Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #101127 > unrolled thread

Unable to migrate TM's encrypted case sensitive datas to a new drive with non-case sensitive encrypted HFS.

Started by	Ant <ant@zimage.comANT>
First post	2017-02-25 01:07 -0800
Last post	2017-02-25 15:41 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 110 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →

#101186

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-25 21:15 +0000
Message-ID	<eheag6FkbriU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101180

On 2017-02-25, Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-02-25 14:52:52 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
>
>> don't use a case sensitive file system. why would anyone want to do
>> that anyway?
>
> For what it's worth, all of my non-OS filesystems are case-sensitive 
> (with no issues).  Why whould anyone want to do anything else?

It's completely unnecessary.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101187

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2017-02-25 16:25 -0500
Message-ID	<250220171625299628%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#101186

In article <eheag6FkbriU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> don't use a case sensitive file system. why would anyone want to do
> >> that anyway?
> >
> > For what it's worth, all of my non-OS filesystems are case-sensitive 
> > (with no issues).  Why whould anyone want to do anything else?
> 
> It's completely unnecessary.

and makes the simplest things harder.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101203

From	Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Date	2017-02-25 19:35 -0500
Message-ID	<barmar-38263C.19354325022017@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
In reply to	#101187

In article <250220171625299628%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <eheag6FkbriU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > >> don't use a case sensitive file system. why would anyone want to do
> > >> that anyway?
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, all of my non-OS filesystems are case-sensitive 
> > > (with no issues).  Why whould anyone want to do anything else?
> > 
> > It's completely unnecessary.
> 
> and makes the simplest things harder.

Such as?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101214

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 02:34 +0000
Message-ID	<ehet4qFnl7bU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101203

On 2017-02-26, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <250220171625299628%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <eheag6FkbriU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > >> don't use a case sensitive file system. why would anyone want to do
>> > >> that anyway?
>> > >
>> > > For what it's worth, all of my non-OS filesystems are case-sensitive 
>> > > (with no issues).  Why whould anyone want to do anything else?
>> > 
>> > It's completely unnecessary.
>> 
>> and makes the simplest things harder.
>
> Such as?

Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space conflicts are
drastically reduced with case insensitivity, since one no longer has to
be concerned with any potential difference between different
capitalizations of the same string. It's only natural that such
simplicity increases productivity. Simplification of the interface is a
basic human interface design concept. Also as has been mentioned, some
unfortunately popular software is written in such a way that it
malfunctions on case sensitive files systems. There's really no need for
any Mac user to format a native Mac volume with case sensitivity. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101218

From	Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com>
Date	2017-02-25 23:39 -0500
Message-ID	<o8tm1h$2ai$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#101214

On 2017-02-26 02:34:02 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:

> Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space conflicts are
> drastically reduced with case insensitivity

I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have 
reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have 
increased the potential for conflicts - Foo, FoO, and FOO now conflict, 
where before they did not.

> There's really no need for any Mac user to format a native Mac volume 
> with case sensitivity.

Could you be even more dogmatic?  Maybe throw in a little ad hominem, 
like "no *reasonable* person..."

A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101229

From	Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
Date	2017-02-25 21:30 -0800
Message-ID	<o8tp5u$vg5$3@news.datemas.de>
In reply to	#101218

On 2017-02-25 8:39 PM, Alrescha wrote:
> On 2017-02-26 02:34:02 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
>
>> Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space conflicts are
>> drastically reduced with case insensitivity
>
> I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have
> reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have increased
> the potential for conflicts - Foo, FoO, and FOO now conflict, where
> before they did not.

Can you give me one concrete case from your own life where that was an 
important consideration?

>
>> There's really no need for any Mac user to format a native Mac volume
>> with case sensitivity.
>
> Could you be even more dogmatic?  Maybe throw in a little ad hominem,
> like "no *reasonable* person..."
>
> A.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101238

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2017-02-26 02:53 -0500
Message-ID	<260220170253187177%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#101218

In article <o8tm1h$2ai$1@dont-email.me>, Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 
> > Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space conflicts are
> > drastically reduced with case insensitivity
> 
> I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have 
> reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have 
> increased the potential for conflicts

were you actually reaching the limit of the namespace? 

no, you weren't, especially since file names can use the entire unicode
character space and be 255 characters long, making the limit way the
hell more than you could possibly use.

