Hidden Wi-Fi Diagnostics Application In OS X Lion

WankerWeasel writes "The latest version of Apple's operating system, OS X 10.7 Lion, has a hidden Wi-Fi Diagnostics application that allows the user to view information about their wireless network performance, record performance and also capture raw frames. Hidden away in the System folder the application is meant for Apple tech diagnostic use but is also very useful for any user interested in diagnosing wi-fi problems or checking network performance."

Comments

Yes.

[bennomatic]

NT

Hidden while useful?

[hcs_$reboot]

Most of the users would not understand the signal / noise graph and data anyway ; that feature would not contribute to the user-friendly interface image the Mac OS X has.
Any true admin should have a look in this "hidden" directory anyway.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[Lord_Jeremy]

The interface resembles the Logs/Statistics view in the Airport Admin Utility. The capture and debug logs features are new though. Good find, just the other day I was trying to figure out which of the couple public networks available was giving me better throughput.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[hackertourist]

I've downloaded and used a couple of Wifi diagnostics applications, but it's never occurred to me to look in System/Library/CoreServices for applications. So yes, hidden. It should be in Applications/Utilities, along with other apps that not every user would understand like Console and RAID Utility.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[c0lo]

Most of the users would not understand the signal / noise graph and data anyway ;

After all, it should just work, ain't it? (except when you keep your Mac in your hand the wrong way).

<duck>

Re:Hidden while useful?

[thegarbz]

It should be in Applications/Utilities, along with other apps that not every user would understand like Console and RAID Utility.

I could not disagree more. By putting all those utilities in a folder you essentially create a clusterfuck equivalent just doing a directory listing in the system folder. None of this is hidden by the way. It doesn't occur to you to look System/Library/CoreServices? Does it occur to you to look for ping.exe in c:\windows\SysWOW64\ ?

Why should any of this be linked? It's important to you so Google would often suffice. Look at a typical Windows 7 machine. There are 300 (exactly) applications in the SysWOW64 directory, the vast majority of them powerful, and the vast majority of them no one will ever have a need to execute.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[flimflammer]

You wouldn't need to know where ping.exe is because the system directory is always included in PATH. It's also a console application so I'm not entirely sure how that comparison works. I have absolutely no experience with macs so I don't know how this application is launched, but can it be launched from the console without knowing its exact directory structure? If not then the only way to find this on your own is by complete chance, playing explorer in the file system hierarchy.

Given the nature of the application and its usefulness, it makes sense for it to be openly visible to the public without having to get insider information from others or manually exploring the hard drive.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[BrokenHalo]

Given the nature of the application and its usefulness...

...which leads me to wonder what this program provides that we can't already get from Wireshark. It's a trivial matter to compile this for OS X (Macports was my preferred path while I was playing with Macs, but whatever rocks your boat).

Re:Hidden while useful?

[gumbi west]

Look at the other entires in that folder. It's basically entirely apps. Apparently, a good admin would have known about this.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[Guy Harris]

I've downloaded and used a couple of Wifi diagnostics applications, but it's never occurred to me to look in System/Library/CoreServices for applications. So yes, hidden. It should be in Applications/Utilities, along with other apps that not every user would understand like Console and RAID Utility.

Is there a menu item in the menu for the Wi-Fi menu extra (either when you click on it or when you option-click on it) that starts the Wi-Fi diagnostics? If so, that might be why it's stuffed under CoreServices - the intent is to run it that way, not by double-clicking on it or running it from Launchpad.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[flimflammer]

Well to be fair that's kind of like saying "why use notepad when you can download notepad++"

The usefulness isn't in competing in feature sets. The usefulness is that it comes with your operating system and is available immediately without needing to download (and potentially compile) anything.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[Hes Nikke]

the packet sniffer feature makes a pcap file. wiresharek happily reads said pcap file. What does it give you that wireshark doesn't already? It's preinstalled on every mac running lion.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[Guy Harris]

Is there a menu item in the menu for the Wi-Fi menu extra (either when you click on it or when you option-click on it) that starts the Wi-Fi diagnostics?

Yes.

If so, that might be why it's stuffed under CoreServices - the intent is to run it that way, not by double-clicking on it or running it from Launchpad.

Yes.

