Reputation
2,667
Top tag
Next privilege 3,000 Rep.
Cast close & reopen votes
Badges
4 22 47
Impact
~398k people reached

Jul
9
comment Log out other user w/o first switching to that user
That's a much better command line @tripleee, I agree. My awk wasn't as good 5 years ago :-)
Jun
30
comment What is the “rootless” feature in El Capitan, really?
thanks @bmike sounds good to me! :-)
Jun
29
comment What is the “rootless” feature in El Capitan, really?
Now that I realize this is off-topic I have voted to close my own question; I will flag for reopening when El Capitan is released.
Jun
28
comment What is the “rootless” feature in El Capitan, really?
...Also this totally makes me want to write a kext or something to allow myself to create a binary which I can run in the command line to return to unrestricted access!
Jun
28
comment What is the “rootless” feature in El Capitan, really?
Nice, thanks. I asked this question because I was about to link to that quora article on another Stack Exchange question and then realized that was not the correct move ;-)
Jun
27
comment Is it 'OK' to use the root user as a normal user?
@CousinCocaineas I understand it El Capitan will still have a root account, it just means authentication for apps will work differently... but let's find out for sure
Apr
5
comment View desktop of *very remote* Ubuntu box from my MacBook Pro
And if you're already running a VNC server on your mac (Screen Sharing for example), you can use a different local post with: ssh -L 5901:localhost:5900 username@remote_ip and then use vnc://localhost:5901. The 5901 port can be any unused port between 1024-65535 (or from 1-65535 if you're root)
Apr
5
comment Temporarily disabling RAM to mimic a lower spec machine?
If you're talking about enterprise grade virtualization like VMWare ESXi, then you're right @phyrfox -- about CPU speed. There is a performance hit on graphics and video processing which will be noticeable if running Mac OS X. I agree, Virtualization is the right solution when you want to adjust CPU frequency, available cores, hardware, etc. But this question was purely about limiting available RAM, and for that use case I believe that virtualization isn't the right solution.
Apr
4
comment Temporarily disabling RAM to mimic a lower spec machine?
If you're writing to a file, of=/Volumes/RAM\ Disk/random.dat, then you should be fine. if you're writing to the disk, of=/dev/rdisk9, then you have to be root, and it may have to be unmounted. (it should be unmounted, otherwise the system will get confused)
Apr
4
comment Temporarily disabling RAM to mimic a lower spec machine?
But the question was, "Is there some way to temporarily disable RAM without physically removing the chip?", so this does not answer the question
Apr
4
comment Temporarily disabling RAM to mimic a lower spec machine?
-1, sorry... this is not a good comparison. Now, you have virtualized video drivers, virtualized I/O, and a small CPU performance hit. I love Virtualization, but if all you want to do is see how the system would perform with less RAM available this is not a good solution.
Apr
4
comment Temporarily disabling RAM to mimic a lower spec machine?
You can probably just dump all the calculations of the disk size and let dd fill up the whole disk: dd if=/dev/random of=/Volumes/RAM\ Disk/random.dat bs=1024k
Jan
31
comment What would happen if I force installed a Linux driver into Mac OS X?
Also, there is a modprobe equivilent in OS X: kextload
Jan
19
comment Application eating ~840,000,000% of my CPU
When this happens, what does the top -u terminal command show? How about the output of loadavg ?
Jan
19
comment Application eating ~840,000,000% of my CPU
100% CPU usage is 100% of one core. So on a Mac Pro, 1200% means 12 cores at 100% usage. Note that a hyper threaded core can go to 200% if both threads are fully utilized. I am reasonably sure that the images shown in the screen captures here are a bug.
Nov
21
comment Error opening txt file on MacOSx
Please post a screen capture of the error message.
Sep
27
comment Are Macs vulnerable to the Bash shellshock bug?
These are irrelevant. Either of these, by their very nature, grant users access to run commands on the system, so if you have them enabled then it is your intention to allow users to run commands. The Shellshock bug is a means for users whom you didn't intend to be able to run commands to be able to do so, E.G. a user of the web server you run. So, your answer should say "Disable Web Sharing" (but that's just one thing to check)
Sep
27
comment Are Macs vulnerable to the Bash shellshock bug?
@JeffBurdges: regarding "Installation scripts usually use bash, creating privilege escalation risks", why would a malicious installation script need to use this exploit? If the user is installing a malicious installation script (a trojan horse) then the code wouldn't need to invoke this bug, it gets root anyway.
Apr
4
comment Does my son know I'm using Find my iPhone when I log on?
@badweasel the question was "Does my son know I'm using Find My iPhone" and this answer is saying "he might be able to if he notices that the location services are active and he finds that unusual". It clearly explains that there's no specific alert for the Find my iPhone feature. I can't see how this doesn't answer the question.
Dec
5
comment Synology NAS offer both AFP and SMB2, Mavericks always choose AFP
You'll need to. The sidebar shows auto-detected AFP shares. Just add it as a login item if you want it mounted for you, or have a look at automounts