Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Bug Apple

Major Snow Leopard Bug Said To Delete User Data 353

Posted by kdawson
from the clean-as-the-driven-snow dept.
inglishmayjer was one of several readers to send in the news of a major bug in Apple's new OS, 10.6 Snow Leopard, that can wipe out all user data for the administrator account. It is said to be triggered — not every time — by logging in to the Guest account and then back in to the admin account. Some users are reporting that all settings have been reset and most data is gone. The article links to a number of Apple forum threads up to a month old bemoaning the problem. MacFixIt suggests disabling login on the Guest account and, if you need that functionality, creating a non-administrative account named something like Visitor. (The Guest account is special in that its settings are wiped clean after logout.) CNet reports that Apple has acknowledged the bug and is working on a fix.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Snow Leopard Bug Said To Delete User Data

Comments Filter:
  • Oh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:01PM (#29726473) Journal
    Would I be a bad person if I were to suggest that this would be a perfect time to upsell Time Capsules to worried Snow Leopard customers?
    • Re:Oh. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:04PM (#29726513)

      Yes, yes, you would. Because there's an issue with Time Capsule power supplies crapping out ;-)

      • Re:Oh. (Score:5, Funny)

        by moon3 (1530265) on Monday October 12, 2009 @10:11PM (#29727613)
        Great marketing, let me tell you, our Apple drones are so upset over this, they are planing to buy another Mac, just in case one got erased.
        • Re:Oh. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Charles Dodgeson (248492) <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Monday October 12, 2009 @11:13PM (#29728041) Homepage Journal

          our Apple drones are so upset over this, they are planing to buy another Mac, just in case one got erased.

          That's me!

          As an Apple fanboy, I find this bug very embarrassing. From what I read, I do fall into the "very small number of users" that this bug could catch. That is, I've had a guest account before upgrading to Snow Leopard. I guess that I've never been hit by this because I've never logged out of the guest account and then logged in to an admin account. In fact, the guest account and the admin account are both very rarely used. (My account is a "regular" account.)

          The only reason that I've enabled the Guest account is because my Macs (that's plural, so you see I really am a fanboy) have a "phone home" system in case of theft. And I figure that having a guest account will allow the thing, if stolen, to stay in use longer before getting wiped.

          As for back-ups, I don't really think the Time Capsule is something I'd recommend to most users. Instead just use Time Machine with an external drive. I do think that Apple should be given lots of credit for Time Machine. It really makes back-ups so easy there is no excuse for anyone not to make back-ups.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            From what I read, I do fall into the "very small number of users" that this bug could catch. That is, I've had a guest account before upgrading to Snow Leopard. I guess that I've never been hit by this because I've never logged out of the guest account and then logged in to an admin account.

            It is my understanding this bug only occurs if the guest account crashes the system, you reboot, and you then log into an admin account. Further, it only happens some of the time in that instance as everyone has had trouble replicating this bug. So you're probably pretty safe so long as you never log into the admin account unless you know a guest did not crash the machine and reboot before you got to it.

    • Would I be a bad person if I were to suggest that this would be a perfect time to upsell Time Capsules to worried Snow Leopard customers?

      Only if you were an Apple genius doing so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by v1 (525388)

      That does reek of tinfoil hats, but you shouldn't have to have a serious concern to adopt a backup strategy - timecapsule or otherwise.

      That being said, we have yet to see a single person raise this complaint where I work. When one comes in it'll get my full attention and we'll find out why it's happening.

      Speculating somewhat wildly since I don't have a specimen to examine, it probably has to do with the deletion of the temp data from the guest session. Seeing users manage to disconnect their home folder f

      • Re:Oh. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:25PM (#29726741) Journal
        For a while, at any rate, dell was bundling a year or two of some online backup service with their systems, I don't remember which one, nor could I find any reference to it on their site just now.