> - Foo, FoO, and FOO now conflict, 
> where before they did not.

as it should.

there is zero reason to have multiple files with the same name in the
same folder. that's just begging for problems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101256

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 15:28 +0000
Message-ID	<ehgahqF1p91U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101218

Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-02-26 02:34:02 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
> 
>> Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space conflicts are
>> drastically reduced with case insensitivity
> 
> I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have 
> reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have 
> increased the potential for conflicts - Foo, FoO, and FOO now conflict, 
> where before they did not.

And how often does that *actually* happen in real-world usage? As a user of
case-preserving file systems daily for many years, I can tell you the
honest answer: roughly never. 

Forcing users to worry about capitalization only complicates matters for
the user. Reducing complication (and, yes, the name space) *improves*
usability.

>> There's really no need for any Mac user to format a native Mac volume 
>> with case sensitivity.
> 
> Could you be even more dogmatic?  

It's the simple truth. For most Mac users there is no need to format as
case sensitive. If you disagree with that statement and wish to discuss it,
I'm all ears.

> Maybe throw in a little ad hominem, 
> like "no *reasonable* person..."

Why? Are you being reasonable?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101257

From	android <here@there.was>
Date	2017-02-26 16:44 +0100
Message-ID	<here-7DBC87.16441126022017@news.individual.net>
In reply to	#101256

In article <ehgahqF1p91U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2017-02-26 02:34:02 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
> > 
> >> Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space conflicts are
> >> drastically reduced with case insensitivity
> > 
> > I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have 
> > reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have 
> > increased the potential for conflicts - Foo, FoO, and FOO now conflict, 
> > where before they did not.
> 
> And how often does that *actually* happen in real-world usage? As a user of
> case-preserving file systems daily for many years, I can tell you the
> honest answer: roughly never. 
> 
> Forcing users to worry about capitalization only complicates matters for
> the user. Reducing complication (and, yes, the name space) *improves*
> usability.

There's no reason to remove the case sensitivity of the filesystem. My 
guess is that this is the consequence of Adobes refusal to let apps work 
from case sensitive filesystems and IIRC on systems with case sensitive 
root directories. That can confuse any "user"...
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101260

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 16:01 +0000
Message-ID	<ehgcdsF212rU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101257

On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> In article <ehgahqF1p91U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2017-02-26 02:34:02 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
>> > 
>> >> Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space
>> >> conflicts are drastically reduced with case insensitivity
>> > 
>> > I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have
>> > reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have
>> > increased the potential for conflicts - Foo, FoO, and FOO now
>> > conflict, where before they did not.
>> 
>> And how often does that *actually* happen in real-world usage? As a
>> user of case-preserving file systems daily for many years, I can tell
>> you the honest answer: roughly never. 
>> 
>> Forcing users to worry about capitalization only complicates matters
>> for the user. Reducing complication (and, yes, the name space)
>> *improves* usability.
>
> There's no reason to remove the case sensitivity of the filesystem.

Reducing complication and improving usability as explained above are
both good enough reasons for me. It's telling that the Mac news groups
and web forums aren't filled with complaints about lack of cases
sensitivity. Most Mac users seem to be perfectly happy to reap the
benefits without complaint.

> My guess is that this is the consequence of Adobes refusal to let apps
> work from case sensitive filesystems

No. Apple's HFS file system have always been case preserving / case
insensitive. And macOS predates Adobe applications; in fact the very
first Adobe application, Adobe Illustrator, was first released in 1987
(three years after the first Mac was introduced) as a Mac-only product.
Apple's decision to go with a case insensitive file system had
absolutely nothing to do with Adobe.