Re:Hidden while useful?

[Guy Harris]

...which leads me to wonder what this program provides that we can't already get from Wireshark. It's a trivial matter to compile this for OS X

It's an even more trivial matter to download a precompiled binary from wireshark.org, but, as another response already noted, one thing Wi-Fi Diagnostics provides is that you don't have to download and install it, much less compile it. It also offers a pane to get information about Wi-Fi networks your machine is seeing and a signal-and-noise graph, and to report that information to Apple for troubleshooting, and it can report various Wi-Fi network events.

In addition, if you're not the person who's going to be reading the capture, it offers a much simpler UI than Wireshark (which is intended for people who are going to be reading the capture).

Re:Hidden while useful?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Given the nature of the application and its usefulness...

...which leads me to wonder what this program provides that we can't already get from Wireshark. It's a trivial matter to compile this for OS X (Macports was my preferred path while I was playing with Macs, but whatever rocks your boat).

"Monitor Performance displays a graph of network signal strength, noise level, transmit power, and data rate. " AFAIK that's a little bit more complicated with Wireshark: See pages 73-93 of http://www.chipps.com/5/TroubleshootingWireless.pptx.

Masterpiece

[lucm]

This article has two sentences. One of these sentences is redundant, and the other one is uninteresting. Merging them would make the whole thing uninteresting, so this is a textbook example of self-preservation through redundancy.

Re:Masterpiece

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet this made it to ./ front page. What's up next? Tips & Tweaks for Windows 7 ?

yawn

[pbjones]

undocumented is not hidden. There is also a bucket load of standard UNIX apps there for you to play with too.

Re:yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

undocumented != poorly documented

Hidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not running OS X, so this might be a stupid question, but what part of "/System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi Diagnostics.app" makes this "hidden"?

Sounds more like hiding in plain sight to me.

Re:Hidden?

[jo_ham]

"Hidden" because it's not listed in the Utilities folder.

So, about as hidden as putting something in a room and closing the door. Oh look, it's hidden!

This really isn't really front page news. It's a nice tidbit for a hints site, but it's not trail blazing news.

Re:Hidden?

[Tapewolf]

I'm not running OS X, so this might be a stupid question, but what part of "/System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi Diagnostics.app" makes this "hidden"?

Sounds more like hiding in plain sight to me.

It should be in /Applications/Utilities where all the other diagnostic tools are. This is the Mac equivalent of putting the program file somewhere inside /usr/lib/WiFi/ or c:\windows\resources\wifi (neither of which are on the path).

Re:Hidden?

[Ixokai]

Its hidden in that normal users don't go into /System. They find apps in /Applications, certain system utilities and diag tools for advanced users in /Applications/Utilities, but /System is not a user-oriened place to go.

Its "hidden" like if Microsoft put a useful app in C:\Windows or even C:\Windows\system23 which was not accessible in he Start Menu, Control Panel, Administrative Tools, or normal places people expect to go to find things. /System is not aggressively hidden, but it is not in an reality "in plain sight".

Re:Hidden?

[Raffaello]

Finder.app is in the same directory so it's not exactly a hidden location to anyone who knows much about Mac OS X.

Re:Hidden?

[pknoll]

That directory also houses applications that are not usually directly invoked by the user, but from another event (apps like Installer, Bluetooth Setup Assistant, Keyboard Setup Assistant, and so forth, most of which are started by taking action within the System Preferences app.)

I'm not certain how you'd invoke Wi-Fi diagnostics, but it might be part of the troubleshooting path which also contains the Network Setup Assistant.

Re:Hidden?

[gumbi west]

Aw man, I miss when Windows ran 23 bit.

Re:Hidden?

[Guy Harris]

I'm not certain how you'd invoke Wi-Fi diagnostics

Hold down the "option" key when clicking on the Wi-Fi menu extra in the menu bar, and select "Open Wi-Fi Diagnostics..." from the menu.

Re:Hidden?

[Divebus]

Reseat the RAM.

"Hidden Away"

[Anonymous Coward]

in the System folder? How obscure!

Ping

[thegarbz]

So there's an application in the System folder that isn't in the manual and this makes the news? Are we going to run an article tomorrow about this beauty that I just found: C:\Windows\SysWOW64\ping.exe, entitled "OMG we just found an application capable of sending ping request hidden deep in the directory structure of windows?