        What surprises me is that MS hasn't done much in the area(unless you are willing to go all the way to Windows Home Server). Architecturally, Volume Shadow Copy is abundantly powerful and has been available since before Time Machine even hit the scene; but you certainly wouldn't know about it from looking at any of the advertising, documentation, or spec sheets for non-server Microsoft OSes.
        • Re:Oh. (Score:4, Informative)

          by MojoStan (776183) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @01:32AM (#29728817)

          What surprises me is that MS hasn't done much in the area(unless you are willing to go all the way to Windows Home Server). Architecturally, Volume Shadow Copy is abundantly powerful and has been available since before Time Machine even hit the scene; but you certainly wouldn't know about it from looking at any of the advertising, documentation, or spec sheets for non-server Microsoft OSes.

          When accessed from the shell in client versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7, Shadow Copy is often called "Previous Versions." Back when Vista was released, I remember seeing it mentioned in reviews and on Microsoft's product info pages [microsoft.com].

          Maybe it wasn't a "front page" feature because it was only available in Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise (and not Home Premium). Thankfully, MS has corrected this mistake by including this feature (and all other backup features) in Windows 7 Home Premium as well.

      • by afidel (530433)
        I bet that Mozy would have gone in that direction if they hadn't been swallowed by EMC which knows nothing about running a consumer organization.
    • Re:Oh. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kamokazi (1080091) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:21PM (#29726693)
      That may not be a very good idea [arstechnica.com] either...
    • Unix, Linux, Mac, even Windows lovers all agree that the biggest security hole in any operating system is the USER! Delete the worthless user, and the system will be much more secure! Mac needs to capitalize on this feature.

      "Your users are compromising your security? Can't get a handle on all those backdoors? Now, you can delete the user, AND his data! Upgrade to OSX 10.666 now."

    • Re:Oh. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by reSonans (732669) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:07PM (#29727107) Homepage

      I know you're kidding, but Time Capsule has been upsold in the past for a similar reason.

      Remember Backup.app from the .Mac suite? It was touted as a complete remote backup solution for a couple of years, until Apple changed their tune in Knowledge Base articles and began describing it as a modest service intended for browser bookmarks and user settings. The reason? Restoring files was prone to data loss.

      Time Capsule + Time Machine appeared shortly thereafter, and Apple made a big, intentional splash about how this particular hardware and software combination will keep your data safe.

  • by joocemann (1273720) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:06PM (#29726517)

    ... and I'm prone to alzheimers!

    • by langelgjm (860756) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:10PM (#29726563) Journal
      ... and I'm prone to alzheimers!
  • A big thank (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:09PM (#29726559)

    to all early adopters for beta testing Snow Leopard for me.

  • by phillymjs (234426) <slashdot&stango,org> on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:09PM (#29726561) Homepage Journal

    ...the average user is not very likely to get hit by it, fortunately. Hopefully they'll have a fix out quickly nonetheless.

    Having said that, I'd like to ask the affected people why they weren't backing their systems up. When your system comes with a backup utility that you can literally turn on and forget about until you need it, it's pretty damned stupid to not use it.

    ~Philly

    • What is this miraculous automatic backup scheme? The only options I can think of for genuinely automatic backups are either:

      a) Attach an external drive and leave it on
      b) Online storage

      A is vulnerable to common-cause failures (though still better than nothing - it's what I use and it's saved my arse once already) and B is impractical unless you have a small amount of data or an unusually fast internet connection.

    • by MoFoQ (584566)

      not true.

      an average user is more likely to get hit by it as they are more likely to have the Guest account "feature" active.

      funny thing is....a friend of mine later found out that the backup utility (Time Machine) failed the last backup (aka..."set it and forget it" is flawed).

      I'm more amazed that the system ignores user permissions (aka when you're not logged in as an user with admin permissions) and it proceeds to nuke files the user doesn't have "permission" to touch.

      so much for "security"
      man...just imag

      • by MBCook (132727)

        funny thing is....a friend of mine later found out that the backup utility (Time Machine) failed the last backup (aka..."set it and forget it" is flawed).

