Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #29351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-12 17:06 -0400 |
| Last post | 2012-08-14 18:17 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Losing my religion(?) Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-08-12 17:06 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-12 19:55 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-12 20:24 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2012-08-12 23:19 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-13 03:06 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-13 11:42 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-13 12:11 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-13 12:29 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-08-14 15:30 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 13:46 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 12:32 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 21:32 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-13 16:08 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-13 18:29 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-13 23:32 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-08-14 23:01 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 03:14 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 21:51 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 07:52 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-15 18:06 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-15 00:44 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-08-15 01:04 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 15:35 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-15 10:45 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-15 13:59 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 23:38 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-16 06:11 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-08-15 00:46 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 08:04 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-15 09:24 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-15 10:52 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-15 14:54 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-15 12:01 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-15 15:42 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 22:40 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 23:43 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-16 09:56 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 22:57 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-16 03:28 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 23:01 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-16 03:29 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 23:06 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 20:33 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 22:50 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-15 22:27 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-16 01:32 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-16 09:14 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-13 20:21 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 06:13 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 03:56 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-14 12:19 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:37 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-14 17:52 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:07 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-14 22:55 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 17:17 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-15 18:15 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 23:49 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 21:18 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:08 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 15:45 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2012-08-15 10:14 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 17:05 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-15 10:26 -0500
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 07:20 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> - 2012-08-14 08:51 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 09:31 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-14 10:09 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:19 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-08-15 12:36 +1200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:16 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-14 08:58 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 13:39 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-14 14:43 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 14:54 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 13:19 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-14 12:05 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 15:11 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 13:12 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:17 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-16 18:08 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-16 18:49 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-17 16:19 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-17 16:54 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-17 20:13 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-17 18:09 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-18 06:34 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-18 18:40 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-18 13:19 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2012-08-18 14:46 -0500
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-18 16:45 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2012-08-18 15:59 -0500
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-18 17:05 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-18 13:49 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2012-08-18 16:02 -0500
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-18 19:09 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2012-08-18 22:05 -0500
Re: Losing my religion(?) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-08-19 05:25 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-19 13:42 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-19 03:39 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-18 17:19 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:43 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:41 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-08-15 01:05 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-15 08:02 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-08-15 15:36 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-15 23:53 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-16 04:27 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-08-16 06:35 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-16 09:26 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-16 13:02 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-16 12:57 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-08-16 15:49 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-17 04:57 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-16 09:36 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-16 14:43 -0400
