Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday September 08, 2011 @01:54AM
from the keeping-an-eye-on-things dept.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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).

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.

...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 [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.

...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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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!

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.

"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-base

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

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-p

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 [appleinsider.com] notes, it's launched by the "Open Wi-Fi Diagnostics..." option+menu item for that menu extra.

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.

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....

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 perha

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

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.

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.

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 p

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!

As the AppleInsider article [appleinsider.com] 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 su

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.

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).