        That's why time machine has a little icon you can show in your menu bar that shows if the last backup failed.

        an average user is more likely to get hit by it as they are more likely to have the Guest account "feature" active

        From what I've read, this only happens with guest accounts created under Leopard, not guest accounts created under Snow Leopard. You'd

        • I really like Time Machine, but I do have two faults with it. The fact that it requires a separate drive is something of a joke. "Every mac comes with automatic backup software that takes care of everything for you, *tinyfont* once you buy an extra drive */tinyfont*'

          Does it? I suspect that you could make a block file on the main drive and back up to that after formatting, but I haven't tried it. I guess that would still be considered a separate drive, though, so I see your point.

          Second, Time Machine is always scanning my drive checking if it needs to back things up. I'd really like it to try to scan for silent corruption while doing that. If a file changed, but the fileystem data says it hasn't been modified... I'd like a way to see that or be warned.

          That would require a very different difference checking strategy. One that is much more IO intensive. You're basically requiring a full read with every backup pass (and either a checksum or bitwise compare), which time machine executes hourly by default.

          I do, however, wish that there were a

          • by MBCook (132727)

            It needs a partition other than the boot partition. You can repartition your drive and use it as a backup against user error (accidental deletion, etc.). I've done this on my parent's Mac. Obviously, if the drive fails you're in no better shape than if you didn't use time machine. To get the "oops I didn't mean to delete that" function, you have to repartition at minimum. To get the "my drive blew up" function, you need a second drive. Macs have neither of those out of the box, at least in the default confi

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jeremi (14640)

          The fact that [Time Machine] requires a separate drive is something of a joke

          It actually doesn't require a second drive... you can have it back to up another partition on the same drive. It will warn you that you're about to do something stupid, but it will let you do it if you really want to.

          I trust that it's clear why backing up your data to another partition on the same drive is generally a dumb thing to do.

          Second, Time Machine is always scanning my drive checking if it needs to back things up. I'd rea

      • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday October 12, 2009 @11:12PM (#29728037)

        ...an average user is more likely to get hit by it as they are more likely to have the Guest account "feature" active.

        I seriously doubt that. In my experience average users don't even know such a feature exists or care at all about security. They just share a single account with their family and friends and would not see the point of having a separate account for guests.

        The guest account feature is probably used mostly by people who surf porn on the family computer and are moderately savvy about hiding it and by more advanced users who set up a machine for their whole family or who let friends use their machine to look something up. Any feature that is off by default is unlikely to be used by the average user.

        I'm more amazed that the system ignores user permissions (aka when you're not logged in as an user with admin permissions) and it proceeds to nuke files the user doesn't have "permission" to touch.

        Lots of system services have permission to do things the currently logged in user cannot. For example, people logged in as guest users can still see the correct time, despite them having no ability to access the NTP client. That's because the system takes care of business regardless of the user. The problem here is the system, which has access to delete files and change settings the guest user does not, is somehow overzealous i tis cleanup. A similar situation would be an antivirus program running that does not know how to deal with guest accounts that hoses its own permissions and stops working when a guest account logs out. It's not that the guest has permission to mess with the antivirus, just that the OS screws up when the guest account is used for anything.

    • by Huntr (951770) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:39PM (#29726865)

      I'm not one for the holy wars and I hate to sound like I'm defending Microsoft, but if this happened in Windows, people would be at their door with pitchforks and torches. For sure, no one would be admonishing the users.

      See ya, karma. :(

      • by cptdondo (59460) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:11PM (#29727131) Journal

        Hey wait a minute, maybe the T-Mobile and Danger/MS guys tried to port their stuff to Macs....

        I think MS showed us how to lose user data in a big way...

        (Ducking and running for cover) :-)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by garoush (111257)

        No one is playing the holy wars game here. However, us Mac users and /. readers, are blaming this on a developer recently hired by Apple, on compassionate ground to support the developer and his family. Rumors have it that this developer used to work for MS, on the Windows.

      • by corbettw (214229)

        Of course, no one would be the least bit surprised, either.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by NateTech (50881)

        Ahh, I see you've never used Outlook...

