Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #105802 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-28 22:55 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-04-29 21:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 49 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-28 22:55 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2017-04-28 20:47 -0700
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-04-29 18:52 +1200
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-29 04:15 -0700
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 09:50 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-29 18:19 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 09:50 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-04-29 23:41 +1200
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-29 13:47 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-04-29 20:58 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-04-30 13:13 +1200
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 21:23 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-04-30 18:58 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-30 15:04 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions android <here@there.was> - 2017-04-30 21:46 +0200
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-30 16:35 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-30 16:37 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-30 16:43 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-30 16:47 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-30 23:11 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-01 08:51 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-05-02 11:40 +1200
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-01 19:45 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 19:30 -0700
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-01 22:44 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-01 20:36 -0700
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-02 00:17 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-01 23:47 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-02 09:02 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-30 23:06 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2017-05-01 12:43 +1200
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-30 23:09 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-01 03:45 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-05-01 08:56 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Don Bruder <Don@sonic.net> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-30 23:47 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-30 21:35 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-05-01 02:55 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-29 18:14 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 09:50 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-29 13:50 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 13:53 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-29 18:24 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-29 15:12 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-29 15:15 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-29 20:13 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-04-29 21:35 -0400
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-30 01:43 +0000
Re: OS-X and missing file extensions Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-04-29 21:00 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5904d273$0$61892$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105831 |
On 2017-04-29 09:50, nospam wrote: > apfs will need to support resource forks because a lot of existing > files have them. Out of curiosity, what modern apps continue to make use of resource forks? Also, is it correct to state that the "Resources" directory inside an app bundle is NOT considered a "resource fork" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 13:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290420171353038662%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #105849 |
In article <5904d273$0$61892$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > apfs will need to support resource forks because a lot of existing > > files have them. > > > Out of curiosity, what modern apps continue to make use of resource forks? finder > Also, is it correct to state that the "Resources" directory inside an > app bundle is NOT considered a "resource fork" ? it's not correct. however, what would have previously been kept in a resource fork is now there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <emk433Fdv4pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #105849 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-04-29 09:50, nospam wrote: > >> apfs will need to support resource forks because a lot of existing >> files have them. > > Out of curiosity, what modern apps continue to make use of resource forks? Finder, for one. Creating an alias creates a multi-fork file. > Also, is it correct to state that the "Resources" directory inside an > app bundle is NOT considered a "resource fork" ? That's just a folder. -- 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]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 15:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5904e59c$0$53746$c3e8da3$3304c218@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105859 |
On 2017-04-29 14:24, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Finder, for one. Creating an alias creates a multi-fork file.
I seem to recall something about aliases no longer supported in APFS,
but can't remember if hard link, symbolic links or Finder aliases.
Taken a look at one.
A finder Alias has 2 extended attributes.
com.apple.FinderInfo: (32 bytes starts with fapaAMPR )
and
com.apple.ResourceFork (very long)
It has a path to the original in "MacOS" instead of Unix specification
(: instead of /),(Ironically, Finder "Get Info" about an alias shows the
original location in Unix syntax !
As well there are icon resources in the "com.apple.ResourceFork"
extended attribute.
Is it correct to state that the Unix side of OS-X treats Finder alias
files as simple files with 0 bytes of data?
Where are extended attributes stored? In the file catalogue, or in
blocks allocated for the file's data with some offset in the file
tatalogue to point to where data actually begins?
("ls" shows 0 bytes, and resource fork as extended attribute, but Finder
shows Aliases randung from 62KB to 899KB in one directory I have with a
dozen Finder aliases).
If I were to convert a Finder alias to a symbolic link, what
functionality would I loose in the GUI?