> and IIRC on systems with case sensitive root directories.

Not sure what you are talking about. Can you remember any more?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101265

From	android <here@there.was>
Date	2017-02-26 17:53 +0100
Message-ID	<here-D392BB.17535426022017@news.individual.net>
In reply to	#101260

In article <ehgcdsF212rU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> > In article <ehgahqF1p91U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 2017-02-26 02:34:02 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
> >> > 
> >> >> Nobody can argue with the fact that file system name space
> >> >> conflicts are drastically reduced with case insensitivity
> >> > 
> >> > I hesitate to point out that by removing case sensitivity, you have
> >> > reduced the available namespace by half and thus can only have
> >> > increased the potential for conflicts - Foo, FoO, and FOO now
> >> > conflict, where before they did not.
> >> 
> >> And how often does that *actually* happen in real-world usage? As a
> >> user of case-preserving file systems daily for many years, I can tell
> >> you the honest answer: roughly never. 
> >> 
> >> Forcing users to worry about capitalization only complicates matters
> >> for the user. Reducing complication (and, yes, the name space)
> >> *improves* usability.
> >
> > There's no reason to remove the case sensitivity of the filesystem.
> 
> Reducing complication and improving usability as explained above are
> both good enough reasons for me. It's telling that the Mac news groups
> and web forums aren't filled with complaints about lack of cases
> sensitivity. Most Mac users seem to be perfectly happy to reap the
> benefits without complaint.

Some sees benefits, like moving files from one system to another and 
there is no reason to make that constriction. Those who don't want to 
use it dont have to.
> 
> > My guess is that this is the consequence of Adobes refusal to let apps
> > work from case sensitive filesystems
> 
> No. Apple's HFS file system have always been case preserving / case
> insensitive. And macOS predates Adobe applications; in fact the very
> first Adobe application, Adobe Illustrator, was first released in 1987
> (three years after the first Mac was introduced) as a Mac-only product.
> Apple's decision to go with a case insensitive file system had
> absolutely nothing to do with Adobe.

The fact is that HFS+ is optionally case sensitive FS. The Adobe Reader 
was borked by that the last time I installed but I put it on a scratch 
disk since I didm't want to make a total reinstall on it's behalf.
> 
> > and IIRC on systems with case sensitive root directories.
> 
> Not sure what you are talking about. Can you remember any more?

It's obvious that this is a rather recent system requirement by Adobe. 
This is on example of a user not being able to update its Adobe 
installation since they upped them to include case insensitivity.

<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2629329?start=0&tstart=0>

or

<http://tinyurl.com/j3sj8uc>
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101266

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 17:02 +0000
Message-ID	<ehgg1hF212rU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101265

On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> In article <ehgcdsF212rU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
>>> In article <ehgahqF1p91U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Alrescha <alrescha@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My guess is that this is the consequence of Adobes refusal to let apps
>>> work from case sensitive filesystems
>> 
>> No. Apple's HFS file system have always been case preserving / case
>> insensitive. And macOS predates Adobe applications; in fact the very
>> first Adobe application, Adobe Illustrator, was first released in 1987
>> (three years after the first Mac was introduced) as a Mac-only product.
>> Apple's decision to go with a case insensitive file system had
>> absolutely nothing to do with Adobe.
>
> The fact is that HFS+ is optionally case sensitive FS.

That doesn't change anything I said. Apple's decision to make HFS
default to case insensitive formatting had *nothing* to do with Adobe.

> The Adobe Reader was borked by that the last time I installed

That's Adobe's fault for not supporting case sensitive operating systems
in their Mac product, and your fault for formatting your file system as
case sensitive. Work it out amongst yourselves. The overwhelming
majority of Mac users out there don't have such problems.

>> > and IIRC on systems with case sensitive root directories.
>> 
>> Not sure what you are talking about. Can you remember any more?
>
> It's obvious that this is a rather recent system requirement by Adobe. 

No, that's not obvious at all. Not sure where you get that idea. As far
as I know, Adobe has never supported case sensitive file systems in
their Mac software.