    • by rsborg (111459) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:41PM (#29726879) Homepage

      ...the average user is not very likely to get hit by it, fortunately. Hopefully they'll have a fix out quickly nonetheless.

      I'm a Leopard user who didn't upgrade as some software that I use everyday is not ready (till December). However, I'm fairly saavy with my system but my Guest account got "activated" in a previous patch. Now, if this buzz didn't alert me, I would have upgraded and been none the wiser when my data got wiped out (luckily I use SuperDuper regularly).

      Guest accounts are setup by default, IIRC. This is bad for Apple... data loss of any magnitude should be a Priority 0 fix right away bug, not something you leave off to sub-dot-release 10.6.2.

    • by MisterSquid (231834) on Monday October 12, 2009 @10:01PM (#29727523)

      Disclaimer: I am Apple user and have been since my Apple IIe in 1984. I began using Macs in 1991 and have a lot of experience with them. In other words, I'm not your average user and I'm extra careful with my data and my setup. I create a bootable backup before upgrading, etc.

      When I upgrade to Snow Leopard I installed Rosetta because some of the software I depend upon cannot be run without it. While using this piece of amazing and somewhat buggy software [eastgate.com] my screen went blue and I was "spontaneously logged out." I encounter this problem only in the buggy software but I am not the only one experiencing such problems. Apparently there are scores if not hundreds (thousands?) of users affected by this "spontaneous log out [apple.com]." No amount of backing up is going to completely protect you if your computer goes tits up for no discernible reason at all.

      I love me some Apple products but I also recognize some of those products have serious QA issues which are not only unaddressed but Apple has not even acknowledged them. Such bugs are not the fault of "extraordinary" users even if we can understand how a very esoteric and hard-to-replicate bugs may not show up in the testing phase.

  • by cyberworm (710231) <cyberworm.gmail@com> on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:15PM (#29726629) Homepage
    How does something like this make it out of the door? Is this happening on machines that have been upgraded, on fresh installs, or across all platforms. It seems like someone somewhere in the R&D and beta phases should have come across this a lot sooner.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    from the article
    "Snow Leopard has been plagued with bugs since its release, including problems with the Finder hanging or crashing, incompatibility with certain apps, and the AirPort connection dropping"
    wonder how many 100s of posts flaming MS we would get if this was a vista article.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by FlyingBishop (1293238)

      The thing is, flaming Apple is an absolute waste of time. The sort of people who buy Apple are convinced (with decent evidence) that Apple is the Greatest Thing Ever, and nothing short of personally experiencing a catastrophic failure like this will convince them otherwise.

      Windows, on the other hand, is generally recognized (with decent evidence) as a total clusterfuck, so reminding that they could get Linux for free instead of putting up with that shit is actually likely to net some converts.

    • My guess is it would depend how widespread the problem was. There are always Microsoft defenders and attackers on every article, same with Apple defenders and attackers. In the case of Vista, there was UAC and the "Vista Approved" debacle that almost everyone experienced. In this case, it seems its only a few people having problems.

      Besides, Apple fans are often the hardest on Apple (the screen of my iPod scratched and Apple didn't replace it!).
  • by mario_grgic (515333) on Monday October 12, 2009 @08:35PM (#29726829)

    by default, so you have to go out of your way to enable it. I would not do it, if really wanted to allow someone limited local access to the machine, I would create a limited account for that purpose alone.

    • It's a pretty weird idea to have guest account anyway unless it's a terminal computer for public access or unless you were using the computer for some other purpose than it's intent that you'd like to hide (e.g., using a work computer for personal stuff). What I noticed in TFA was that:

      Apparently, Snow Leopard (aka Mac OS X 10.6) has a habit of wiping out "home directories" when a user logs in to a Guest account following an upgrade from Apple's previous operating system: just Leopard (aka Mac OS X 10.5).

