Something Apple Never Acknowledged as Broken, to Credit They Don't Want, is Fixed.

I recently had to send the following to Apple via their feedback* page:

I just got an APC Back-UPS ES 750G to use with my MacMini4,1. Store.apple.com recommends EXACTLY this product: http://store.apple.com/us/product/TY121LL/A?fnode=5a .

The UPS tab does come up under the System Preferences Energy Saver pane. But no settings on the pulldown once the "Shutdown Options" button is clicked are honored under OS X 10.10.1.  Others have experienced this problem, with no solution yet: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6734517 .

I've reset both the SMC and the PRAM. No luck. As it is, I have to use a Raspberry Pi with the more configurable (though less sexy) apcupsd, until Apple fixes this.

Or should I just switch to Linux altogether? http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2014/12/22/declining-apple-software-quality-imperils-future-growth-and-retention/

I've heard others have had to send similar.

Luckily, now the issue that I and untold dozens, at least, of Internet denizens were experiencing appears to have been fixed in OS X 10.10.2. I just tried it by telling the computer to shut down after a minute on battery power, and it worked exactly as it had under OS X 10.9.5. That is, as advertised and correctly. I haven't tried other shutdown settings, but a successful one at least bodes well after not working at all.

Of interesting note, however, is the fact that this fix is mentioned nowhere in Apple's OS X 10.10.2 release notes (on http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204210 under "About the update"). I guess they didn't want to acknowledge that one of their most relied-upon, deep-and-long-established-in-the-system data safety features had ever had a problem… even once fixed.

I wonder how this bears out for their security. That's all I'm going to say about that, because [redacted]. Kidding (kind of)!

* For those (Ha: I assume there are more than… well, zero, who may be reading this!) interested in where to go to give Apple feedback, try here: http://apple.com/feedback . You need to select which specific Apple hardware you're commenting on, whether or not the issue is either more general or software-specific.  I don't mean to say "Give 'em hell!" because all companies are staffed by people who are just that; people, like you. But if you have a problem or even kudos (in the body of your text; see #2 below) to pass along, they'll hear it. They won't respond directly, but they will hear it.

On the flip side of that however, I'm posting this here because:

1) I think more people should know about major feature changes in software by the world's most profitable company, good or bad.

2) There's not actually a place on their feedback form to tell them that your feedback is positive; they appear to assume the worst. So I give due credit here, whether they want it or not.

For the moment, I am nonetheless keeping things running on the Raspberry Pi. Oh, the power savings & self-teaching opportunities!

If you can read this, thank a teacher

It is sadly time for me to come down squarely on one particular side of a contentious issue in my community. I do this not only due to a direct connection some of you may know of, to the public school teaching community, but also because I believe as the type of person I am, that it is the only right thing to do.

Medford, Oregon public school teachers are currently on strike. Portland public school teachers have voted that if a contract agreement they can accept cannot be reached by Thursday February 20th, 2014 that they will then need to go on strike as well. This is an awful thing to have to do to their students, but given my perspective, I know firsthand that:

• It's worse for the teachers themselves.
• It's better in the long run for students, teachers and schools, than what the district is trying to impose.

So what is the Portland school district trying to impose? On the face of it, it sounds like they're offering some much-needed concessions in contract deliberations. They are offering to reduce class sizes by hiring more teachers, as well as a raise to all teachers over a 3 school-year period.

What the district is trying to keep from coming to the fore are the facts that:

