# 10.1.2 Released



## vidiot1701 (Dec 20, 2001)

10.1.2 finally showed up in my Software Update.  Just an FYI.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 20, 2001)

The install went just fine... seems faster, but then... I am not using it 100% of the time so I sometimes forget. 

Admin


----------



## Leonis (Dec 20, 2001)

I saw the ATIRagePro.kext and ATIRageProGa.plugin in the system/library folder


----------



## simX (Dec 20, 2001)

My install is at the last few pixels of optimization.  

IF OS X 10.1.2 DOES NOT HAVE SSL SUPPORT IN MAIL, I WILL PERSONALLY LAUNCH A NUKE AT APPLE'S HEADQUARTERS.  Just thought you all might like to know. 

UPDATE: Oh, just so you guys all know, I'll be nuking Apple's headquarters tomorrow, unless someone can stop me by showing how to activate SSL support in Mail.


----------



## mindbend (Dec 20, 2001)

The 10.1.2 update is not yet available thru Apple's support subsite. Anyone know where I can get a direct download? I suppose it'll be there very soon tho, so maybe I'll just wait. I like to get direct downloads so I can take them in to work where I don't have a cable modem and update.

Or is there a way in Software Update to save the download?


----------



## SCrossman (Dec 20, 2001)

Downloaded, installed, optimized in 25 minutes with nary a hitch!
When I updated my iMac it showed a MacOS X Update Combined at 35.2mb and 30 on the cube.
Before I ran the update, I restarted and did an fsck -y and fixed a few problems.
Sure beats a Windows Update with confusing html pages. !!

Dock Paranoia seems to be gone, at least here. (well, you cannot put icons beneath the dock)

Classic wanted to be updated. And that worked too. The iMac finished in almost the same time, 26 minutes.
Now for the CDRW and printer test!
Printer still works, after the first warning error comes up, I click retry and it works, like before. Always happens after sleep or Classic loads.

Go Apple !


----------



## SCrossman (Dec 20, 2001)

> _Originally posted by testuser _
> *Whoa there simX!  Have you spent the last five years in an Afghani training camp?
> 
> *



We saw it here first.


----------



## Ralph J. (Dec 20, 2001)

hmmmm...seems snappier. classic launches faster now. 

what else is new or changed? post your observations to this thread.

edit: i've noticed there's now more options in the contextual menus for the finder, mail and stickies.


----------



## simX (Dec 20, 2001)

I am just really tired of having to launch Outlook Express to get my university mail.  REALLY, REALLY tired.  Not only because it's a Microsoft product, but also because it's a Classic application (NO, I will not pay for Entourage).  Damnit, when is Mail.app SSL support gonna come?


----------



## gerbick (Dec 20, 2001)

ok.  does anybody see anything different?

I do, however, think that I'm booting up faster now.  Am I the only one to think so?


----------



## Ralph J. (Dec 20, 2001)

yeah, i noticed an improvement in boot-up time as well.


----------



## swizcore (Dec 20, 2001)

My boot up time still blows but I think thats cause I am booting from a PCI ATA card. When i boot my theme testing volume which is on the stock Apple bus it boots REALLY fast.BUT the drive is only 5400rpm whereas my normal boot drive is a 7200rpm. Guess I could swap the two. eh. maybe.
Im running OSX Server and the install finished and all but about this Mac still says Mac OS X Server 10.1.1 Build 5N13. blah.


----------



## simX (Dec 20, 2001)

Can you guys check on your Script Editor application in the
/Applications/AppleScript folder?  My application still says in the "Get Info" dialog that it is at version 1.7.  OS X 10.1.2 was supposed to update AppleScript to version 1.8.  Anybody else notice this?


----------



## Ralph J. (Dec 20, 2001)

mine says 1.7 as well.


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 20, 2001)

Mine still says 1.7 too.  It says it updates to Applescript 1.8 but doesn't say it updates the editor to 1.8.  Maybe it just change the Applescript runtime?


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 20, 2001)

I also noticed that Apple seems to have changed the way they are drawing windows when they are resized.  It doesn't appear that the windows are being redrawn as many times when the windoew is resized, and is therefore faster.  Still not as good as it should be IMHO but it's much better.

My boot time seems about the same and is faster than my 1.4GHz Athlon running win2k.


