Basic point seems to have been missed

Post #70,950 by rickmoen 12/26/02 4:10:28 PM 12/26/02 4:13:21 PM Reply	Basic point seems to have been missed Ben wrote: Take files on an HFS filesystem. Tar them using standard unix tools. That would be an obvious error, right there, and implies being clueless about how file storage works. The quoted suggestion is -- for anyone who understands how file storage works on MacOS X -- a bad idea regardless of whether you're going to untar them onto UFS or HFS+. So, as the old joke goes, Don't Do That, Then. Part of the point of having most of your filesystem space be UFS is so that you can use standard Unix tools within the UFS majority storage (provided that you transport resources dotfiles with the related regular files). Saying that you can't reliably use such tools to move files onto HFS+ misses the point: You can't reliably use them within HFS+, either. The Church of Steve solution is to use solely the worse filesystem, and deprive yourself completely of standard Unix filehandling tools, "because they're dangerous, and those recommending them are irresponsible". "Fire bad, burn Lorto's finger, cause disharmony among tribe. No future in it. Stick to drawing icons on cave wall." Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already. Edited by rickmoen Dec. 26, 2002, 04:13:21 PM EST Basic point seems to have been missed Ben wrote: Take files on an HFS filesystem. Tar them using standard unix tools. That would be an obvious error, right there, and implies being clueless about how file storage works. The quoted suggestion is -- for anyone who understands how file storage works on MacOS X -- a bad idea regardless of whether you're going to untar them onto UFS or HFS+. So, as the old joke goes, Don't Do That, Then. Part of the point of having most of your filesystem space be UFS is so that you can use standard Unix tools (provided that you transport resources dotfiles with the related regular files). Saying that you can't reliably use such tools to move files onto HFS+ misses the point: You can't reliably use them within HFS+, either. The Church of Steve solution is to use solely the worse filesystem, and deprive yourself completely of standard Unix filehandling tools, "because they're dangerous, and those recommending them are irresponsible". "Fire bad, burn Lorto's finger, cause disharmony among tribe. No future in it. Stick to drawing icons on cave wall." Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already. Collapse All History
Post #70,956 by tuberculosis 12/26/02 4:33:37 PM Reply	Yes you have missed it every time. You can't seem to follow the thread. Ben exactly nailed it. "Take files on an HFS filesystem. Tar them using standard unix tools." Can you manage to follow those directions? Apparently not. I believe cp and mv has similar issues BTW. You say: "That would be an obvious error, right there, and implies being clueless about how file storage works." That would be perhaps one of the more pompous and idiotic things you've ever said. Which is saying a lot. What exactly is obvious about that error? I have a commercial unix, with command line tools, that has a proprietary file system. For the most part the command line tools behave exactly as they do on any other unix. cat, mv, cp, ls, ln, all work like you would expect despite the underlying file system being HFS. And I should obviously expect that with these tools all working as expected that the tar implementation that ships with that system would have issues with the files? Pray tell why? Clearly, the other tools have been modified to work on HFS. It seems to me the very height of reasonable for a vendor shipping an OS with a set of file manipulation utilities would go to a bit of work to extend the utilities to work properly on their file system. The fact that they didn't is what I found really very surprising. Fortunately, the community has answered and some extended utilities have been developed like the aforementioned hfstar, which works exactly like tar - because it is - only on hfs systems it converts the resource forks to the directory wrapper format you keep harping about on your wife's system. Which is basically what I expected Apple would have shipped with the system and called "tar". So shame on Apple for shipping lame assed tools like this. But to imply that this is obvious is - well - really quite stupid. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #70,964 by boxley 12/26/02 4:48:39 PM Reply	I see so to use OSX effectively blow away your 9.x partition with all those legacy apps and data. Reformat to UFS so unix tools will work. Sounds like a winblows solution to me. Use the tool that does the job and have the wisdom to know the difference. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian

Welcome to IWETHEY!