• They have been out of compliance for the past three school years with federal regulations regarding the high number of students per teacher, so an offer to address that concern is what they are legally required to do. It is not a concession; it is a legal requirement.
• The raise they are offering does not keep pace with real historical rises in the cost of living, to say nothing of such rises in utilities, groceries etc. while the economy is projected to "bounce back."
• While they are currently, to use district terminology, "supposing" to keep their coverage of teacher benefits (health, etc.) at the same levels they have historically been, their most recent offer of November 2013 would gut their coverage of these benefits, completely erasing any raise (not just cost-of-living raises for other necessities) after the first school year it's imposed. They legally don't have to include the more lenient "supposition" in the contract they impose on teachers; they can go back to their most recent written offer when imposing the contract.
• While teachers may currently legally strike against such a contract being imposed, part of the district's most recent offer is language to remove teachers' ability ever to legally strike again once the contract is imposed.
• The district is suing the teachers' union for having voted to strike prior to imposition of the contract, even though the only legal requirement regarding strike that the teachers are beholden to, is to wait ten days from when they vote (which they sadly had to vote "yes" to on February 5th, lest the district push out imposition until the end of the school year, when the students go on summer vacation, and public interest in the matter would wane) before they begin their strike (which could have therefore been as early as February 18th, but in fact will start on February 20th, unless an agreement is reached).
• The contract currently under dispute has been under negotiation since April 2013. However, the contract for the previous two school years then expired in June 2013. Teachers have therefore been working without a contract from then to the present time. Such a contract, as in any working relationship, is meant to protect not only employers, but also workers and beneficiaries of the work (such as students and the community, in this instance). Without such a contract, those protections are not currently in place.
• The district is currently operating with a $19 million budget surplus, projected to go to $30 million in the next school year. Yet their school board voted (not unanimously) on January 27th to proceed with the next school year's budget leaving that surplus intact, thus not using it to address any of the monetary concerns of the teachers, mentioned above… or any other monetary concerns the district might consider, such as replacing leaking, asbestos-riddled rooves on their aging facilities, which teachers and students are subject to being under daily during the school year. Notably, the school board is not subject to such physical conditions for their work.
• The district is trying to reduce public awareness of these facts, by hiring a $15,000-per-month "labor consultant," rather than spending the money on the personnel and resources that are sorely needed in their schools, or indeed, on figuring out how to avoid a strike.
• In fact, the district is actively planning for teachers to strike, almost as if it conferred them some strategic advantage. They are publically recruiting scabs to cover the absence left by teachers during a possible strike, on such reputable websites as Craigslist. The following link is to the job announcement on the district's own website: http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/hr/9456.htm

It could indeed benefit the district's position for teachers to strike, at least within the public perception. After all, many parents are not looking forward to finding alternative care for their children for an uncertain amount of time. To those parents and others uninformed as to the full gravity of the situation, the teachers could well look like greedy, lazy complainers who deprive their students of needed services simply to get what they want.

But "want" would be a mischaracterization: teachers are dangerously close to being forced to strike because they need more resources per student in order to teach them professionally. Under the current lack of contract, teachers are already working under an imposed yet illegal even-odd daily schedule for class periods which reduces their preparatory time. ESL (or "English as a Second Language") teachers in particular have lost dedicated periods to support ESL students, as well as the aides they need to help them provide this support. Teachers providing for their families (to say nothing of providing school supplies to those students who's families can't afford them) will be able to provide less for them. This is particularly dire in families where the teacher is the primary breadwinner.

Every teacher wants their students to succeed, or else they wouldn't be in such an otherwise thankless job. Indeed, the vast majority of teachers are inextricably, indelibly honor-bound to do everything in their earthly power to help their students achieve success. However, the current district policy is setting them up only to fail. Teachers have therefore voted to proceed if they must, with using the only leverage they have to make the district use its ample resources to help those students. In these times when "the economy's on the rebound" only for those who already have, the "rainy day fund" that the district is sitting on is an invaluable resource. With regard to public school teachers, schools and students in Portland, Medford, Chicago, and many other districts throughout the country, it's pouring.

---

Update February 20, 2014:

I want to thank everyone who has shown support for Portland's public school teachers in the run up to a possible strike over the lack of a contract agreement. Luckily, there is now a tentative agreement, which teachers will see the contract language of, over the next week. Because of this, the strike has been suspended and teachers are still at work.

Pending the teacher's vote to approve the new contract once they see it, the strike may then be fully cancelled. We're not out of the woods yet, but let's all hope that the language of the tentative agreement is something all of our teachers can work with!

Thanks again, for all your support, and may the currently striking Medford teachers soon have some similar good news!

Fight the powers that be(an)!

Is this a blog entry by someone with too much time on their hands, whipped into a frenzy by the very caffeine they're concerned with the delivery of?  Am I being naive and for too long beholden to a faceless corporation, as almost everyone I can think of here in coffee mecca Portland will tell me I am?