How about the 299 other Applications in the system directory in Windows that may not be as well known as ping.exe? Should we run an article on powercfg.exe, the application which is great for diagnosing a vast array of powermanagement issues in windows?

I'm waiting for tomorrow's shock article: terminal program hidden in /bin/bash, will open another bash prompt for your bash prompt, this may double your productivity!

*yawn* Slow news day.

Re:Ping

[flimflammer]

Windows console applications have always been in the windows system directory since the early days, so I'm not really seeing your brilliant point here. If anything, I'd say that directory is almost the console equivalent of Applications/Utilities.

Re:Ping

[StoneyMahoney]

What he meant to say:

"I found this article to be such a waste of the time of the author, poster, server, RSS aggregator, RSS client, and (of course) me that I thought I'd waste even more of my (and their) time by posting a scathing reply condemning the tiny grain of sensationalism injected into the summary instead of just skimming over it in the index of the general news channel and then not opening it or reading it."

Some of us do find this stuff interesting. I do tech support for a large number of Mac-based creative companies and agencies and don't have time to go ferreting around every nook and cranny of an OS every time there's a new release, patch, hot-fix or update. I don't know exactly how useful this will be in time but it certainly made me take note. No more installing Kismac on client's machines just to troubleshoot their WLAN dead spots.

Re:Ping

[smash]

Uh.

And windows is different? At least the mac ships with a command line worth shit, it took microsoft until he release of powershell to even start playing the same sport on that front, let alone in the ballpark.

Its still missing an equivalent to Automator and Applescript.

Noobs who parrot the old "macs r for retards!!!" argument have clearly never used one and have no idea what tools are available to get shit done far quicker and easier than anything on Windows or Linux.

Re:Ping

[drinkypoo]

And windows is different? At least the mac ships with a command line worth shit, it took microsoft until he release of powershell to even start playing the same sport on that front, let alone in the ballpark.

Uh WTF? This is possibly the dumbest argument not involving cars I've ever heard on slashdot. How many years did it take the Mac to have an OS worth more than a nickel, one that actually has a command line?

You can bag on Windows all day if you like, there's lots of good reasons to do so, but this is one of the many places where Apple trailed Microsoft for over a decade.

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

You seem not to get he point? You must be a windows user then.

The Mac application is at a wrong place, it is at simple as that. The /Library tree and the /Users/user/Library tree is not supposed to hold any applications (except you want to call executeables like "java" or "python" applications.

As one of the parents pointed out it belongs into /Applications/Utilities

Your analogy about the Windows System folder is completely flawed anyway. As everyone who has a clue about operation systems will tell you: you don't put parts of the os, dynamic libraries, maintanance applications (like regedit.exe), end user applications (like notepad.exe) and admin tools (like ping.exe) into ONE DIRECTORY.

And furthermore: you certainly don't have this single directory on the PATH for everyone who uses the system.

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

If you had the developer tools installed the Macs ALWAYS had a command line. You never heared about A/UX, did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX
As your parent puts it: the Mac haters, never used one.
Or as I put it: if you hate a Mac as a professional software developer, unix admin or other IT professional: you are in the wrong business and should do yourself and your company a favour and perhaps shift to a different occupational career. I work together with lots of software developers and IT guys at my place here. A hughe percentage of them owns privately a Mac and has ditched windows years ago.

Re:Ping

[drinkypoo]

If you had the developer tools installed the Macs ALWAYS had a command line. You never heared about A/UX, did you?

Yes, A/UX was a shitty port of SysV. And it had nothing to do with any text interface which might have been included with any debugger.

As your parent puts it: the Mac haters, never used one.

Too bad you are typically wrong. I've used and even professionally maintained macs of almost every era... except x86, actually.

I work together with lots of software developers and IT guys at my place here. A hughe percentage of them owns privately a Mac and has ditched windows years ago.

That's nice. I own privately PCs which run Windows and Linux. I run Windows when I want to play a game, or use Netflix. I guess you can do the latter (poorly) on OSX, but the former is only available if you only play games from Blizzard. I do actual work on Linux.

