Slashdot Mirror
iTunes 2.0 Installer Deletes Hard Drives
Cheviot writes: "It seems Apple's new iTunes 2 installer deletes the contents of users' hard drives if the drives have been partitioned. I personally lost more than 100gb of data. More information is available at Apples Discussions board. (registration required). Apple has pulled the installer, but for hundreds, if not thousands, the damage is already done." The iTunes download page has a nice warning about the problem. Ouch.
The problem appears to be in two portions of the installer script which could translate into rm -rf /your_drive, if certain paths $1 or $2 contain spaces:
Though when I looked, nobody seemed to have found where exactly $1 and $2 are defined; also it might be that disaster only strikes with localized versions of the OS.Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
You have an obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect the data on your computer. That means making backups of any valuable data. Are you going to sue Western Digital if your hard drive fails? What if it gets fried by a lightning strike? Even if Apple was found to be grossly negligent, they shouldn't be held responsible for data that was lost due to the negligence of the computer's owner.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The folks at Bell Labs seem to have realized that this was a mistake, which is why the "rc" shell (also available for Linux) now handles things differently: variable substitution does not result in re-tokenizing.
Having been the author of a 3rd party product bundled and shipped on Apple hardware, I can tell you that the extent of their QA process doesn't go much beyond making sure the software installs and runs on an out of the box system, followed by some mediocre mashing of buttons and menus. They really don't understand or implement the concept of actually testing on live, deployed, end user (like) systems. They have racks of off the shelf machines with standard software loads. If they install and run and stay up over the weekend, it's shippable.
We would get reams and reams of complaints about how dialog boxes weren't formatted just so, etc., but their QA department never caught a single defect that most would consider a bug in the code. And there were certainly bugs to catch.
This is a chronic problem that most commercial software houses have. They tend to put junior people with little product experience in the QA organizations and assume that by acting like reasonably competent users, they will somehow uncover logic flaws, data errors, and other engineering foibles. The only time I ever saw QA done right was on a NASA project with life critical software systems. The project was staffed with the very most senior engineers running the QA department and all of the junior engineers were slinging code.
It was up to the gray beards to make sure the junior guys wrote code that was to spec, integrated properly, handled all of the possible input scenarios, and actually performed in a live environment. These senior guys were also the architects of the system, so they knew what the software was supposed to do, how it was supposed to be constructed, and what it should take to break it. I doubt that 1 in 100 commercial shops today have an engineer working in the QA department that actually understands the code they are testing down to the module level. When was the las time you saw a QA guy in a design session, learning about how the system he's going to test is going to be architected?
This is so far from the current practice in commercial industry today as to almost have the flavor of a fairy tale. Apple's no different than any number of other companies who are rushing to ship software on a too short schedule. They pay lip service to QA and rely on their early adopter users to find any lingering problems. In this case, they totally dicked over their customers by not doing their job. However, they're only partially to blame since I think the development of iTunes is still done by Casady and Greene under contract to Apple. I'd be surprised if they weren't ultimately responsible for creating everything, including the installer. Regardless, Apple should have tested this before sticking it on-line on a Saturday night.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
So i guess the Ipod/Itunes combo really IS a killer app.
Apple posted the initial update either late Friday or early Saturday (I'm not sure exactly when). It was pulled by late in the morning Saturday, they posted a warning shortly afterwards, and when I got up this morning there was a fixed installer online to use.
The Classic version (which most Mac owners are still running) was fine, and the bug seems to have only hit people who didn't follow Apple's instructions that said "remove the old one first" and/or had multi-partitioned drives (multiple partitions aren't nearly as common among Mac users as they are among Windows and Linux users).
So Apple made a gross mistake on one hand, but on the other hand they owned up to it quickly, pulled the offending installer, and fixed/reposted it less than 24 hours later. Most Linux vendors respond about as well, Microsoft usually doesn't (though they were very good about pulling, fixing, and notification with their recent RDP fix that knocked people's Terminal Server systems off the network entirely).
The other mitigating factor was that there aren't that many Mac users relative to the installed base who were affected by the bug - but unfortunately the people who were likeliest to be affected (users who are already running 10.1 as their base OS, have multiple partitions, and don't read the instructions thorougly because - after all - "it's a Mac, who needs instructions?") are exactly the kind of Mac "power users" who swarm Apple's servers constantly looking for new stuff and install it the second it's posted.
I run 10.1 on my TiBook 667, and I downloaded the update. But I deleted the old iTunes version beforehand and only have a single 30GB partition, hence the install went fine..
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
You have an obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect the data on your computer. That means making backups of any valuable data. Are you going to sue Western Digital if your hard drive fails?
People regularly sue if hardware is made faultily. Toshiba paid billions to settle a lawsuit with floppy disks that never showed up in the field and couldn't be reproduced. I personally have lost track of the number of class action lawsuits I've seen for faulty computer products.
What if it gets fried by a lightning strike?
Being struck by lightening is an act of nature which is completely different from human negligence. Please get your analogies right.
Even if Apple was found to be grossly negligent, they shouldn't be held responsible for data that was lost due to the negligence of the computer's owner.
Why shouldn't they be held responsible? If attaching your DVD player to your TV blows it up or your fax machine shreds your documents, are you also liable in such situations? Quite frankly I am disgusted with the attitudes of most people in the software industry that assumes that shoddy work is inevitable (all software has bugs? WTF?) and then blames customers when their shittily written software fails to behave as it should.
Programming is less difficult than building a bridge or an airplane and yet software companies have hoodwinked the public into making it seem that badly made software is a fact of life. One day people are going to realize that the software industry has been shamming them all this time and the lawsuits will start to pour in. This is probably when software companies will finally go back to using techniques developed decades ago to improve and measure software quality but by then the damage will be done.
Really, in the current economic climate, all the monkeys should have been thrown out of the high-tech jobs, leaving only clueful people.
/. link when Jobs returned to Apple.
Well, what you said is the working theory, anyway.
Having worked in the corporate world and the academic world this is the furthest from the truth. The people with a clue, ethics, responsability, talent, skills or value customers are usually the first on the chopping block.
After all, the managers making those 5 and 6 figure salaries have to remain employed so they can continue the (vicous) cycle.
Cynical? Oh, yeah, been there, been IT, seen it happen too many times.
Could apple be any different? That is a tough one to answer. I would have to say no, but to a lesser extent, perhaps.
Why to a lesser extent? For the simple reason that Steve Jobs and Lee Iacocoa (sp?) understood two things about running a company/taking over one:
First get everybody on board with a plan to succede/improve morale.
Second (and this is the kickass part) when you clean house *never, ever* get rid of your workers.
Clean up/fire your middle and upper management levels.
This solves 2 problems (imagine a pyramid):
1) when most layoffs happen they happen to the "base of the pyramid". What happens when you weaken the "foundation" of a company/structure.
Yeah, it falls down or does irrepairable damage.
2)Wiping out the middle section brings those "at the top" closer to the base. Most executive understand the "how and what" of a business, but understanding the "who and why" is what keeps thing "moving forward".
If I remember correctly, Lee I was first, and Jobs subscribed to the idea...it may have come from a
Very good interview.
Of course I've always said a "Phd/manager saying 'in theory' is akin to a used car salesman saying 'trust me' ".
I guess in my snide cynicism I found humor in your altruistic logic
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
Hmmm. I'm just expecting Apple to issue a press release soon that says something to the effect of, "in retrospect, perhaps we shouldn't have subcontracted the installation script to RIAA after all."