Yes.  Well, except for the "too much time" thing.  Try being a stay-at-home parent.  It makes one rant like this during naptime about things other than toys, and babies, and doggies.  Indeed, another part of my frenzy is trying to rush this out before the kid wakes up.

So, a certain coffee empire ruled by a two-tailed mermaid is currently offering up a promotion we'll call "The Moon Shot."  Essentially, you make X number of qualifying purchases, and you get Y "shots" to get free merchandise out of them.

I like free stuff.  Who doesn't?

Being a large corporation, it's one of the ways they've kept me loyal, even though there are more coffee shops struggling in our coffee snob town than you can swing a grounds-filled filter holder at.

So I signed up.  Whee!  I'm on the gravy train to spend money on jitter-making gravy to… get more jitter-making gravy for free.  It's how they getcha, and I guess by contrast to drug dealers, subsequent hits are free?

Whatever, lots of coffee shops have loyalty punch cards.  I'm not calling anyone out.

Yet.

So the day after I sign up, my wife gets a similar email inviting her to join "The Moon Shot."  Only, the numbers are a bit different.  If she makes (get this) less than half of X worth of qualifying purchases, she still gets Y "shots."

It should be noted, that my wife doesn't make nearly the purchases I do, at this place.

So I try to sign up for hers.  No dice.  Their website excitedly tells me that I'm (still) signed up for mine.  Whatever.  I'm on the gravy train, why leap off it for the gravy rocket?

And this, also, is how they getcha.  You're getting something of promotional value out of having agreed to their terms and joined their little "Moon Shot."  So shut up and enjoy it.  Yet, why do others get more out of the same agreement?  Indeed, isn't a rocket to the moon more useful than a train?

OK, enough with developing new euphemisms.  I don't want to get into equating gravy with green cheese…

Anyway, so I think on it.  She finally convinces me to contact their customer service to ask them what gives.  Their response?  I heavily paraphrase (and shorten… who knew I could do such a thing?):

"Sorry for any confusion about our Moon Shot promotion.  We offered you your rate of reward, because you come in so often.  We offer faster rewards to the customer we see less often, to interest them in coming in.  Thanks for your interest in our products, and do not hesitate to get in contact with us, if you have any future questions."

Oh, I did have some questions.  I paraphrase (in part) below, this time simply to "protect the innocent."  At least, that's how the saying goes…

I […] believe [your company] has made a strategic mistake, by allowing customers who use their accounts less, to earn more in [Moon Shots] than loyal customers. I understand that you're a business, and you need to get people in the door to make money. I would urge those who make your promotional marketing decisions, not to make your loyal customers work at a promotional disadvantage as compared to those you're trying to woo with said promotions. I need to make more than twice as many qualifying purchases as my wife does, to earn the same promotional reward. I understand that's by design, but it doesn't make it right.

A [Moon Shot] promotion that equitably rewards customers across the board would be far more compelling towards keeping your loyal customers, who are the very foundation of your repeat business and your success over the years. 

As it is, I'll need to reconsider in light of this non-equitable treatment of customers by your [Moon Shot] promotions, exactly how loyal a […] customer I am [of your company]. If I get more out of your promotions if I make fewer qualifying purchases, by golly, maybe I should show up less often to make those purchases. Maybe instead, I should show more loyalty to my local, non-incorporated coffee shops who are struggling to stay in business next to such successful but unfair marketers. 

It seems I have a lot to consider, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how (or whether) they'll respond.  I am after all, the crackpot they caffeinated, who in return is trying to teach their marketing team a few things by email and via their customer service lackey.

That said, I'm impressed that they got back to my original concern in less than a day, and on a weekend, no less.  And I should say, among large corporations, I generally like them pretty well: they treat their workers well (I hear, though not directly from the workers on the premises during work hours) with good benefits packages, and they at least try to promote that they're into fair trade practices with regard to how they get their sweet, sweet nectar/gravy/green cheese itself.  And besides that, I don't just want to be the squeaky wheel; I want their marketing team to seriously reconsider how they run their promotions.  Anything less wouldn't be very equitable of me.

