Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!hao!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!dartvax!earleh From: earleh@dartvax.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Sys 4.1; hacking Installer scripts for use with floppy systems Message-ID: <6461@dartvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Jun-87 00:32:30 EDT Article-I.D.: dartvax.6461 Posted: Sun Jun 14 00:32:30 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jun-87 01:46:15 EDT References: <6443@dartvax.UUCP> <1336@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu> Organization: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Graduate Students Lines: 67 Keywords: remove unused resources today, single-sided floppy, 512k Summary: To protect the innocent In article <1336@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu>, mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) writes: > [A very long article on how to modify installer scripts...] > > Since these scripts are fairly short, why don't all of you hardcore > mac hackers upload your favorite customized installer script to > comp.mac.binaries? It would prevent a lot of duplication of effort. > Specify what changes you made and what it will or won't do. > Kenneth Mayer mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu I wouldn't feel at all right doing this. Hacking up someone else's software is one thing. Passing out instructions on how to do it is another. But distributing a hacked up Installer script to a place where innocents can get their hands on it? That's where I draw the line. Besides, I don't know the legal status of these things, and I don't want to find out. (Apple thought police visit my house, call my employer "We hear Mr. Horton has not only been hacking up our software for his private use: he has been distributing copies of it to our customers. If he doesn't stop, we're sending out the LAWYERS.") It's not really nice to hack up software, but I only do it for my own use, so I don't feel too bad about it. I don't feel at all bad about telling other hackers about it, either. But I do feel an obligation to help protect the innocent people of this world from hardware and software modifications that are meant to be used only by those who can appreciate the consequences. My feeling about this kind of thing is, if you can apply the patch, then you are equipped to handle the consequences. Better to have duplication of effort than to have innocent people get burned by something they don't understand. This is why I did not, and will not, and expect others not to, post modified Installer scripts. By the way, I have discovered why ResEdit no longer works with Installer scripts. The Technote describing Installer scripts describes the disk block field as "unused, currently contains zero." The TMPL in my copy of ResEdit expects a zero in this field, and defines it as an "OCNT", presumably to discourage changing it. It turns out that with System 4.1, the disk block field is now used, and does not now contain zero, but the version number or whatever of the new boot blocks. When I tried to attack the Installer script with ResEdit, it found a hex 16 (dec 22) there, and assumed that meant 22 boot blocks descriptors were to follow. I guess ResEdit then thought there were 22 boot blocks fields to edit, and then allocated space for 22 of them, which caused it to crash my 512 because there wasn't enough memory. Also, the Technote describing the boot blocks field appears to be grossly in error, since what is there does not even resemble what the Technote said would be. If you have a copy of ResEdit with an "insc" "TMPL" installed, then you can modify it to work with the new Installer scripts by changing the type field of disk blocks to "HWRD" or something, and modifying the rest of the disk block fields to something harmless like "HEXA". What this means is that if you applied my patch to the FOND part of the Installer script, then you didn't get the new boot blocks. If this has caused you any inconvenience, then I am sorry. (It still runs though, doesn't it?) If you are seriously interested in disabling the "feature" of the new Installer script that causes it to overstuff your System file with FONTs that you may not want, then you have to put the disk block info back in, right where the first FOND reference used to be. It's not hard, but remember to get the offset right! Update: System 4.1 runs fine on my 512ke after 10 days of use. No problems, even though ALL of the system disks I use were updated using one of my hacked-up Installer scripts. I must have done something right! -- ********************************************************************* *Earle R. Horton, H.B. 8000, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 * *********************************************************************