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

I an agree to run windows for games, but not for anything else ... to nightmare-ish for me ;D
There are other interesting games on OS X as well ;D like eve online e.g.

Re:Ping

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

If you had the developer tools installed the Macs ALWAYS had a command line.

And it had nothing to do with any text interface which might have been included with any debugger.

So you know shit about the MPW - big surprise.

Re:Ping

[wzinc]

Funny, there's a whole sketch about a machine that only goes ping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCITMfxvEc

Re:Ping

[LordLimecat]

Breaking news: This isnt unix, and Windows doesnt use the Unix design philosophies. Details at eleven.

Re:Ping

[Arivia]

Why would Netflix run poorly on a Mac?

Re:Ping

[BrokenHalo]

At least the mac ships with a command line worth shit...

By default, just about any Mac I have come across ships with sh, bash, csh, ksh and (my favourite) zsh available out of the box. I don't really see how one might improve on Apple's selection of command line environments.

Re:Ping

[keytoe]

The Mac application is at a wrong place, it is at simple as that. The /Library tree and the /Users/user/Library tree is not supposed to hold any applications (except you want to call executeables like "java" or "python" applications.

As one of the parents pointed out it belongs into /Applications/Utilities

/System/Library/CoreServices is full of little utilities that user facing GUI components will leverage to actually to do low level work, but the work they perform is abstracted out in a nice little unix-philosophy way. None of them are specifically designed to be used directly by the user, but some of them can be.

For example, I frequently use Screen Sharing directly from this directory. If you know the host address and credentials, you don't need more than that. However, for the vast majority of users, it is much more convenient to initiate screen sharing via iChat or one of the remote management tools - which in turn launches Screen Sharing.

It's almost as if it's a directory full of services that are somewhat core to the system and really shouldn't be directly exposed to the user unless they know what they're doing. My guess (I don't have Lion) is that this new little utility is designed to be launched from some other user facing application - possibly something like the Network Utility which lives in ... wait for it ... /Applications/Utilities.

PS - this is slashdot news now?!

Re:Ping

[Guy Harris]

My guess (I don't have Lion) is that this new little utility is designed to be launched from some other user facing application

Well, more like from the user-facing Wi-Fi menu extra (the Wi-Fi icon in the menu bar on the right side); option-click on that and you get some additional stuff even in pre-Lion releases, such as signal information; as the AppleInsider article on this app notes, it's launched by the "Open Wi-Fi Diagnostics..." option+menu item for that menu extra.

Re:Ping

[mr_zorg]

The Mac application is at a wrong place, it is at simple as that. The /Library tree and the /Users/user/Library tree is not supposed to hold any applications (except you want to call executeables like "java" or "python" applications.

Really? Says who? There's a ton of apps in the /System/Library folder. Try this:

find /System/Library -name "*.app" -print | wc -l

I get 179 on my system...

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

And all but one or two are Apps you never want to start directly but are started via System Preferences, e.g.

Having a truely app ment for the user there makes no sense. Most apps there are services like: /System/Library//Services/ChineseTextConverterService.app

Sorry, a useful "utility" is wrongly placed there.

Re:Ping

[smash]

We aren't still running OS 9, and it hasn't been on sale for 10+ years. Try harder.

Re:Ping

[Guy Harris]

Sorry, a useful "utility" is wrongly placed there.

Better tell Apple about that hidden "Finder" app there, then. Anybody tried launching it to see what it does?

(And, yes, there is a way to launch the Wi-Fi Diagnostics app from the UI; option+click the Wi-Fi menu extra and select "Open Wi-Fi Diagnostics...".)

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

You know that the finder starts automatically?

Well, yo only want to nitpick it seems.

Nevertheless thanx for the hint with the option key ;D

Re:Ping

[drinkypoo]

It runs poorly on XP (no vtrace sync) so why shouldn't it run poorly on the Mac? My understanding is that Silverlight for Mac is an even bigger piece of shit than it is for Windows.

Re:Ping

[Guy Harris]

You know that the finder starts automatically?

Well, yo only want to nitpick it seems.

No, I just want to point out that not all applications, in the sense of "programs that offer a UI and that are inside an app bundle", need to be in /Applications or ~/Applications, whether it's because they're launched automatically (as, yes, I knew the Finder was) or are launched from a menu item or....

