[PD] Re: Mac OS X installer with library documentation
ben at ekran.org
Fri Apr 1 17:46:08 CEST 2005
From my end I am not arguing the VALUE of having both the pd.app extra
AND the ~/Library/pd/extra paths. Though this method is harder for a new
user, and I mean a lot harder, about as hard as the concept of
/usr/local/lib/pd on OSX STILL is for people.
Anyone have a suggestion to the pixelTANGO problem of a special dynamic
abstractions folder? If allowing pixelTANGO to watch both an internal
extra folder to the pd.app AND an external one in the users ~/ satisfies
everyone then I can go this way... name-conflicts would be pretty ugly
though... If two abstractions have the same name then they would have
different paths and not stomp on one and other, BUT the ;
pd-abstraction.pd messages I suppose would not work since they would be
bound to both abstractions with the same base-name?
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Thomas Ouellet Fredericks wrote:
>>Are you sure it is better to store the extra externals, projects and
>>abstractions in a user specific directory. Max/Msp for XP stores those
>>in a common folder (I think c:\program files\common\max).
> max/msp need not be a reference for us (esp. on windoze)
> xp must not be a reference for us.
> i am sure we need a system-specific path _and_ a user specific path.
> the system-path is normally not writable by ordinary users (you need to
> be admin to write to c:\programmes\common\max - at least on my systems
> ;-)) and people should not need to bother the admin with every
> external/abstraction they want to be installed on a machine.
> now you might say: but hey, i AM the admin of my box.
> and i say: but nowadays even windows has multiple users, and the
> multi-user concept is not only there to not grant the evil hacker the
> right to format your hard-disk. it is there because sometimes a bunch of
> people work on the same machine and they should be separated.
> now hans says: but IO, you are the only one who is actually running
> multi-user systems. all people i know (but you) have admin rights on the
> machines they are using.
> and i answer: this is no valid argument against doing things properly.
> most people didn't think that they would ever need privilege separation
> when they were using dos, and where did it lead us ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Pd-list