Ate these Finder Aliases just redundant leftovers from old MacOS, or do
they still have an advantage over symbolic links ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 15:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290420171515476475%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #105871 |
In article <5904e59c$0$53746$c3e8da3$3304c218@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > If I were to convert a Finder alias to a symbolic link, what > functionality would I loose in the GUI? the ability to spell. > Ate these Finder Aliases just redundant leftovers from old MacOS, or do > they still have an advantage over symbolic links ? aliases are *far* more capable than symbolic links. one example is auto-mounting a remote volume. another is they're not dependent on paths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <emkafoFf6bgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #105871 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-04-29 14:24, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Finder, for one. Creating an alias creates a multi-fork file.
>
> I seem to recall something about aliases no longer supported in APFS,
No you don't. You're spouting clueless FUDster bullshit as always.
> Taken a look at one.
And it only took you a few decades to do so...
> Is it correct to state that the Unix side of OS-X treats Finder alias
> files as simple files with 0 bytes of data?
No. Not all "Unix side" command-line tools in macOS are unaware of forks.
Some are; and some aren't.
> Where are extended attributes stored?
I honestly don't care enough to recall or research it again. Do your own
research.
> ("ls" shows 0 bytes, and resource fork as extended attribute, but Finder
> shows Aliases randung from 62KB to 899KB in one directory I have with a
> dozen Finder aliases).
Try:
ls -l somefile/..namedfork/rsrc
ls -l somefile/..namedfork/data
> If I were to convert a Finder alias to a symbolic link, what
> functionality would I loose in the GUI?
>
> Ate these Finder Aliases just redundant leftovers from old MacOS, or do
> they still have an advantage over symbolic links ?
How can you have used macOS this long without knowing this?
Aliases are based on inodes rather than hard coded paths and are therefore
far more flexible and powerful than soft links, since you can move or
rename the source entity without breaking the alias. You can also move the
Ali's itself without breaking anything. Aliases also work across file
systems and across networks to shared file systems.
--
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]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 21:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59053f49$0$29145$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105883 |
On 2017-04-29 16:13, Jolly Roger wrote: > Aliases are based on inodes rather than hard coded paths and are therefore > far more flexible and powerful than soft links, since you can move or > rename the source entity without breaking the alias. But update an App with a new version (aka new file which replaces old one with same name) and that inode no longer valid. Sym link would continue two work. However, Finder has the "path" of the file also in the resource fork, so it probably resolves it using the path when the inode is no longer valid. > You can also move the > Ali's itself without breaking anything. Aliases also work across file > systems and across networks to shared file systems. Symbolic links can also get acorss network links -> /Volumes/NameOfRemoteDrive/dir/dir/file However, it doesn't cause an automount when accessed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 01:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <emktqpFi6vrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #105897 |
On 2017-04-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-04-29 16:13, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Aliases are based on inodes rather than hard coded paths and are therefore >> far more flexible and powerful than soft links, since you can move or >> rename the source entity without breaking the alias. > > But update an App with a new version (aka new file which replaces old > one with same name) and that inode no longer valid. Sym link would > continue two work. > > However, Finder has the "path" of the file also in the resource fork, > so it probably resolves it using the path when the inode is no longer valid. The alias will simply resolve to the replaced file, just as a symbolic link would. So like I said, aliases are more flexible and powerful than soft links. Nothing you can say will change that fact. >> You can also move the >> Ali's itself without breaking anything. Aliases also work across file >> systems and across networks to shared file systems. > > Symbolic links can also get acorss network links -> > /Volumes/NameOfRemoteDrive/dir/dir/file > > However, it doesn't cause an automount when accessed. Nowhere nearly as flexibly, no. Change the name of the source or the path and the alias will resolve, while the link will not. Are you tired of all the "winning" yet? -- 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]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnog9vt7.ibt.g.kreme@snow.local> |
| In reply to | #105871 |
In message <5904e59c$0$53746$c3e8da3$3304c218@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > I seem to recall something about aliases no longer supported in APFS, Fucking bullshit, as usual. STOP MAKING SHIT UP. -- Demons have existed on the Discworld for at least as long as the gods, who in many ways they closely resemble. The difference is basically the same as between terrorists and freedom fighters.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web