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

And i wanted to point out that random (useful) programs that no one seems to know about are hard to find in /System/Library/CoreServices/bla/blub

It is only a coincidence that you can use (as you claim, I did not verify it) the program with an option click into the WiFi icon on the menu bar.

Fact is: I did not even know about it. You won't take it serious, but it pisses me off!

This is my computer, everything that is not directly obvious is "non existing" for me. And I'm tired to be treated by Apple just the same every one else is treated by MS.

And I'm really surprised that you defend Apple on this. Why .... the fuck .... is a program like this not either documented or in a proper place that you can see: it is there?

Re:Ping

[Guy Harris]

It is only a coincidence that you can use (as you claim, I did not verify it) the program with an option click into the WiFi icon on the menu bar.

Actually, no, it is not even remotely a coincidence; it is entirely intentional - Apple intended that to be the way you can invoke it, they did not intend it to be invoked by browsing to /System/Library/CoreServices and double-clicking it. It's unfortunate that option+click is not as well known as it should be to the subset of the users of Mac OS X for whom it's useful, but that's a separate matter.

This is my computer, everything that is not directly obvious is "non existing" for me. And I'm tired to be treated by Apple just the same every one else is treated by MS.

Then perhaps Mac OS X is not the right operating system for you; it is, as you note, your computer, so perhaps you should consider loading an OS more to your liking on it. Seriously. If there are aspects of Mac OS X that you want, you will, for better or worse, have to put up with aspects of it that you might hate; for better or worse, that's life with Apple operating systems.

Re:Ping

[angel'o'sphere]

The OS is fine. But the attitude of Apple to make things more and more obscure is not. E.g. the firewall is on 10.6 and also was on 10.5 much worse to configure than it was under 10.4.

In fact except for standard services you can not configure ANYTHING with the GUI anymore.

Instead of letting me define a port as open I have to start the application and answer the question of the system. Which is pretty annoying as for some reason the system does not remember my decision and is asking every time again. I mean I start tomcat, then tomorrow I start jetty or a jboss on the same ports. Well, I did not do that a while, don't remember what exactly happend, but basically every time I started a webs every from eclipse I had to answer the same questions. Disabling the firewall is no solution, as you so easy forget to enable it again when you leave house. Hm, perhaps I should make me an AppleScript for that.

Front page news? Really?

[hackel]

I fail to see how one user's discovery of a little network utility in their proprietary operating system of choice is really worthy of being on the front page of Slashdot... If this were a Mac-centric blog, then I suppose I could understand it, but not here...

Re:Who Cares?

[Farmer Tim]

Some do, most don't. Same as Windows, really.

Re:Who Cares?

[gnasher719]

Never used a Mac and never will if I can help it, however, I doubt Mac users care about or understand such stuff.

You won't be missed.

Off-topic advice

[Samantha Wright]

Just a pedant's note: looking in SysWOW64 shouldn't occur to you at all. Despite the name, it's the 32-bit version of the 64-bit files, which actually live in the awkwardly-named system32. When a 32-bit program runs, SysWOW64 is mapped onto system32, just like Program Files (x86) is mapped onto Program Files, and parts of the registry are remapped (although I don't have the exact key name on hand, it's something like [HKCU|HKLM]\software\wow64node).

Re:Off-topic advice

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the name, it's the 32-bit version of the 64-bit files, which actually live in the awkwardly-named system32. When a 32-bit program runs, SysWOW64 is mapped onto system32, just like Program Files (x86) is mapped onto Program Files

WTF, that's even worse than Linux developers bitching over lib32 vs lib64 vs lib.

Re:Off-topic advice

[TheRaven64]

WOW stands for Windows-On-Windows. It's the layer for running Windows apps on a newer version of Windows. So, the name does make sense, it's the system directory for WOW64, which is an application for running Windows on Windows64.

Re:Off-topic advice

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW stands for Windows-On-Windows. It's the layer for running Windows apps on a newer version of Windows. So, the name does make sense, it's the system directory for WOW64, which is an application for running Windows on Windows64.

Sounds kinky. No wonder it's hidden away.

Re:Off-topic advice

[QuasiSteve]

Which doesn't make the naming any less confusing, of course.