----------



## ddma (Dec 20, 2001)

My iBook 600, 256MB, 20GB (2MB buffer) just got updated to OS X 10.1.2. I found that there are some improvement as well.

1. Window-resizing speed is faster, but still naggy if compare with P!!! 600 running Windows XP. Resizeing in Entourage / IE are still terriable.  

2. Classic "launch time" is faster, "start up time" is still slow anyway.

3. Icons still away from the edge a mile if I set my dock to right... I hope it could be fixed some day...

4. OS X start up time is much faster! Blah!

5. Applications' launch time is faster! Yeah!

Up to now... It is better than 10.1.1.


----------



## gerbick (Dec 20, 2001)

guys, open the Script Editor, and then hit about AppleScript - it's 1.8.1


----------



## simX (Dec 20, 2001)

Good, gerbick.  Never noticed that.  I guess Apple DID just update the AppleScript runtime.  Although what annoys me is that the Script Editor doesn't record anymore in OS X (never has in OS X, but did perfectly in OS 9).  Does it record for anyone else?


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 20, 2001)

> _Originally posted by gerbick _
> *guys, open the Script Editor, and then hit about AppleScript - it's 1.8.1 *



Yep, you're right.


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 20, 2001)

When I hit record, it looks like it's working but when I do something, nothing shows up in the editor window, so I guess it's not recording.


----------



## ZeroAltitude (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi all,

I want to (1) post my findings, (2) get advice about anything I might have done wrong, or (3) get advice about how I might improve something that might be slowing my system down.

Because, it seems that after installing the OSX update, my system runs noticeably slower, for a few things, and faster for nothing.  Nothing serious, but here are some examples:

1.  bootup.  I'm a nerd: I timed my bootup in OSX (actually, I timed *reboots*) and Win2k and WinXP.  My bootup time in OSX 10.1.1 was right around 70 seconds.  I just did a time test just now, and with OSX 10.1.2, it was right around 2 minutes (120 seconds).  Much of that extra time appears after the 'loading extensions' like window, and before the login screen, at the blank blue window.  Feels to me like new services running, or, slower DHCP/Network join on my network.

2.  launch first application.  After logging in, I used to be able to launch e.g. Terminal pretty fast, immediately.  Now when I logging in, there is about 20 or 30 seconds of disk chatter.  If I try to launch Terminal, it seems to take roughly twice as long.  If I wait for the disk chatter to die down, I would say that the launch time is rather comparable to how it was before 10.1.2.

Some details about my machine:

TiBook 667 (standard 30 Gig drive config)
all latest updates applied in order as they were released (this goes for OS9.2.2 as well)
Developer Pack installed
Samba installed
Virtual PC 5.0 installed

Other than that, a pretty vanilla system.  If anyone has any ideas, or similar experiences, please let me know.  You can reach me at abrams@philos.umass.edu.  I'll try to check back here.

Another interesting tidbit I wanted to mention is the funny bug I've seen all along with sorting files by Size in the single-column-folder view.  Has anyone else noticed that trying to do this 'crashes' the folder view, in such a way that it never lets you accurately view that folder in single-column-mode again until you do something unusual to let you?

Anyway, I love my mac.  I love OSX.  If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears.

-ZeroAltitude


----------



## ddma (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi,

I just tired sort by size but nothing happened. It just did what it supposed to.


----------



## ZeroAltitude (Dec 21, 2001)

Hi,

ddma: weird!  I wonder if I have a funny setting set that causes this bug to manifest.  Hmm.  Anyone else?  I posted under the troubleshooting thread a 'use case' to reproduce the bug (I work with QA all the time ).  

Here is more info regarding my slower startup:

1.  Listening to the startup, it sounds like more daemons or services are starting up.  I did not try to run anything when I logged in, and upon logging in, I noticed that the disk chatter continued for 2 minutes.  Further, it was the kind of disk chatter that I would associate with a failed daemon startup (i.e. a bunch of clicks, a WAIT_TIMEOUT, a bunch of clicks (RETRY), a WAIT_TIMEOUT, etc.)

What's the best way to tell what service this is?  A look in /var/log/system.log was unhelpful.

