[HN Gopher] Monterey's Finder Find memory leak may not be fixed
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Monterey's Finder Find memory leak may not be fixed
        
       Author : zdw
       Score  : 83 points
       Date   : 2022-05-30 16:38 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (eclecticlight.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (eclecticlight.co)
        
       | ddoolin wrote:
       | That feature has always been pretty terrible anyway, even when it
       | did at least function correctly.
        
         | lelandfe wrote:
         | Finder > Preferences > Advanced > When performing a search:
         | "Search the Current Folder"
         | 
         | Changing this from the default of "Search this Mac" has made it
         | a feature I actually occasionally use now.
        
       | hbn wrote:
       | FYI - there's a quicker way to relaunch Finder: hold option and
       | right click the Finder icon in your dock, and there will be a new
       | "Relaunch" item at the bottom of the menu
        
         | clairity wrote:
         | i actually keep finder off (force-quit via activity monitor)
         | until i need it, preferring to use spotlight for simple file
         | finding. it otherwise uses not only too much memory but also
         | too much cpu time (and hence battery).
        
           | mrgalaxy wrote:
           | Finder just relaunches when you force quit it in Activity
           | Monitor? Is there something else you had to do to get it to
           | not relaunch?
           | 
           | Also, I'm not sure how much you are saving by doing that. My
           | Finder uses 0% CPU when not being actively used.
        
             | clairity wrote:
             | mine doesn't relaunch, but i honestly don't remember how i
             | changed that behavior, sorry!
             | 
             | dunno why, but my finder uses 2-5% constantly when running,
             | and spawns a bunch of other processes (like mdworker) as
             | well, which also suck away battery. better to keep it off
             | for me.
        
               | nicwolff wrote:
               | mdworker is what keeps your simple Spotlight file search
               | working tsu
        
               | clairity wrote:
               | well yes (and also for backing up i believe), but at
               | least for me, there aren't tons of files that i care
               | about which change often, so i don't need it constantly
               | going off and cataloging the latest homebrew updates or
               | whatever.
        
               | KennyBlanken wrote:
               | You can exclude opt and any other directories full of
               | frequently changing files you don't care about spotlight
               | indexing.
        
               | clairity wrote:
               | ah yes, i should look into doing that.
        
         | sharikous wrote:
         | I think that it doesn't work in Monterey
        
           | jdlshore wrote:
           | I just tried it. The menu item was there, although I didn't
           | click it.
        
         | lapcat wrote:
         | defaults write com.apple.finder QuitMenuItem -bool YES
        
       | BruceEel wrote:
       | oh dear, and I thought they had eventually managed to FTFF.
        
         | NonNefarious wrote:
         | Remember the big "ground-up rewrite" of Finder we were promised
         | a few major OS versions ago?
         | 
         | I'm not surprised if your answer is no.
         | 
         | Finder is disgraceful junk, with an example being that its
         | "find" function utterly fails to live up to its name. It's
         | mind-boggling how a simple filename search can just... not find
         | clearly-matching files.
         | 
         | I use EasyFind.
        
           | BruceEel wrote:
           | Indeed. Snow Leopard positively surprised me, I thought we
           | were almost there. Then I upgraded to Lion... These days I
           | use Nimble Commander and sometimes Total Commander + Wine.
        
         | dreamcompiler wrote:
         | The Finder has been pretty broken since OS9. I'm accustomed to
         | Apple not caring to FTFF, but the least they could do is not
         | break it further.
        
           | ubermonkey wrote:
           | WAT.
        
       | teaearlgraycold wrote:
       | So upgrade to 13?
        
         | RadixDLT wrote:
         | intel macs cannot upgrade
        
           | jibbers wrote:
           | Source?
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | If only that were an option to everyone all the time, Apple
         | would be so much happier. Unfortunately, real life situations
         | exist where upgrading OS means breaking existing workflows that
         | for various reasons cannot be upgraded as well.
        
       | rbanffy wrote:
       | Sounds funny. Any given search should return as few items as
       | feasible (say, to populate the window) and keep in memory a way
       | to locate the next batches instead of materializing in memory all
       | hits and their locations like the article describes.
        
       | orangepurple wrote:
       | It's amusing to me that basic functionality like searching for a
       | file is a $6 app on MacOS (the link within the article is
       | https://apps.tempel.org/FindAnyFile/) while fd-find exists
       | (https://github.com/sharkdp/fd) on all major platforms and is
       | free, open source, and easy to use if you have eyes and can read
       | a few basic instructions.
        
         | can16358p wrote:
         | I have eyes and can read basic instructions.
         | 
         | I'm also a developer who can work perfectly nice with
         | terminals.
         | 
         | I prefer GUI-based search as I feel it visually appealing.
        
         | compiler-guy wrote:
         | The functionality is totally already there, both from the
         | command line and from the GUI. If you need something more
         | sophisticated you can pay for it. I never have needed such a
         | thing, but I'm sure there are people for whom it is worth it.
         | 
         | There does happen to be a bug in the normal functionality--that
         | is unfortunate, but Linux certainly has its share of bugs also.
        
         | nerdponx wrote:
         | A lot of Windows applications are like this too. People who use
         | the CLI are extremely lucky to be able to benefit from so much
         | free software.
        