But to so cavalierly be told, "Oh yeah: you pay the bills, so you're not eligible to be sweet-talked (as much) anymore.  We gotta get out there and make some new mon-ay!!!" feels a bit like being told to get back in the kitchen and make them one of their yummy artisanal (and yet always exactly the same) breakfast sandwiches, while they visit the cute new neighbor for some, uh, sugar.

Okay, you may now tell me that I should have been going to local coffee shops all along, and that I, single-handedly, am the reason that local coffee culture is failing. Go!

Local snapshots turned off after update to OS X 10.8.5?

Here's a weird one I haven't seen corroboration of, on any web searches.  Since (not necessarily because of) installing OS X 10.8.5 on my laptop, I have noticed that I don't seem to have any local backups, also called local snapshots, being made on my internal HD.  I went into Terminal and manually entered the "sudo tmutil enablelocal" command to (successfully) turn them back on again.  But, what gives?  Why would they be turned off, when they've historically been on and I definitely have not manually disabled them?

As above, it is again possible that these local snapshots haven't been happening for a while, and I simply hadn't noticed their absence up to now.  I've only noticed them specifically not happening since upgrading to 10.8.5.  Network backups to my Time Machine drive have continued just fine.  Has anyone else experienced the same issue?

As an aside, I also find it odd that within the CLI command "tmutil", there is not a specific verb argument to tell you whether local snapshots are currently enabled or disabled; you can simply enable or disable them without the chance to find out what the previous state was.  I'm not asking Apple to add a big, obvious local snapshot toggle switch to the Time Machine Preference pane GUI or anything.  I'm happy to use Terminal for something that shouldn't be set from (but, I should point out, also shouldn't be broken for exclusive users of) the GUI.

I just wanted to know what my previous local backup state nominally was, before forcing it to… err, "awaken" Schrödinger's cat, I guess, would be the most apt analogy here.

Backups on the go

As you know, I'm a tinkerer.  In fact, I'm working on something right now that may soon see the light of day in some form, to teach those of you interested in having a bit more online security while out and about, one good way to get it.

But that's not what this post is about.  Well, not exactly.  It's about using your mobile devices, and a type of security.  Specifically, your feeling secure that you have a backup of your data.  Sure, many of us do (and all of us should) let our computers do the automatic backups to an external or networked drive on the premises, that many of them (like the Mac, ever since OS X 10.5) offer to do.  But most of us figure one backup is enough.

But what if it's not?  What if something happens not only to your computer, but to the backup hard drive? Fires, floods, neighborhoods in Arkansas filled with oil from an interstate pipeline that it took the national news media a good day to report (see http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/31/us-exxon-pipeline-spill-idUSBRE92U00220130331)… lots of things can happen.  Sure, nobody wants to live in constant fear.  Our culture has been tilting way too far in that direction for a while, anyway.  But the unexpected can happen.

So how can you be prepared for the unexpected loss of your data?  Back it up online.  Or in the au currant parlance, "in the cloud".  There are several companies who offer this service: Mozy, Carbonite, CrashPlan, and to a more limited extent (ie. not even possibly the entire drive of a modern Mac, PC or Linux box… rather they let you pick and choose), Google Drive and Dropbox, to name a few.  I do not offer endorsements for commercial products*, but I can tell you what works for me, and why.

Most of these services have limits to how much data you can store with them, or where that data is on the computer.  Some require software packages, like Java, that you may not want to install on your computer due to security or performance concerns.  The one I went with, Backblaze, does not have those limits, and does not require any software except their client that installs itself in your System Preferences and on your menu bar.  Being a tinkerer, I've checked out how much of my computer's system resources the Backblaze software takes up, and it's generally below 10% of a single processor core's capacity in my dual-core machine, and I've never seen it get above 25%, even when it's working as hard as it can on a task.  Your mileage may vary.