-ZeroAltitude
abrams@philos.umass.edu


----------



## ScottW (Dec 21, 2001)

Maybe I am smoking crack, or maybe it's because I jump between OS X & OS 9 so much that I really have no clue what I am talking about BUT....

Classic RUNS faster! I am running Photoshop with no complaints. (I still think OS X's mouse is rather loose compared to OS 9) I am running Outlook Express classic and it rocks. The windows move around, everything seems much snapier.. except my terminal issue, but that is another thread.

I will give it a few days and see if I am back in OS 9. But, in all honesty, this latest upgrade rocks.

Admin


----------



## ThE OutsiDer (Dec 21, 2001)

Is window buffering enabled now?





And if so will it make my G3 400 feel like a dual G5 2 ghz?


----------



## snoozer (Dec 21, 2001)

Can someone please post the build number?

I'm sure many of you know this, but for those who don't: go to the Apple menu, select "About This Mac", and click where it says "Version 10.1.2".  It should change to say "Build XXXX".

TIA,
--Andy


----------



## edX (Dec 21, 2001)

people with slow startups, when is the last time you defragmented and optimized your hd's? all that noise described in one post sounds like the pieces just might need to be closer to each other.  just my guess. i just did a defrag and optimize on saturday and i am getting the boots faster result so far. it was taking quite a while before the optimization.

admin - i remember when 9.2 came out. it improved the speed of 10.0.4 immediately, bigger gains were found when combined with 10.1.  so it makes sense to me that it can work the other way around as well, this might make your classic run better. after all the balance between them is a crucial factor that sperates dual boot from using either alone.

of course, maybe you should just be sharing the smoke


----------



## VicRattlehead (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *people with slow startups, when is the last time you defragmented and optimized your hd's? all that noise described in one post sounds like the pieces just might need to be closer to each other.  just my guess. i just did a defrag and optimize on saturday and i am getting the boots faster result so far. it was taking quite a while before the optimization.
> *



ok im new to the Mac can you please tell me how to defrag and optimize please, i know how to defrag a pc but not a mac.

thanks


----------



## tismey (Dec 21, 2001)

But Typeit4Me X is finally out. Christmas is here early!!

I like drinking at work....


----------



## rharder (Dec 21, 2001)

simx, if you're talking about a university system, you're probably fortunate enough to have ssh access to your mail server. You can use the ssh tunnelling to keep a secure connection. To encrypt a pop session (port 25, right?):
	
	



```
% [b]ssh -l [i]username[/i] -L 1234:pop.univ.edu:25[/b]
```
and to encrypt the outgoing SMTP session:
	
	



```
% [b]ssh -l [i]username[/i] -L5678:smtp.univ.edu:110[/b]
```
I'd suggest making a little script and putting it someplace handy to set up the connection. Now tell Mail.app that your mail server is "localhost", the pop port is 1234 and the smtp port is 5678.

If Mail doesn't let you specify ports (I don't remember) you'll have to do something like ...-L 25op.univ.edu:25... and ...-L 110op.univ.edu:110... and you'll have to be root (or sudo) to do it.

Cheers.

-Rob


----------



## benpoole (Dec 21, 2001)

OK, it's just carbon. But it has SSL support AFAIK...

http://www.eudora.com


----------



## kemistry (Dec 21, 2001)

Yeah, IrDA ist there, finally on my TiBook 400. This is one thing I was missing a lot.
Does anyone know if one can use the OS 9 modem descriptions? Or were do I find one for my Siemens mobile?


----------



## genghiscohen (Dec 21, 2001)

For the curious, the build of 10.1.2 is 5P48.


----------



## WoLF (Dec 21, 2001)

thanks ghengis i was just about to ask for it


----------



## AlanCE (Dec 21, 2001)

oddly enough, this update will not fully download at my workplace. Other updates have all been fine for every OS X and product update so far, but 10.1.2 is kaput. My coworker found some obscure thing on apple's site saying to create a new administrative user, log in as him, let the system do an auto-software-update, log out and log back in as your normal user, check to make sure the OS updated, then delete the other user.
Bullsh1t, ain't gonna do it, 10.1.1 works great


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 21, 2001)

To defrag and optimize a Mac, you need something like the latest Norton Utilities/Systemworks or Techtool Pro.


