Slashdot Mirror
Brief Tutorial on Reverse Engineering Mac OS X
rjw57 writes "There is an article on OSNews I wrote about how the guy behind Desktop Manager goes about reverse engineering APIs from Mac OS X with a brand new example not revealed anywhere else. From the article: 'I am often asked in email how I uncovered the API calls I use in Desktop Manager which are, unfortunately, undocumented. This article aims to give a little insight into the techniques I use to reverse engineer Mac OS X in order to provide extra functionality to users and extra information to third-party developers. In this article all the utilities I use are a standard part of Mac OS X's developer tools which are freely available.'"
Great example of apples practice of breaking API's leaving developers out of the loop
It's an undocumented, unsupported API; that's what the article is about. What broken APIs were you thinking of? Carbon took over most of the OS 9 ones (apart from some clearly documented exceptions).
If you had read the article you might actually have had something useful to say.
It's an undocumented API.
That's one of the many reasons why some APIs are left undocumented: because they are expected to be unstable.
Can't really blame Apple on this one. They didn't publish the API, and changed it in Tiger to a more flexible three-part solution. Eventually they may decide the design's a good one and publish the API.
Until then, use it at your own risk.
In this example, Apple broke undocumented APIs. Anyone writing or using an application that takes advantage of undocumented APIs should be prepared to discover that they've been changed, moved, or deleted entirely.
The APIs that DesktopManager uses were probably left undocumented precisely because Apple knew they were going to be subject to change.
Apple is good, and we are going to talk to talk about it.
This space intentionally left blank.
If you're working with a lot of windows/applications, virtual desktops can act as a nice complement to Expose.
I'm surprised Apple hasn't made it a built-in feature. They have fast user switching, but that's not the same thing.
This space intentionally left blank.
I myself have found that by really learning how to manage windows the "apple way" I don't really feel the need to use virtual desktops much (I used to use DesktopManager).
For me, this means using Hide (Command-H), Swich app (Alt-Tab), Focus on window (active) or next window (a custom key binding like Alt-Tab), and Expose.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for virtual desktops.
One thing that expose relies on is that the conceptual groupings of "All app windows" and "All of this apps windows" are all you need. The problem is if you have a large number of similar looking windows from different applications it can be difficult to manage even with Expose.
Virtual desktops can give you custom Expose groups - which can narrow the search for a particular window. This can be useful if you are working on several complex tasks that use multiple windows from multiple apps (each task can get its own desktop), and also have a bunch of side apps - like your calendar, email, instant messenger etc.
So Expose solves the window management problem to an extent, but it can be combined with virtual desktops when things become even more complex.
The story you linked to is about copyright infringement, not reverse engineering. It has nothing to do with TFA. Apple is not encrypting their undocumented code, so it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Reverse engineering is not necessarily banned by the DMCA; in fact, reverse engineering for interoperability is specifically exempt from it.
English is easier said than done.
So now we find out that Apple has used - and is using - undocumented API calls.
Sounds like something Microsoft would pull.
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot. I forgot.
Well, then Apple's just trying to protect its intellectual property. No harm.
I personally don't use multiple desktops, even in Linux, but would never, ever consider taking away that functionality (if I had the power to do so), knowing how useful it is to so many other people. For that reason, I think it'd be a great idea for Apple to add this feature to OSX.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
They have done great, exception for the multiple times they break their own HID/HIG. iTunes, for example, and the whole brushed metal is basicly an excuse for making cool-looking apps. I like brushed metal, but apple has changed the HIG to morph around what they think looks best. There really should only be 1 window gui, aqua.
Mail, in OS X, is even a third window gui(?), it isn't quite Aqua, and has noticable differences unlike any other application on OS X. Why? Who knows.
Apple has done great, but they have clearly ignored their own UI rules for the sake of eye candy at times.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Expose is for switching between windows.
Virtual desktops are for logically grouping/partitioning windows (more typically, whole applications). Virtual desktops are, basically, a poor man's multi monitor setup.
The two solve different problems.
No doubt an Appleista will be along in due course to make clear the path to enlightenment.
You called?
The answer to your difficulty is obvious: follow the money. What strategic advantage does Apple gain by not publicly documenting these APIs? A corner on the windows management market? I'm sure is worth a whole lot because you can see how much Apple charges for it at the Apple Store. Oh, wait, you can't, cause there is no such separate competing product that Apple profits by leveraging their OS.
vs. Windows, where, let's see, they made a substantial amount of their $50 Billion on by selling Office--which required that they kill their competition in Office applications.
"But what of IE?", I hear you plaintively cry. "Doesn't Microsoft give that away for free?" Certainly. But their clear strategy was to use the product to own the web, and IE was the platform to do it.
When Apple sells a virtual desktop management tool, besides the OS, and doesn't document the APIs, you'd have an argument. For example, I imagine QT has access to things that WMP doesn't, but proving that is an exercise for the reader. As it is, you're just trolling. Speaking of simplistic arguments.
--
$tar -xvf
I know that it's fun to pick apart the framework code, make guesses as to what it's doing and how, and write code that exploits it in some way, but don't, don't, don't write a commercial product that depends on what you discover by this kind of spelunking, unless you are fully prepared to deal with the consequences of it breaking at any software update.
If your users call Apple because your program broke, Applecare will tell them to talk to you about it. If you ask Apple for help with an undocumented API, your request will be declined.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
iTunes, for example, and the whole brushed metal is basicly an excuse for making cool-looking apps. I like brushed metal, but apple has changed the HIG to morph around what they think looks best. There really should only be 1 window gui, aqua.
Brushed metal was originally applied to windows that simulated real world devices. iTunes=stereo. DVD Player=TV+DVD player. Later on it was applied to most of the interface and I for one am very glad. It provides better contrast with window contents. Finder windows have a default white background as do many text style documents like PDFs, Word files, etc. Most editors and terminal windows are best with white text on a black background for maximum contrast with minimal eyestrain. This means about half my windows are primarily white and half are primarily black. Now what color is halfway between white and black, does not grab the eye, and does not clash with any other color? Gee that would be only one...gray. Add a little texture and you get the brushed metal look. Apple designers probably realized why people like the brushed metal, but most people just like it because it looks good. It looks good because it is pretty much the best color you can use from a UI design perspective.