      • by microcars (708223)

        It's a pretty weird idea to have guest account anyway unless it's a terminal computer for public access or unless you were using the computer for some other purpose than it's intent that you'd like to hide...

        or unless you got grandkids coming over all the time and wanting to use your computers (ALL of them) for their "homework" at the same time and you don't want them mucking about with renaming your files by banging away on the keyboard at the wrong time.
        I created accounts on each computer for them and they now know how to log out of my account or my wife's account and log in to "their own" account so they can do their "homework" which apparently is hosted on addictinggames.com.
        Hey, what do I care, as long as

  • Well.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:01PM (#29727037)

    They did say that Snow Leopard frees up an extra 7GB for you...

  • Oh man. Nightmare. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi (132515) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:17PM (#29727175) Journal

    If one thing has been burned into my brain as a programmer, it's this:

    Crash all you want, but never, ever, ever harm, corrupt and by all that's holy, NEVER delete the user's data.

    The data is sacred. The data is life.

    • by earthbound kid (859282) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:29PM (#29727265) Homepage

      True, but I can imagine how this happened. The guest user account is designed to erase itself after you log out. So there must have been some screw up to where the "erase user after log out" code got applied to the real user instead of to a guest user. It's a real shame that this wasn't caught in testing before it could burn an end user, but I can see how a bug like this could slip through the cracks.

      Still, the team in charge of the programming guest user account at Apple must feel like absolute crap right now for letting this major bug through.

      • by zippthorne (748122) on Monday October 12, 2009 @10:00PM (#29727507) Journal

        Yeah, they're definitely doing the guest user account wrong. They should be using tmpfs (or whatever OS X equivalent is) for the guest account. Then they don't have to delete anything, it disappears automatically.

        I used to use tmpfs for guest accounts on my ubuntu box for just that reason. That along with encrypted swap files with random keys generated on loading makes "deleting guest data" irrelevant (and lets you resize the temporary device on the fly arbitrarily high by adding more swap if you realize you're going to exceed your available physical ram or allotted space)

        You can populate the guest dir from a new-user template, or use unionfs type dealies.

        What I did was probably all wrong, but my point remains that you shouldn't have to delete stuff when you're done with the guest account. At the most, you should only have to forget a temporary encryption key, which ought to happen automagically in the event of a hard reboot.

    • by Jeremi (14640)

      Crash all you want, but never, ever, ever harm, corrupt and by all that's holy, NEVER delete the user's data.

      Except that if you are going to guarantee that you'll never corrupt or delete the user's data, then you have to guarantee that your program's behavior is well-defined. And usually programs that crash are crashing because they contain errors that lead to undefined behavior.

      So if you want to be sure not to corrupt anything, you pretty much aren't allowed to crash either. (note: even if your program

      • by istartedi (132515)

        Of course you can't make the entire program crash proof, but you can pay particular attention to the parts that might lead to data being deleted, making them the number-1 priority.

        Yes, any bug could lead to deleted or corrupted data; but most don't.

    • Agreed!

      T-Mobile Sidekick user data got deleted as well. [slashdot.org]

      I cannot stress this enough, back up your user data often. Even back up data on your mobile devices and cell phones for they can be deleted as well. Even bugs in Mac OSX can delete user data, and even on a Mac it can have a hard drive failure and wipe out your data. Backing up user data should be a part of everyone's daily if not at least weekly routines.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:20PM (#29727211) Homepage

    We can't get a virus or trojans or....hey, where did my data go?

    • by microcars (708223)
      +1 funny, sorry, I'm on 10.4.11 (Tiger) and I laffed but have no mod points.

      sosumi

      now both of us will be modded as flamebait :(
  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:44PM (#29727371)

    When will software/computer/IT companies be held to the same standards that other engineers (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical) are? If a bridge is built and it collapses due to a poor design, or a gadget catches fire or brakes are poorly designed, people head to their local courthouse and sue.

    In the computer world, people just accept that "All my photographs, resume, music, documents, tax returns, whatever" being lost forever is par for the course.

    How do you measure the value of data? You can't assign $/KB of data, as one couldn't equate a 20MB Stephen King unpublished manuscript to be equivalent to 4 hi-res pictures of my wife's flower garden. However, I'm not a fan or Stephen King, but my wife loves her flower garden.