----------



## WoLF (Dec 21, 2001)

I'm having the same problem here at the office. it will partially download but wont finish. Its really making me mad that software update doesn't work. 

Also my burner is not recognized by anything [toast, discburner, itunes] (stupid ass portable sony burner my dad lets me use after he sold my perfectly fine 12x burner.)  

None of the websites have the 10.1.2 update on it. I have a beta copy of it, but hell if I install that it will probably bomb my whole system.


----------



## 01000111 (Dec 21, 2001)

I have a pismo pb with only a 10GB hard drive. The OSX partition is at 2GB, and I keep most data and apps on another partition, but it still leaves me at any time with only about 250MB of free space. Every system upgrade requires at least 300MB of free space and for the life of me I can't figure out why. This 10.1.2 upgrade is no different despite being only a 30MB download!

It really is beginning to drive me nuts. I have to start pulling parts of the system off to another partition just to make the upgrade. Here's the kicker. I use Software Update to save the upgrade pkg to another partition, then ran it from there. It said that the upgrade would need only 185MB to install. Relieved I moved back the folders (like the 50MB /library/printers/ folder) I had removed to make room for the upgrade and ran the installer again. This time it wouldn't let me install because I didn't have 300 MB free anymore?

Can anyone tell me why these upgrade installers need 300MB free when they're only a 30MB download (i understand compression can inflate that some) and when the installer itself tells you specifically (only if you already have 300MB free) that it really only needs 185MB free.

 

I'm sure all this will be solved when Santa brings me a 48GB internal hard drive upgrade next week, if he got my list...


----------



## simX (Dec 21, 2001)

rharder:  I am really interested in doing that.  Could you explain a little bit more, though, like where to put the script, how to get Mail to recognize it and whatnot.  I'm kind of confused as how to implement it.

benpoole:  I tried the Eudora beta.  Absolutely awful.  First off, it didn't even work when I tried to use SSL or Kerberos, and second, the interface is all cluttered.  It would be just so nice if I could use Mail.app.


----------



## WoLF (Dec 21, 2001)

os 10.1.2 update
http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=8848&db=macosx


----------



## hazmat (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Ralph J. _
> *hmmmm...seems snappier. classic launches faster now.
> 
> what else is new or changed? post your observations to this thread.
> ...



Ralph, what differences in the Finder context menus did you see?  I haven't noticed any differences.


----------



## 01000111 (Dec 21, 2001)

did anyone else notice that the docs for apache /Library/Documentation/Services/apache/ changed in a bad way. (now, I can't say for sure that it wasn't broken before, cause I'm not sure, just that it is broken now) it seems that many of the html pages have been named with a duplicate '.html', as in 'index.html.html'. about 31 of the files are affected thusly, and it makes navigating the docs via a web browser impossible until each name is changed to remove the extra '.html'. I'm guessing that someone had extension hiding turned on and mistakenly added an extra extension to the updated files.

Just thought it was worth pointing out.

l8r)


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 21, 2001)

I noticed that that happened to me too.  I'm hosting 2 sites on my machine for development purposes, so I have 2 virtual hosts setup.  Of course, doing that messes up with the page that you would normally get when you go to http://localhost/

I tried taking out the virtual hosts in the httpd.conf file and the default page for http://localhost/ returned, and somehow I was able to browse the documentation, even the files that were named .html.html somehow were found, when it should have been just looking for the .html files

Anyways, I thought that the .html.html was supposed to be like that for some reason, and that the documentation files when viewed from http://localhost/ were treated differently somehow.

I guess I'm going to change those extensions now so I can actually view the documentation.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 21, 2001)

That is very odd.  But, did you notice that for every whatever.html.html there is a whatever.html ?  I never touched this stuff, so I don't know what is what, but how do the x.html and x.html.html compare, if you have modified any?  Did you do a diff?


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 21, 2001)

I only have x.html.html
I made a duplicate of one file and named it x.html


----------



## onan (Dec 21, 2001)

This should probably be moved to a different thread, but...

Quick background: ssh is a tool for creating encrypted tunnels between machines, and routing connections through those tunnels. The most common use is just to send a single interactive shell login through there, but you can do the same thing with any tcp connection.

So you can ssh from your computer to your mail server, and tell ssh to also to an additional port on your computer, and forward connections to it through the tunnel, to a specified port on another  machine.

