Rocks'n'Diamonds

Holger wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2026 2:34 pm Even if Mac software has an installer (which it sometimes have, if it has a lot of things to do to set things up before running), this would result in the installer asking to access the "Documents" directory if it wants to check something there, so this does not help here.

I don't agree: this sort of prompt seems like an expectable occurrence when doing an app install. More predictable, less surprising, than to receive the same sort of security prompt not at install time, but at first subsequent run of the installed app (which in some cases may be weeks later).

With the next non-patch release, I will stop doing that check, but add some advice to the announcement of that version what to do when still having user data at the old location. This will be as easy as moving everything from the old location (well-accessible inside the "Documents" directory) to the new location (also well-accessible through the info screen, which opens the new location).

This plan embeds two assumptions which I think will cause problems. First, it assumes that people who would need to do anything about this keep their RnD constantly updated; that they can be faithfully expected to update to this specific release without skipping over it. In fact people update sporadically, many will skip a particular release, many will skip way beyond that release and never see the release note either. Their fault? Sure, but since the software can deal properly with it, it should.

Second, it assumes that when someone discovers the need to migrate their RnD data, they won't already have started using the new version. With the proposed arrangement, some users will discover it years later -- 'HEY! suddenly noticed I have two RnD data directories with two sets of own-levels, with the same numbers, different contents'. Merging that is somewhat advanced surgery for the average user...

Strongly recommend you have the binary always check the situation, forevermore. This means the first run by any user will prompt to look in Documents; subsequent runs won't because the new data dir will show that it was already done. And again, I (less strongly) recommend somewhat mitigating this by having the installer check and leave behind the 'already migrated' note, for the person running the install only. Given the Mac's mostly-single-user nature, that moves almost all such interactions into the more expectable 'at install time' category; yet without leaving any gaps.

Finally, IF the single prompt at install time would be enough to cover inspection of all system users, not just the person running the install, then you might as well do that. Not necessary to subsequently create RnD data dirs for each user: create (migrate) for those users who do have an old data dir; make a list of checked users in global RnD data, naming those who do not therefore don't need to be checked (and prompted) on their first runs.

That does leave a pinhole where e.g. secondary user restores a backup / copies from another machine, into their Documents dir, and subsequently doesn't get migrated. But that requires some effort on the user's part. Here, a 'check for and migrate old data dir' button in the UI would be helpful; but feels more like a 'stretch goal' :)

BTW yeah I blabble a lot, but... I think the implementation of what I tried to describe is pretty simple, not a big burden (possibly less code than the amount of blather written about it!); and better if done once at the outset, than trying to repair things later...

In theory, I agree with all you have said:

- access permission pop-ups at install time are sort of "expected" behavior
- people who update years later will have problems migrating their data
- checking for the old profile directory forever will prevent such problems

In practice, there are the following "complications":

There are usually no installers for "normal" Mac applications. So this does not work here; the program has to handle all this by itself.

Then, I generally think it is not a bad idea to have the user profile inside the "Documents" directory if it contains user generated content that the user might want to access (to zip and mail me a level set, for example). But then, I do understand that an application that randomly accesses the user's private documents is a problem for a company like Apple -- and for any user! A dialog window telling you "this unsigned application you have just downloaded from some web site wants to access your private documents without telling you or using a standard file request dialog" may irritate a user nowadays, where you have to expect bad things from programs not installed via some safe place like the Apple Store, or Play Store, or standard software repository of your distribution. I don't like this situation, but that's the reality today.

In general, expecially Apple is getting stricter and stricter. Did you know that you (more or less) cannot start Rocks'n'Diamonds at all on newer Macs anymore? I didn't know this either, but found out when I re-installed an iMac with the latest macOS for my daughter recently. The usual right-click menu and choose "open anyway" trick after the OS told you that you are about to start nasty and dangerous software on your computer -- that some people might know and some do not -- simply does not work anymore! Instead, you have to navigate to some well-hidden sub-screen of the operating system's settings and select something like "allow this dangerous software from some dark places to run". And to make things completely crazy, this option will automatically disappear one hour after you first tried to start the program!

Conclusion: I have to play by Apple's rules, or nearly nobody will ever be able to download and start R'n'D on a Mac.

This includes paying 99 dollars to Apple each year to be able to sign the program. And it also strongly suggests to not try to access locations on the computer Apple has decided not to access (the way R'n'D does it, that is, not using a file request dialog).

So I think I am forced to do some changes to "play by the rules" and not be banned from running on today's computers.

This includes the Windows platform, of course. While I haven't seen a dialog asking the user if R'n'D is allowed to access the user's documents (which I am sure will come sooner or later), it is getting harder and harder to download and install and run R'n'D on Windows, too: First, Chrome sometimes blocks the download without any notice, because it thinks R'n'D is malware; for the "setup.exe" package of the latest R'n'D version, a dozen AI based malware scanners -- inclusing those of Google and Microsoft -- have decided that this is malware due to some heuristics, which nearly resulted in my domain "artsoft.org" being banned by the registrar with two days notice, which by pure luck happened a few days after my vacation, during which I didn't check my mails at all.

If you somehow managed to download the game, Windows tells you that this is most probably malware which you don't want to start. At least you can still start it anyway from that same dialog after clicking "More information", something which a sufficient number of Windows users know. Not even buying a Microsoft signing certificate (which is much more expensive than the Apple equivalent) really helps here -- Microsoft Smart Screen still thinks this could be malware unless some thousands of users have downloaded and run this software before (which is not very likely with niche games like R'n'D).

Conclusion: I have to play by Microsoft's rules, or nearly nobody will ever be able to download and start R'n'D on Windows.

I don't want to talk much about Android here -- every new version makes it harder to install "independent" apps, and it is only a question of time (and already discussed) to stop sideloading apps completely.

Linux ... well, for now it still seems to work without much trouble. Let's see what the future brings here...

Maybe I should go back to where I was in 1995 and make R'n'D a Linux-only game.