> This is on example of a user not being able to update its Adobe 
> installation since they upped them to include case insensitivity.
>
><https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2629329?start=0&tstart=0>

Nope; as one person replied in that post, "Adobe products have long had
problems with case-sensitive file systems". It's nothing new.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101270

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2017-02-26 12:12 -0500
Message-ID	<260220171212531005%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#101266

In article <ehgg1hF212rU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > The fact is that HFS+ is optionally case sensitive FS.
> 
> That doesn't change anything I said. Apple's decision to make HFS
> default to case insensitive formatting had *nothing* to do with Adobe.
> 
> > The Adobe Reader was borked by that the last time I installed
> 
> That's Adobe's fault for not supporting case sensitive operating systems
> in their Mac product, and your fault for formatting your file system as
> case sensitive. Work it out amongst yourselves. The overwhelming
> majority of Mac users out there don't have such problems.

the reason adobe products have problems with a case sensitive file
system is because they have a suite of apps which share libraries, some
of which are written by third parties, each of which capitalizes things
differently.

they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are actually
affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
effort.

adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
fill, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101272

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 17:16 +0000
Message-ID	<ehggr2F2v79U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101270

On 2017-02-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ehgg1hF212rU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > The fact is that HFS+ is optionally case sensitive FS.
>> 
>> That doesn't change anything I said. Apple's decision to make HFS
>> default to case insensitive formatting had *nothing* to do with Adobe.
>> 
>> > The Adobe Reader was borked by that the last time I installed
>> 
>> That's Adobe's fault for not supporting case sensitive operating systems
>> in their Mac product, and your fault for formatting your file system as
>> case sensitive. Work it out amongst yourselves. The overwhelming
>> majority of Mac users out there don't have such problems.
>
> the reason adobe products have problems with a case sensitive file
> system is because they have a suite of apps which share libraries, some
> of which are written by third parties, each of which capitalizes things
> differently.
>
> they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are actually
> affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
> effort.

Naturally. 

> adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
> customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
> productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
> fill, etc.

Agreed.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101273

From	android <here@there.was>
Date	2017-02-26 18:18 +0100
Message-ID	<here-3121FD.18182026022017@news.individual.net>
In reply to	#101272

In article <ehggr2F2v79U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2017-02-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <ehgg1hF212rU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The fact is that HFS+ is optionally case sensitive FS.
> >> 
> >> That doesn't change anything I said. Apple's decision to make HFS
> >> default to case insensitive formatting had *nothing* to do with Adobe.
> >> 
> >> > The Adobe Reader was borked by that the last time I installed
> >> 
> >> That's Adobe's fault for not supporting case sensitive operating systems
> >> in their Mac product, and your fault for formatting your file system as
> >> case sensitive. Work it out amongst yourselves. The overwhelming
> >> majority of Mac users out there don't have such problems.
> >
> > the reason adobe products have problems with a case sensitive file
> > system is because they have a suite of apps which share libraries, some
> > of which are written by third parties, each of which capitalizes things
> > differently.
> >
> > they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are actually
> > affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
> > effort.
> 
> Naturally. 
> 
> > adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
> > customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
> > productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
> > fill, etc.
> 
> Agreed.

Sock to sock... :-ppp
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101275

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 17:23 +0000
Message-ID	<ehgh7qF2v79U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101273

On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> In article <ehggr2F2v79U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-02-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are actually
>> > affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
>> > effort.
>> 
>> Naturally. 
>> 
>> > adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
>> > customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
>> > productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
>> > fill, etc.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>
> Sock to sock... :-ppp

Stooping to ad hominem attacks means you have nothing relevant to add to
the discussion. And that you actually think nospam and I are the same
person is comical. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101278

From	android <here@there.was>
Date	2017-02-26 18:30 +0100
Message-ID	<here-4BB578.18304026022017@news.individual.net>
In reply to	#101275

