Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

blackxacto

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 15, 2009
1,165
124
Middle TN
Has anyone seen this name listed in some menu of our latest system software or third party installs? I have installed Ventura 13. I have a feeling that he is the author of some software I have installed. I have searched throughout the SSD and all my externals, but they do not show any file named such. The name appeared in a menu, but I can't find the exact menu any longer. I don't understand if it shows in the menu why I can't find it.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-10-27 at 2.23.40 AM.png
    Screenshot 2022-10-27 at 2.23.40 AM.png
    227.2 KB · Views: 621

roguedaemon

macrumors member
Apr 16, 2015
56
256
I have the same, Google wasn't being helpful.
Obviously it's a developers name.
Searched through my ~/Library folder, nothing.

EDIT: I've got it!
We must both have software from https://soma-zone.com/
I have Launch Control, which is developed by... Robby Pählig!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-10-27 at 9.03.03 pm.png
    Screenshot 2022-10-27 at 9.03.03 pm.png
    129.9 KB · Views: 90
  • Like
Reactions: BrianM_CAN

ignatius345

macrumors 604
Aug 20, 2015
6,976
11,443
I appreciate the granular control and transparency with this new "allow in background" section -- but it's all a bit raw. I feel like they're surfacing some detail in the software that was never intended to be user-facing.
 

chrfr

macrumors G5
Jul 11, 2009
13,534
7,056
I appreciate the granular control and transparency with this new "allow in background" section -- but it's all a bit raw. I feel like they're surfacing some detail in the software that was never intended to be user-facing.
This is exactly the issue here. What shows is the name that's on the account used to sign the app, and it's going to cause more issues than it solves, I think. There needs to be a clear way to show exactly what the item is the list is referring to.
For unsigned items, it's easy enough to look at exactly what file is being referred to, by clicking the little "i" in the list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignatius345

roguedaemon

macrumors member
Apr 16, 2015
56
256
This is exactly the issue here. What shows is the name that's on the account used to sign the app, and it's going to cause more issues than it solves, I think. There needs to be a clear way to show exactly what the item is the list is referring to.
For unsigned items, it's easy enough to look at exactly what file is being referred to, by clicking the little "i" in the list.
that and the fact that apple's own sh file says it's from an unidentified developer.....
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-10-28 at 11.23.28 pm.png
    Screenshot 2022-10-28 at 11.23.28 pm.png
    50.8 KB · Views: 104
  • Screenshot 2022-10-28 at 11.23.37 pm.png
    Screenshot 2022-10-28 at 11.23.37 pm.png
    218.9 KB · Views: 107

ststefa

macrumors newbie
Nov 15, 2022
1
1
Germany
Btw, and about looking at your LaunchControl screenshot: I've been using LaunchControl for a long time too, and just recently stumbled across LaunchControl 2. That has a completely redesigned UI and some (for my taste) big improvements in usability and functionality.
 
  • Love
Reactions: roguedaemon

ncollingridge

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
41
30
I'm just guessing here... but that's probably because it's an unmodified stock component of the BSD underpinnings. If Apple made no changes to the original file, they also wouldn't have had a reason to sign it.
Fair enough, but they need to refine the Login Items "Allow in the Background" list to give more information to enable the poor user to decide which items need to be enabled and which don't. All of the shell commands which are listed should probably be excluded from the list?

Also there is a confusion between the "Open at Login" list and the "Allow in Background" list - both seem to pretty much do the same thing but one is presumably under direct control of the user (the first) and the second is set by the process, but now the user has the theoretical ability to override what the process wants to do. But some, such as in my case Dropbox, appear in both. Giving power to the user is a Good Thing, with the mild caveat that it needs to be clear how and when to wield that power, and what effect it will have.

In all cases it seems to me that at least you should be able to click on a little "i" to see where the original file is located, like with the shell commands. An example here is that I have three entries for CleanMyMac X, and I have no way of knowing whether some of these are hangovers from previous versions, or are all of them valid?

Maybe this is a job for CleanMyMac itself to sort out!
 

roguedaemon

macrumors member
Apr 16, 2015
56
256
Fair enough, but they need to refine the Login Items "Allow in the Background" list to give more information to enable the poor user to decide which items need to be enabled and which don't. All of the shell commands which are listed should probably be excluded from the list?

Also there is a confusion between the "Open at Login" list and the "Allow in Background" list - both seem to pretty much do the same thing but one is presumably under direct control of the user (the first) and the second is set by the process, but now the user has the theoretical ability to override what the process wants to do. But some, such as in my case Dropbox, appear in both. Giving power to the user is a Good Thing, with the mild caveat that it needs to be clear how and when to wield that power, and what effect it will have.

In all cases it seems to me that at least you should be able to click on a little "i" to see where the original file is located, like with the shell commands. An example here is that I have three entries for CleanMyMac X, and I have no way of knowing whether some of these are hangovers from previous versions, or are all of them valid?

Maybe this is a job for CleanMyMac itself to sort out!
If I may, I don't think " clean my mac " is necessary at all.... i think it will add unnecessary bloat to your system.
All the tools it has are either already available in the operating system or have friendlier, less 'bloaty' alternatives.

-

I think Open at Login is different to Allow in Background, as the former is the classical functionality of having an application open as you start the computer, while the latter is actually information that was previously hidden, and could only be viewed with things like LaunchControl, mentioned earlier in the thread.

I appreciate having access to both, as now when I install a new app the system will notify me that that app intends to run stuff in the background, like an update checker for example, and I can individually choose to ignore it or turn it off.

Really suits me and how I use the computer, but maybe different for you :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.