First there's System32. On 32bit systems, these are the 32bit system files. On 64bit systems, these are the 64bit system files. When a 64bit system refers to System32, it gets System32. When a 32bit system refers to System32, it instead gets...

SysWOW64. When a 64bit app accesses this folder, it still gets this folder. When a 32bit app accesses this folder, it gets this folder. Neither, however, should be accessing this folder - even though a 64bit app might have to interface with 32bit system files.

Which leaves the situation that a 32bit app needs to interface with the 64bit system files. On Vista/7 64bit, this can be done by accessing the hidden folder SysNative. On Windows XP 64bit, this can be done in the same way but only if a specific hotfix is installed (not installed by default nor pushed out by Windows Update), or by temporarily disabling the File System Redirect.

The confusion carries on through with the CSIDL and KNOWNFOLDERID names.

I haven't touched this stuff in a few years now, but I recall it being some backward compatibility issue. Presumably in Windows' own components that would be bypassing the file system redirection as otherwise the filesystem redirection should mean there is no backward compatibility issue.

Thankfully, an end-user doesn't typically have to deal with these things at all. But when troubleshooting, it can definitely be a pain.

Re:Off-topic advice

[phantomfive]

Wow, you just reminded me why I love Microsoft. Their designs are so simple and logical. [sarcasm]

Re:Off-topic advice

[firewrought]

Wow, you just reminded me why I love Microsoft. Their designs are so simple and logical.

And how would you implement transparent backwards-compatibility for 32-bit apps?

Re:Off-topic advice

[phantomfive]

How about we start by not putting all your 64-bit files in a directory called, system32? The way they've done it, with all that remapping, is just asking for bugs. And furthermore, I cite your sig.

Re:Off-topic advice

[firewrought]

And furthermore, I cite your sig.

Ah... you got me there. :O

Re:Off-topic advice

[clarkcox3]

The way that Apple did. A single binary (whether executable or library) can contain code for multiple instruction sets. There is no need for separate areas on the file system for 32- or 64-bit support, there is no need for separate 32- or 64-bit builds of the OS, etc.

Re:Off-topic advice

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we start by not putting all your 64-bit files in a directory called, system32? The way they've done it, with all that remapping, is just asking for bugs. And furthermore, I cite your sig.

Well, Microsoft seem to have done it this way for the best part of 10 years... I have been using 64 Bit for about that long (XP 64 Bit), and, I have never had a problem.

What bugs are you talking about?

Re:Off-topic advice

[thegarbz]

Interesting. I did not know this, cheers.

Re:Off-topic advice

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking all over my Windows ME hard drive and I cannot find a SysWOW64 folder. Are you sure that is the name?

Re:Off-topic advice

[Anonymous Coward]

No other OS had to do anything as retarded as that. Their problem is that they've encouraged bad programming practices since day one, and now have all of these workarounds in place so they don't piss off the developer community. It's the same as when they renamed "Documents and Settings" (formerly c:\winnt\profiles), they created symlinks to support backwards compatibility, because a bunch of idiot programmers hard coded that path into their application. Now there are links all over the filesystem that just clutter everything up. IMO, if the programmer screws up, then let the app break on the next release of windows.

Interestingly, we don't have this issue in the unix world. Maybe it's because we have a smarter filesystem convention (which MS is moving closer to every release), or we just don't have as many dumb programmers.

Who cares? Sounds like you do.

[CountBrass]

I'd suggest someone who reads a thread and then posts to it. They care.

I'm guessing you're a closet apple 'fanboi' who just lacks the money to indulge.

Re:Who cares? Sounds like you do.

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

This is the lamest insult I have ever seen on /., and my UID is much lower than yours.

That was also an insult. :)

Uhm.

[CountBrass]

The Apple section of Slashdot -which is where this was posted- as a Mac-centric blog.

But yeah it's such a trivial piece of information that I agree with your basic point.

Slashdot is far from being 'news for nerds, stuff that matters' anymore. It's more 'anything that will get the clicks or get the trolls trolling'.

Re:Uhm.

[konohitowa]

Now that CT is no longer editing, the only thing that makes it to the frontpage through my filter is Unknown Lamer. Frankly, that's been rather helpful since it really makes /. look like the wasteland that it has become.