In article <ehgh7qF2v79U2@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> > In article <ehggr2F2v79U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On 2017-02-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are actually
> >> > affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
> >> > effort.
> >> 
> >> Naturally. 
> >> 
> >> > adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
> >> > customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
> >> > productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
> >> > fill, etc.
> >> 
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > Sock to sock... :-ppp
> 
> Stooping to ad hominem attacks means you have nothing relevant to add to
> the discussion. And that you actually think nospam and I are the same
> person is comical. : D

That's not a personal attack but just my perception based on the 
obvious. Never said that you two are the same person, BTW...
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101283

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2017-02-26 18:44 +0000
Message-ID	<ehgm02F40ltU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#101278

On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> In article <ehgh7qF2v79U2@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
>> > In article <ehggr2F2v79U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2017-02-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are actually
>> >> > affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
>> >> > effort.
>> >> 
>> >> Naturally. 
>> >> 
>> >> > adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
>> >> > customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
>> >> > productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
>> >> > fill, etc.
>> >> 
>> >> Agreed.
>> >
>> > Sock to sock... :-ppp
>> 
>> Stooping to ad hominem attacks means you have nothing relevant to add to
>> the discussion. And that you actually think nospam and I are the same
>> person is comical. : D
>
> That's not a personal attack

Yes it is. You're avoiding the current topic about case sensitive file
systems and trying to change the subject to one about the people having
the discussion - the classic ad hominem fallacy.

> just my perception based on the obvious. Never said that you two are
> the same person, BTW...

What did you mean by "sock to sock" then? 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101317

From	android <here@there.was>
Date	2017-02-27 06:50 +0100
Message-ID	<here-C48369.06500527022017@news.individual.net>
In reply to	#101283

In article <ehgm02F40ltU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> > In article <ehgh7qF2v79U2@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2017-02-26, android <here@there.was> wrote:
> >> > In article <ehggr2F2v79U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 2017-02-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > they could fix it, but given that the number of people who are 
> >> >> > actually
> >> >> > affected by it are so few to be lost in the noise, it's not worth the
> >> >> > effort.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Naturally. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> > adobe's time is *much* better spent working on useful features their
> >> >> > customers actually want and can use to improve their workflow and
> >> >> > productivity, such as better noise reduction in photos, content-aware
> >> >> > fill, etc.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >
> >> > Sock to sock... :-ppp
> >> 
> >> Stooping to ad hominem attacks means you have nothing relevant to add to
> >> the discussion. And that you actually think nospam and I are the same
> >> person is comical. : D
> >
> > That's not a personal attack
> 
> Yes it is. You're avoiding the current topic about case sensitive file
> systems and trying to change the subject to one about the people having
> the discussion - the classic ad hominem fallacy.

No, sometimes the person is relevant...
> 
> > just my perception based on the obvious. Never said that you two are
> > the same person, BTW...
> 
> What did you mean by "sock to sock" then?

HTH:

<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=manchester+united+players&iar=images&iax=1&ia=
images>

or

<http://tinyurl.com/jmma7kj>
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101292

From	Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date	2017-02-26 21:47 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnob6jbg.1d2t.g.kreme@snow.local>
In reply to	#101265

In message <here-D392BB.17535426022017@news.individual.net> android <here@there.was> wrote:
> It's obvious that this is a rather recent system requirement by Adobe. 

No. Adobe software has never supported case-sensitive file systems.
Ever. On any platform.


-- 
'Long Live The Changing Things To A More Equitable State While Retaining
Due Respect For The Traditions Of Our Forebears And Of Course Not
Harming The August Personage Of The Emperor Endeavour!' --Interesting
Times

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →

csiph-web

Unable to migrate TM's encrypted case sensitive datas to a new drive with non-case sensitive encrypted HFS.

Contents

#101186

#101187

#101203

#101214

#101218

#101229

#101238

#101256

#101257

#101260

#101265

#101266

#101270

#101272

#101273

#101275

#101278

#101283

#101317

#101292