Example:

ssh -L 10110:mailserver.name.edu:110 mailserver

Authenticate, and you'll just have a normal shell.  Then tell your mail client to use localhost as a mail server, and port 10110. Mail.app will then connect to port 10110 on your machine, on which ssh will be listening, and will be forwarded to your pop service.

You can tie as many forwards onto a single ssh tunnel as you choose. eg:  ssh -L 10110opserver.edu:110 -L 10025:smtpserver.edu:25 server

(Note that the above poster was a little mistaken, and smtp is 25, and pop 110.)

It's slightly more awkward than just having your mail client speak ssl itself, but it's much more versatile; a handy tool to have around.


----------



## Ralph J. (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by hazmat _
> *
> 
> Ralph, what differences in the Finder context menus did you see?  I haven't noticed any differences. *




hmmm... i thought "Show Info" was new, but maybe it's been there all along and i never noticed before. i'm not much of a contextual menu user, i'm more keyboard shortcut oriented.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Ralph J. _
> *
> 
> 
> hmmm... i thought "Show Info" was new, but maybe it's been there all along and i never noticed before. i'm not much of a contextual menu user, i'm more keyboard shortcut oriented. *



It was always there.   I use the right mouse button all the time.


----------



## Ralph J. (Dec 21, 2001)

oh, okay. my bad.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 21, 2001)

Your only bad is that you don't use the context menu enough. ;-)  Uif you don't already have one, get a 2/3-button or wheel mouse and expand your horizons.  The wheel works really well in OS X, too.


----------



## simX (Dec 21, 2001)

The .html.html problem is related to another problem in OS X, where you can add a .html to the file name and it will add it instead of unhiding the file extension.  This is probably why it became .html.html.  Also, the .html files are older than the .html.html files, so I would assume that the .html.html files are the ones for this version of Apache.  So I suggest tossing all the .html files that have a .html.html substitute, and rename the .html.html files to .html.  Did that make sense? 

About the using SSH thing with Mail.app -- I couldn't get it to work.  The server that I connect to to get my mail in Outlook Express is sim.pobox.stanford.edu.  So does that mean that the command should look like this?:

ssh -L 10110:sim.pobox.stanford.edu:110 sim.pobox.stanford.edu

If this isn't correct, please correct me.  Also, what's with the port 110?  Is that the port that SSL authentication uses?


----------



## mindbend (Dec 21, 2001)

OK, good, it's not just me. I swore I was seeing faster windows resizes on my G4, tho my iMac was still a bit sluggish. I would finally put redraws on a G4 450 at "comfortable", tho in need of an adrenalin boost to finish it off. I presume faster DP machines easily make up the difference and approach glass smoothness. They damn well better anyway.


----------



## blb (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> ...
> 
> ...



The reason it didn't work is sim.pobox.stanford.edu appears not to have an ssh server running.  If it did, however, the command line looks good.  What it is basically doing is tunneling your POP traffic (port 110) through ssh to the other machine, thereby encrypting it, like SSL would do.  Then you have your mail program talk POP to localhost's port 10110.


----------



## Javintosh (Dec 21, 2001)

There is one new things that I am really happy about... At ling last downloaded files/mounted volumes are not pushed two inches to the left on my screen just because the filename falls under the dock. (See enclosed pix)

This alone makes this update worth its weight in gold.


----------



## hazmat (Dec 21, 2001)

Here's one improvement, if I am correct.  So far, since 10.1.2, I haven't had to log out and log back in when changing app icons.

And the problem, sort of, is that both my home and work Macs reported problems during the 10.1.2 upgrade, and made me save the upgrade to a file and apply it that way.  Worked fine executing the file, but not through Software Update.


----------



## simX (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by blb _
> *
> 
> The reason it didn't work is sim.pobox.stanford.edu appears not to have an ssh server running.  If it did, however, the command line looks good.  What it is basically doing is tunneling your POP traffic (port 110) through ssh to the other machine, thereby encrypting it, like SSL would do.  Then you have your mail program talk POP to localhost's port 10110. *



So an ssh server is different from SSL authentication?  I thought that maybe SSL authentication just used the ssh shell.  Whatever.

Is there any OTHER way via the Terminal that will allow Mail.app to receive e-mails from such a server?