           | orangepurple wrote:
           | What is this luck you speak of? Everyone has an equal
           | learning opportunity and the software is free.
        
           | adolph wrote:
           | > . . .are extremely lucky to be able . . .
           | 
           | . . . have invested the upfront time to be able . . .
        
         | anonymousab wrote:
         | A GUI with mouse support is a fairly important if not crucial
         | feature for many users. It is their preference.
        
         | OskarS wrote:
         | Terminal workflows are very much not for everyone. Many people
         | are happy to pay a few bucks for a nice and friendly GUI
         | application. It's not such a bad thing that people are willing
         | to pay for software, as it is, in fact, the way many of us make
         | our living.
        
           | nerdponx wrote:
           | I think the really interesting observation here is that
           | nobody tries to make a living selling small CLI programs, and
           | moreover that these GUI programs tend to also be under
           | proprietary licenses without so much as source available for
           | viewing.
           | 
           | I find it interesting because I think very few people are
           | willing to go through the trouble to "pirate" a $6 app if it
           | had a free-as-in-freedom license. Building GUI applications
           | from source tends to be a pain in the ass, and the people who
           | weren't willing to pay $6 aren't even potential customers in
           | the first place.
        
             | EricE wrote:
             | It's not really that hard to understand - the people most
             | likely to use CLI commands are the least likely to pay for
             | software. Just look at the comments in this story :p
        
             | OskarS wrote:
             | Yeah, I agree, it's a shame that there isn't a better
             | mechanism to pay for CLI software. I think a lot of
             | developers would just refuse non-open source CLI software,
             | but that really shuts down what could be a healthy market.
             | Don't know what the solution would be though ("GitHub
             | sponsors" don't seem to be it...)
        
           | EricE wrote:
           | HoudaSpot is far more than a friendly GUI - It's a powerful
           | query tool and while I love the CLI for many things,
           | HoudaSpot is a great example of how a well thought out GUI
           | can beat the pants off of a CLI for this particular use case.
           | Especially if you aren't exactly sure of what you are looking
           | for/the best way to find it. Using HoudaSpot as an
           | interactive spelunking tool for your data (not just the file
           | system!) is pretty amazing.
        
           | bastardoperator wrote:
           | I tend to agree with you, but I had a situation where my mind
           | was completely changed. I worked for a company in high school
           | believe it or not that did not give mice to the employees,
           | lots of data entry. They said the mouse would slow you down
           | significantly and while I struggled for a couple weeks to
           | learn everything and the hotkeys for the terminal/console
           | apps, it became insanely obvious that operating a computer
           | without reliance on the mouse was far more performant, and
           | easier once I stopped fighting the urge to grab my mouse.
           | 
           | I don't think it's for everyone, but I'm grateful for that
           | experience.
        
         | Synaesthesia wrote:
         | The Find any file app is actually free and only asks you to
         | donate, but still gives full functionality.
         | 
         | I like it because it can search system files. There is a way to
         | do that in Finder though too ;-)
        
         | dewey wrote:
         | Is it really that surprising that a GUI alternative to a
         | command line tool exists and that most people would prefer
         | that? I don't see anything wrong with providing a tool and
         | charging for it.
        
         | zippergz wrote:
         | Amusing that people buy hammers when you can use a rock for
         | free.
        
         | phailhaus wrote:
         | Piling on here, this is obviously a Bad Take. In order to use
         | fd, you need:
         | 
         | 1. To know what the terminal is. Most people do not.
         | 
         | 2. Either Homebrew or MacPorts installed. At this point you've
         | lost the majority of the people who vaguely know what the
         | terminal is.
         | 
         | 3. Familiarity with how unix commands work, what "flags" are,
         | how to write them, how to specify filepaths.
         | 
         | 4. How to debug those commands when you invariably get it
         | wrong.
         | 
         | 5. Since fd just dumps filepaths, you need to know how to
         | inspect them further and open them.
         | 
         | Yes, $6 is more than worth it for many people. All you need are
         | eyes and the ability to use a mouse and keyboard.
        
           | trollied wrote:
           | mdfind is a built-in terminal command that finds stuff. No
           | need to spend $6
        
             | spillguard wrote:
             | Doesn't usage of mdfind still suffer from GP's problems 1,
             | 3, 4, and 5?
        
               | dwaite wrote:
               | Spotlight, then, which is the built-in GUI for the same
               | database as mdfind.
        
           | nerdponx wrote:
           | I think a more charitable take is that it's interesting how
           | CLI programs tend to be FOSS and gratis ( _maybe_ donations
           | accepted) while GUI programs tend to be proprietary and non-
           | gratis.
        
             | teaearlgraycold wrote:
             | GUIs are much harder than a bit of system programming and
             | console outputs.
        
             | throwaway92394 wrote:
             | > CLI programs tend to be FOSS
             | 
             | I think this is more likely because they're often made (or
             | at least started) by individuals as a hobby or side
             | project, not as a commercial venture. CLI is generally
             | easier to develop then GUIs especially cross-platform.
             | 
             | > GUI programs tend to be proprietary and non-gratis.
             | 
             | GUIs require so much more work, especially for cross
             | platform. If engineers are paid for their time then this is
             | worth it.
             | 
             | Granted electron has made it far easier - you still need to
             | be essentially a full stack developer to make a GUI with
             | it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-01 23:02 UTC)