One thing which would be nice (here's where the mobile thing comes in, for those who like to skim ahead) is once that data is backed up, being able to access and/or manage it from anywhere on your mobile device.  Sure, there are some kinds of your data you may already be able to access from your mobile device, even if it's not (or no longer) stored there: Apple's iTunes Match service handles music, their Photo Stream service handles photos, as a few examples.  If you want to go Google or Amazon, they have their services too.  But those individual services each back up just that one kind of data.

So how do you get to all of your personal data from your computer, on a mobile device?  Why, "there's an app for that!", of course!

And that's true for many of the above-mentioned online backup services.  Sadly, thus far, it hasn't been true for Backblaze.  This has been the one drawback of of my otherwise stellar experience with them.

But fear not!  They've had an iOS app in development for a while (see http://blog.backblaze.com/2013/01/30/backblaze-mobile-for-iphone/) that they're putting the finishing touches on an initial release for, I would imagine while waiting through the App Store approval process.  In fact, as someone who has shown interest in its development (the sign up link is somewhere in the text of the page I link to at the top of this paragraph), they've just emailed me an offer to be considered for selection to beta-test the app before its more general release.

Well, I've said I'm a tinkerer.  As you'll see from some of my previous posts -and from my upcoming one(s?) about mobile security and a good way to provide it-, that's a pretty accurate description.  I think I'd be a great beta tester!  If you think so too… well, you can't do anything about the possibility unless you're Backblaze.  But you can cheer me on, and you can also expect information on how, and how well, the final app works once it's out (Not the beta, of course.  I'm sure there are NDAs I'd have to sign)!

So if you like that, great!  If you're Backblaze, #BackblazeMobile !

___
* Until and unless it's my job to do so, and then I would do so in another forum.

I can feel myself slipping (and I like it?)

How do you know that being a stay-at-home parent is starting to make you lose sight of what's "normal" in adult discourse? Some might go traditional with the fact that you have entire one-sided conversations with them because they don't talk yet.

Pish tosh, I say. I was happy when Bluetooth headsets came out, so I wouldn't look quite so crazy walking down the street talking to myself.

No, the new bellwether seems to be whether you have those one-sided conversations to the tune of the Macarena. Extra points if, once the baby goes to sleep, you continue the conversation (to the same tune) with your dog. And even more points if the dog performs tricks on the chorus.

Down-the-grade, Darling, Down-the-grade…

By the way, it has concerned me that at least a couple of threads on discussions.apple.com have said that an iOS downgrade such as I described two blog posts ago is "not possible".  I feel that that's misinformation, and I don't know where it's coming from, but I don't like to end it on that note, simple to understand as it may be.  This is because, while "no" is a simple answer, it's not (always?) the correct answer to this question.  As my previous post states, I was able to downgrade.

You don't have to do anything illegal, or anything which will even void your warranty (because you're putting Apple-approved software on it).  That said, even though I will give you a basic overview of the steps you'd need to take, I will not tell you how to get any of the individual steps done beyond what's simple to jot down here.  Partially that's to avoid taking on your responsibility, partially that's because I don't want to keep writing forever.  If you don't know how to do get a step I describe done, the responsibility to find out how falls on you, to research it.  Search engines are your friend.

What you need:
I will say that you need to put some forethought into it.  Specifically, you need to have kept a backup of your iOS 5.1.1 install file.  It will be named something like "[model of your iOS device]_5.1.1_9B208_Restore.ipsw", and while 5.1.1 was the latest iOS you've used your computer to install, it will have been kept inside your "~/Library/iTunes/iPhone Software Updates" folder.  That's where it is on a Mac, I don't know where it is on a PC.

If you didn't already make a backup of this file before you upgraded to iOS 6, Apple told the computer to automatically delete it and replace it with the one for iOS 6.  I can't tell you where to find a replacement, sorry.

Also, be aware that anywhere inside ~/Library is not somewhere Apple wants you tinkering around in. That's why as of OS X 10.7 and later, they don't make it directly accessible.  Anything that goes on in there is really designed to be done by the OS and by the programs you run, not directly by you.  Changing things in there willy-nilly can make all kinds of things not work right.  You have been warned.