    Should computers (or electric devices in general) with persistent storage carry a huge warning label on them that says,

    "Not guaranteed to maintain data integrity, always back up your data. Use at your own risk."

    • by raddan (519638) * on Monday October 12, 2009 @11:34PM (#29728209)
      Software is held to the same standards, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Bridges and gadgets catching fire can kill you. Your wife losing a few photos is regrettable, but... come on.

      There is software which can kill you if it malfunctions. Avionics software (which spawned all kinds of guidelines, laws, and specialized programming languages), industrial control software, power network software, and so on. I assure you that people can be sued over poor design in these areas.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chdig (1050302)
      Well, you're definitely not a programmer are you?

      "bridge must withstand x pounds and last y years" is a pretty straightforward requirement for a bridge. "Don't go bang and burn down a house" is similarly so for a gadget. Software, however has a multitude of requirements -- and of different kinds, be it speed, usability, security, interoperability, and on and on. And that's not even to mention that software is usually expected to do a number of actual tasks for the user. In the end, an OS has likely mi
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HockeyPuck (141947)

        I am not a programmer, but my career has been built on managing storage (disk, vtl and tape). While data loss cannot kill you, in the physical sense. I'm sure that if you lost something that was irreplaceable or unrecreateable. We've heard of the 'mental anguish' that people who have lost their WoW characters have suffered from. I think some of them even committed suicide.

        If EMC/HDS/HP/IBM released disk array firmware/microcode that corrupted user data, you can bet their customers/corporations would be

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Your.Master (1088569)

          Your argument is still skipping the step where something of incredibly high sentimental value is even remotely like those other situations where it's peoples' (plural, in each case) lives on the line.

          You simply cannot replace the word computer with bridge/airplane/car brakes, unless the computer is actually in a system where multiple lives depend upon it, which, it wasn't (although there actually ARE computer components to airplane, traffic lights, many car brakes, and drawbridges).

          You can maybe replace it

    • by slamb (119285) * on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @12:32AM (#29728529) Homepage

      When will software/computer/IT companies be held to the same standards that other engineers (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical) are? If a bridge is built and it collapses due to a poor design, or a gadget catches fire or brakes are poorly designed, people head to their local courthouse and sue.

      When consumers are willing to wait (much) longer, pay (much) more, and/or get (much) less powerful software for the "not warranted for any particular purpose" to be removed from the license text. Don't hold your breath.

      It's entirely possible to make software that is rock-solid and that people will legally stand behind. But something has to be sacrificed to do so, and I don't imagine consumers will want that trade-off any time soon for the software on their desktop. Rather, people just complain about software developers not taking responsibility without really understanding what that would mean. It's like the old adage - good, fast, cheap, pick any two (if you're lucky). Unless the developers are just incompetent (which theoretically in non-monopolies the market will correct), it's hard to improve in one way without sacrificing something else. Software development is cumulative, so there's some hope of improvement over time - essentially you can mitigate the sacrifice of development speed through reuse - but that only takes you so far.

      Should computers (or electric devices in general) with persistent storage carry a huge warning label on them that says,

      What difference would it make? I think that it's common knowledge that you should take backups. Would putting that in warning label form make it more likely for people to actually do so?

    • by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @12:44AM (#29728579)

      When will software/computer/IT companies be held to the same standards that other engineers (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical) are?

      When you start paying $100,000 for an operating system?

  • The cloud! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Gudeldar (705128) on Monday October 12, 2009 @09:52PM (#29727429)
    If their data had been in the cloud this wouldn't have ... oh damn never mind.
  • by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Monday October 12, 2009 @10:56PM (#29727933) Journal
    Steve Jobs clearly intended for this to happen, as it's called iClean and is a service whereby the clutter of the Administrative account is eliminated. You do not need any functionality or data beyond which Apple already supplies, so in an effort to keep your computer healthy iClean will auto-scrub your account.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...