Re:Uhm.

[angel'o'sphere]

The information might be trivial. But I appreciate to know about it know. Very likely I had not discovered it on my own when I upgrade my OS in a few weeks.

capture network packets means not legal in DE

[Anonymous Coward]

so you can capture network packets in iOS does that mean no more Apples for the germans ?
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/07/05/31/1629259/Germany-Declares-Hacking-Tools-Illegal

Re: capture network packets means not legal in DE

[konohitowa]

iOS?

Re: capture network packets means not legal in DE

[Guy Harris]

so you can capture network packets in iOS

This article is about Mac OS X, not iOS.

does that mean no more Apples for the germans ? http://politics.slashdot.org/story/07/05/31/1629259/Germany-Declares-Hacking-Tools-Illegal

OS X has had tcpdump since, I think, 10.0, so, no, nothing changes here.

Re:Front page news? Really?

[teh kurisu]

Does Slashdot have anything other than a front page? I thought all articles were listed in chronological order.

I assume.

[CountBrass]

You must have bought your lower UID on ebay.

Now that was an insult ;)

In any case, six digit and six digit. Not that much lower. And mines only six digits because I binned my original /. account as the user name was my real name and didn't fancy being stalked.

Re:I assume.

[otuz]

Mine is five digits only because this is my second slashdot account.

Re:I assume.

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

If you were more nice, perhaps you could use your real name without fear.

Re:Front page news? Really?

[itsdapead]

Well, it is apparently interesting enough to slashdot the TFA's server.

Plus, they mentioned Apple, so the fanbois vs. haters flamewar will be starting in 3, 2, 1...

Rant, rant, rant...

[theVarangian]

I'd suggest someone who reads a thread and then posts to it. They care. I'm guessing you're a closet apple 'fanboi' who just lacks the money to indulge.

I find it amusing how Apple themed threads seem to attract one Apple fanboy/girl expressing approval for every nine people wanting to rant on incessantly like some tin-foil-hat wearing crackpot about how they hate all things Apple. From my point of whew this is simple; I'm a Mac user, I didn't know about this new diagnostic tool and I appreciate begin made aware of it. I realize that this isn't a topic of earth shaking importance but people who find this topic uninteresting have the option of, just moving on to the next story without pausing first to complain about this one!

Finder

[GrahamCox]

In the same location I found a hidden app called "Finder"! I wonder what it does?

Re:Finder

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly is useless for finding things.

Wow, that's truely useful!

[ilsaloving]

It amazes me how many sourpusses are logged in right now whining about how this isn't news, doesn't belong on the front page, etc etc. If you see an article that you are not interested in then, and I accidentally stumbled upon this amazing technique after much trial an error, you can SKIP over that article! I know I know, I'm sure you're as shocked as I was when I discovered this!

Meanwhile in the real world, those of us who work in a moderately noisy EMF environment now have a fantastic way of diagnosing exactly why the Wifi suddenly cut out during a download when it was Working Fine Before(tm). I'm glad someone made this discovery because it wouldn't have occurred to me to look for it myself.

Re:Wow, that's truely useful!

[Anonymous Coward]

That does not make this article newsworthy. It just means you've never actually tried to troubleshoot wifi on a mac. I mean, really, 30 seconds on googling "mac OS X wifi troubleshooting" and here is all documentation you need:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/15/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_new_wifi_diagnostics_tool.html

Re:Wow, that's truely useful!

[ilsaloving]

Oh of course, you're absolutely right! It should have occurred to me that I could have just bought 10.7 and then gone back in time and used it to troubleshoot all the wifi problems I had before 10.7 was released!

Slashdotted

[Anonymous Codger]

With all the complaining here about this being useless info not worthy of the front page, the site is slashdotted. Can someone please post the path to the application?

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Go under System/Library/Core Services/Wi-fi Diagnostics.app (or something similar to that-- not in front of it right now).

Re:Slashdotted

[Sez Zero]

/System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi Diagnostics.app There are 65 other "apps" in there; as you'd imagine they are system apps like Finder, Problem Reporter, iCalAlarm, and VoiceOver.

Re:Slashdotted

[Duradin]

It's like those are core services or something.