That said, backing up a file you're legally entitled to (by the fact that you own an iOS device that will run it) is fully within your rights, and copying it (as opposed to changing it in any way) shouldn't present any functionality problems.  So to get to the correct folder, just go to the "Go" menu in the Finder, select "Go to Folder," and type in the correct path to that folder.  As long as you typed it in correctly, a Finder window for that folder should open.  Again, I heartily recommend against deleting, moving, or changing any files in there.  Just copy what you need.

As above, if the computer has already replaced and deleted this file, then you've missed your chance.  There may be other ways out there to find one, but it's not one you're legally entitled to (you're legally entitled to your copy).  Maybe you can see if it's available via your Time Machine backup.  Beyond that, I can't help you.  Sorry.

Moving on, if you want your iOS device to look and work how it did before you ever upgraded to iOS 6 (with your sounds, wallpapers, apps, music and photos, etc. in the same places), then you will also need a backup of your own data on the phone, done as close as possible to just before you upgraded to iOS 6.  If you generally back up to the computer, you would have just hit the "Sync" button in the iTunes window.  If you generally back up to the iCloud, I still recommend before any major iOS device upgrade, to back up to your computer by option-clicking the iOS device's icon in the left column of iTunes' window, and selecting "Back Up" from the contextual menu that pops up.  This is because if you rely on Apple's iCloud backup of your iOS device alone, it will have changed things when you upgraded to iOS 6, and Apple hasn't set iCloud up to allow easy downgrades, because they want to keep the ball rolling forward.

If in doubt at all, back it up yourself.  And also realize that any content you've put on the iOS device or changed since upgrading to iOS 6 (particularly irreplaceable, personally-made things like videos you've shot) won't be in that most recent iOS 5.1.1 backup of your data (because you shot it after you upgraded to iOS 6).  So back such things up some other way (say, to iPhoto), before downgrading back to iOS 5.1.1.

What you do:
If you did happen to make a backup of your iOS 5.1.1 install file, then you can put your iOS device into DFU mode (if you don't know how, you can search for how to do it) and then restore the 5.1.1 install file onto the device.  The way to select the 5.1.1 install file as opposed to the 6.0 install file is to hold down the "Option" key as you press the "Restore" button in iTunes.  This will allow you to navigate to the 5.1.1 install file, wherever you've put it, and select that (as opposed to the most recent one in the folder discussed above, that Apple uses by default) as the source from which to restore.

Once this iOS 5.1.1 software is restored to your device, you're half done.  Then, you'll want to use the most recent backup of your data from before you upgraded (discussed above), to put back onto your iOS device.  Once that data is put back on, it should then be back to how it was before you upgraded to iOS 6.  Be aware, how long it will take is related directly to how much data you had on your iOS device: the more data, the longer.  Once that's done, you can then make your own decisions about what and how to put back content you added/changed under iOS 6.

Finally, one more point to be aware of: if iOS 6 upgraded the firmware on your device in some way that iOS 6 needed to work, but which iOS 5.1.1 is not compatible with and it can't be overwritten by the iOS 5.1.1 install file, then downgrading won't work.  I don't know which devices, and in fact whether any of them, this will happen to.  It didn't to mine: my downgrade just worked, and it put all of the versions of firmware that are available to view under in the Settings app under General>About back to what they had been before under iOS 5.1.1.

As far as I know if the firmware is changed by iOS 6 in a way that is not downgrade-able, then iTunes should just not allow you to perform the downgrade, and return your phone to working (such as it does) with iOS 6.  Keep in mind that I am not in any way affiliated with Apple, ie. not an Apple software engineer, so I don't know that for sure.  Your mileage may vary, and the fact that it worked on my iOS device doesn't mean it will work on yours.  You're responsible for your own decisions and actions.

So I've said my piece.  I don't think it should necessarily be simply and flatly said that "you can't" downgrade from iOS 6.0 to iOS 5.1.1.  Maybe you can't on some devices, in some configurations.  But I did, and I did so completely legally, without invalidating any of the services Apple provides through iOS 5.1.1, and without any highly technical or questionable shenanigans.  I just know how to do some things, and researched how to do the parts I didn't.  And I was open to trying it.  There may be iOS devices and situations for which the method I used won't work, and I can't help you with those.  But the Internet may be of help to you.

Good luck!