----------



## blb (Dec 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *
> 
> So an ssh server is different from SSL authentication?  I thought that maybe SSL authentication just used the ssh shell.  Whatever.
> ...



Yup, ssh is different from SSL.  ssh, secure shell, is a secure replacement for rsh/rcp/telnet/ftp and also lets you do things like port tunneling to encrypt otherwise unencrypted traffic.  SSL, secure socket layer, is a way of encrypting traffic at the network socket layer.  The big difference between ssh's port tunneling and using SSL is SSL has to be built into the application, but ssh can be used with applications which don't support any secure method of communication.

As for a Terminal-based method to do SSL-wrapped POP, fetchmail comes with Mac OS X, and it has support for SSL.  Haven't looked to see if Apple compiled it in, but it may be worth a shot.


----------



## edX (Dec 22, 2001)

good golly miss molly!!
this thread reads like a cocktail party conversation. I've been too busy to play with it much since upgrading but to add a little more to the answer about how to defrag & optimize - this requires buying a software program. I will give my opionions of the major three - all of which i own.

1. techtool pro - also a good diagnostic and repair tool, includes a virus checker. is perhaps the best value of all. defrag is done seperately from optimization and will at times only defrag if certain conditions are not met. claims to be completely safe in preventing loss of data in case of interruption. drawback - slowest of the three.

2. optimizer plus - can be bought alone or with diskwarrior - i recommend getting the combo. diskwarrior saved my drive when all others failed recently. op is also interuption safe and does partials in case of obstacles. it is slightly faster than TTP.

3. speed disk - part of Norton utilities which also diagnoses and repairs. fastest of them all. can lose all your data if interrupted. defrags and optimizes in one sweep but will not circumvent obstacles. least recommended but the one most people have because they advertise and promote the most .

the latest version of all these work with osx but must be run from another disk using 9. 

so simx , you were saying...


----------



## Captain Code (Dec 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *The .html.html problem is related to another problem in OS X, where you can add a .html to the file name and it will add it instead of unhiding the file extension.  This is probably why it became .html.html.  Also, the .html files are older than the .html.html files, so I would assume that the .html.html files are the ones for this version of Apache.  So I suggest tossing all the .html files that have a .html.html substitute, and rename the .html.html files to .html.  Did that make sense?
> *



Now that I'm changing the names of my .html.html files to only .html, I noticed that only some files on my machine with the .html extension are older than the .html.html while a few have the same date as the .html.html


----------



## blb (Dec 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by devonferns _
> *
> 
> Now that I'm changing the names of my .html.html files to only .html, I noticed that only some files on my machine with the .html extension are older than the .html.html while a few have the same date as the .html.html *



Odd, all of my .html.html files are newer (or don't have a .html equivalent at all):


```
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  4781 Mar 15  2001 bind.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  5680 Oct 17 22:25 bind.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  3918 Nov  8  2000 cgi_path.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  4568 Oct 17 22:25 cgi_path.html.html
ls: configuring.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  10559 Oct 17 22:25 configuring.html.html
ls: custom-error.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  6720 Oct 17 22:25 custom-error.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  8124 Mar 15  2001 dns-caveats.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  9095 Oct 17 22:25 dns-caveats.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  12075 Jul 18 17:44 env.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  13622 Oct 17 22:25 env.html.html
ls: handler.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  6448 Oct 17 22:25 handler.html.html
ls: index.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  9384 Oct 17 22:25 index.html.html
ls: install.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  8964 Oct 17 22:25 install.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  5262 Mar 15  2001 invoking.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  6180 Oct 17 22:25 invoking.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  3624 Nov  8  2000 keepalive.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  4227 Oct 17 22:25 keepalive.html.html
ls: new_features_1_3.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  38924 Oct 17 22:25 new_features_1_3.html.html
ls: server-wide.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  11504 Oct 17 22:25 server-wide.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  8475 Jul 18 17:44 stopping.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  9468 Oct 17 22:25 stopping.html.html
ls: suexec.html: No such file or directory
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  22984 Oct 17 22:25 suexec.html.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  16202 Mar 15  2001 win_service.html
-rw-rw-r--  1 root  admin  18618 Oct 17 22:25 win_service.html.html
```


----------