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Did not get a chance to RTFA, but I think they're talking about this: /System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi Diagnostics.app

Re:Slashdotted

[mephistus]

The application can be found at "/System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi Diagnostics" along with some other fun tools that are hidden there.

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

/System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi\ Diagnostics

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore the jerks who didn't think this was news. I thought it was interesting too. /System/Library/CoreServices/Wi-Fi Diagnostics.app

Assist Me...

[Sez Zero]

This is probably the App that runs when you are on the Network pane of System Preferences, click the "Assist Me" button and pick Diagnostics for your Wi-Fi network.

So, not really hidden.

Re:People actually use OS X?

[wrencherd]

Since the link in TFS is no longer functioning, I conclude that, yes, they do.

Re:Front page news? Really?

[donstenk]

Correct - but as an owner of a new Macbook Pro with Lion I find the news interesting because it single biggest problem is related to wifi performance.

My Macbook regularly drops (Apple Airport) connections, will not connect when resuming and refuse point blanc to connect to some public hotspots.

Wireless hacking

[Anonymous Coward]

On a separate note, this could make wireless hacking much easier if someone could figure out how it works.

Re:Wireless hacking

[Guy Harris]

On a separate note, this could make wireless hacking much easier if someone could figure out how it works.

How which part of it works? The "capture raw frames" part works by opening one of the deep dark secret "BPF devices", performing the appropriate ioctls on it, and reading from it, or maybe letting the deep dark secret "libpcap library" do that for you, sort of like the deep dark secret "tcpdump program" does.

Re:People actually use OS X?

[AshtangiMan]

I am now getting the subrosasoft site to respond, but with their "page not found" page . . . it looks like there are no blogs on the site anymore. Either you have to register to see the blogs, or this was just a ruse to get page hits to try to sell their software (utilities for rescuing data on bad drives it appears).

Re:Front page news? Really?

[ColdWetDog]

My Macbook regularly drops (Apple Airport) connections, will not connect when resuming and refuse point blanc to connect to some public hotspots.

You should get a newer MacBook. They haven't been white for ages....

I found it useful *shrugs*

[cyber-dragon.net]

Having a quick way to determine signal/noise ratios in a wifi-impacted building is a useful trick for those of us building out wifi :)

Option-click on the Wi-Fi menu extra

[Guy Harris]

As the AppleInsider article says, you launch it by holding down the "option" key and clicking on the Wi-Fi "menu extra" and selecting the "Open Wi-Fi Diagnostics..." menu item. It's "hidden" because it's in an option-click menu, not because it's in /System/Library/CoreServices (it's in /System/Library/CoreServices because it's intended to be launched from the aforementioned menu).

In a number of cases, option+click will bring up a menu with more items than the menu you get by just clicking has. I'm not sure whether Apple document that anywhere, so I'm not sure whether that stuff is "hidden" in the sense of being something Apple doesn't tell you about at all or "hidden" in the sense that you don't get it by default.

Re:People actually use OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am now getting the subrosasoft site to respond, but with their "page not found" page . . . it looks like there are no blogs on the site anymore. Either you have to register to see the blogs, or this was just a ruse to get page hits to try to sell their software (utilities for rescuing data on bad drives it appears).

Or maybe (just maybe!) they had no idea that some random blog post would get their site slashdotted, their server melted down, and they used the quick & dirty solution of 404'ing the blogs until things calm down? Could that be it, maybe? Hmmm....

What is it with you people who automatically zero in on the worst sort of motivations for anything, and don't even bother thinking of far more likely (yet less salacious) scenarios? Conspiracy thinking annoys me.

A lot of hidden apps in /System

[guruevi]

Many Mac/Win sysadmin may not know that you can control just about any Mac application using LDAP or Active Directory.

You can add /System/Library/CoreServices/Managed Client.app to WGM and you'll gain access to a lot of the MCX which you can then modify and apply to your groups. A lot of other Applications can be added as well and the settings managed like AD's Group Policy but a bit easier to use.

There are also Kerberos Ticket viewers, you can run security on command line to manage SSL Certificates.

Also install the Developer Tools for some nifty utilities, BlueTooth sniffers, Audio Lab which with you can fairly simple create a little application that can capture and send system audio over the network to another computer.

Re:People actually use OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

More than you apparently know. Way more.