. After that, you're learning, whether you admit it or not!
On MacOS you do that, but it will still interrupt the render. No, you have to install caffeine, a piece of software that tells the OS to stay awake because deactivating sleeping in the system preferences won't work.
Maybe it "just works" if you are using the machine exactly as intended, sure.
A similar function exists in all apps that can take possession of default behaviours.
The reason these defaults are per-app is because this approach pre-dates the concept of putting all default behaviours into a unified panel in the system settings: something which would invariably lead to an incomplete list of available applications.
When are we allowed to ask Apple to step it up, then? Because this has been available on other operating systems for many years.
> something which would invariably lead to an incomplete list of available applications
1. What makes you think this? Many operating systems handle this just fine, right now, today. Apps register themselves with something like XDG services or Android Intents of whatever and in that way the OS gets a comprehensive list of them.
2. So? Even if a user wants an 'unregistered' app to be a default, you could always let the user browse to a .app folder or an executable or provide a command to execute (with some kind of pattern system for passing a file to be opened as an argument and so on).
Apple MacOS 8.5 from 1998 had the "Internet" control panel that let you choose your default web/mail/nntp clients. The concept isn't new, even to Apple.
> which would invariably lead to an incomplete list of available applications
Every app already registers its supported protocols with the OS so it can show the menu of supported apps without it being stale (this is how the menu in Safari/Mail etc shows third-party apps already)
It makes me miss the old type and creator codes from classic Mac os, where you could individually specify preferred apps for opening specific file types, or files created by specific creator apps from the “get info” settings for the file. That mapping was stored globally, but could be changed from any relevant file’s info window and thus was extensible simply by the nature of just needing metadata from the file and a pointer to the app.
I guess the big flaw with that for apps like mail, or calls is that you don’t really have a file. You’d need some interface for mapping uri schemes to apps, and good luck making that intuitive to the end user without either needing every app to expose that in its own settings, or some sort of central uri to human readable thing mapping, which again suffers from the unwieldy and out of date problems.