Auto-Save, Ask to save changes, etc (Re: Losing my religion(?)) Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-16 12:31 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-16 20:21 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-16 03:49 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-14 12:54 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 13:53 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:28 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 16:04 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 14:26 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-14 22:37 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 21:28 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:22 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 21:10 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 16:17 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 02:06 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 21:23 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2012-08-15 09:50 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-14 09:39 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 21:28 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 19:43 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-08-15 12:36 +1200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 02:04 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-08-15 21:33 +1200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 20:31 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-08-16 13:35 +1200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:31 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:28 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 07:16 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 12:50 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 21:29 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 15:14 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 17:52 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 19:36 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 02:58 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-14 21:23 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 07:58 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-15 04:01 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-15 09:29 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:34 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-08-14 13:41 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-14 22:03 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-15 02:44 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-14 20:25 -0700
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-16 00:03 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-15 16:13 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-16 00:06 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-16 07:19 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 03:49 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 05:51 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-14 11:10 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 03:46 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2012-08-14 21:30 +0000
Re: Losing my religion(?) Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> - 2012-08-14 16:15 -0600
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-13 08:03 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-13 08:54 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-13 14:15 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-08-13 09:22 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-13 13:25 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-08-13 15:06 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-13 20:38 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-08-13 20:53 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-08-13 21:47 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> - 2012-08-14 11:01 +0200
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-15 19:57 -0400
Re: Losing my religion(?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-14 18:17 -0400
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 00:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <502b2928$0$44471$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #29473 |
Lewis wrote: > No it doesn't corrupt anything at all. This is a complete and utter > misstatement of facts. The original unedited file is not lost, > discarded, overwritten, nor destroyed. Based on my understanding, at the unix level, the actual file is fully overwritten when the document is saved. a "cat" of the file will show the new modified contents and the old contets are not available. So autosave will "corrupt" the file. Just because some GUI application allows you to reconstitute previous version of the file from a "versions" database does not detract that the file itself is fully overwrtten whenever you save or auto-save it. The problem with auto-save is that one doesn't know ifhen it decides to mofidy a file or can't prevent it from modifying a file you have no intention of modifying. I can see Apple considering that since there is no "save" function in transaction/dataase applications such as contacts/calendar, that they would want to do away with it in document based applciations, but this is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 01:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a90ou1Fp3gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29480 |
JF Mezei wrote: > Lewis wrote: > >> No it doesn't corrupt anything at all. This is a complete and utter >> misstatement of facts. The original unedited file is not lost, >> discarded, overwritten, nor destroyed. > > Based on my understanding, at the unix level, the actual file is fully > overwritten when the document is saved. a "cat" of the file will show > the new modified contents and the old contets are not available. I did this experiment under Lion: In a terminal window, I cd'd to the desktop and created a .txt file using vi. I exited vi and opened the file in TextEdit. I then simulated the proverbial cat walking across the keyboard and quit TextEdit. It closed without warning. I re-opened the file in vi and the 'cat tracks' were there. > So autosave will "corrupt" the file. Indeed. > Just because some GUI application allows you to reconstitute previous > version of the file from a "versions" database does not detract that the > file itself is fully overwrtten whenever you save or auto-save it. Well, I expect it to be overwritten on a Save. ;) Auto-save is dangerous. > The problem with auto-save is that > one doesn't know ifhen it decides to mofidy a file or can't prevent it > from modifying a file you have no intention of modifying. Right. The program which can change a file is usually the viewer too. "Just looking" is now dangerous. - Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 15:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n6lsf9-do4.ln1@news1.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #29482 |
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:04:00 -0400, Rich Gray wrote: > I did this experiment under Lion: In a terminal window, I cd'd to the > desktop and created a .txt file using vi. I exited vi and opened the > file in TextEdit. I then simulated the proverbial cat walking across > the keyboard and quit TextEdit. It closed without warning. I re-opened > the file in vi and the 'cat tracks' were there. This takes me back to an editor I used on VMS, which would only write a new version of a file if you changed it. Substitute line noise on a dumb terminal for 'cat tracks' or later on with Terminal windows and typing in the wrong window and you get the idea. At least that editor would tell you that it was saving a new version, and with the VMS versioning system you knew which file to delete. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <k0gn7d$3v3$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #29482 |
On 2012-08-15 05:04:00 +0000, Rich Gray said: > JF Mezei wrote: >> Lewis wrote: >> >>> No it doesn't corrupt anything at all. This is a complete and utter >>> misstatement of facts. The original unedited file is not lost, >>> discarded, overwritten, nor destroyed. >> >> Based on my understanding, at the unix level, the actual file is fully >> overwritten when the document is saved. a "cat" of the file will show >> the new modified contents and the old contets are not available. > > I did this experiment under Lion: In a terminal window, I cd'd to the > desktop and created a .txt file using vi. I exited vi and opened the > file in TextEdit. I then simulated the proverbial cat walking across > the keyboard and quit TextEdit. It closed without warning. I > re-opened the file in vi and the 'cat tracks' were there. That's precisely what happens. > >> So autosave will "corrupt" the file. > > Indeed. Correct. Which is, as I've been saying, why file locking is so important. From the very beginning, I've been saying that autosave and versions is still an unfinished idea. Apple tried to make it "interfaceless" and make it "just happen" but version control and such automation is simply not that easy. In more serious revision control systems, there are several variations of how to handle locking of files, generally important when more than one person may be modifying the same file, but similarly important in keeping unintended changes from getting checked in. In one model, before you may modify a file, you needed to check it out and lock it - preventing anyone else from editing the file - before you could edit it. In another model, your copy was always able to be edited to your heart's content immediately. In both cases, your changes would not be checked into the system at all until you explicitly checked them in. Apple wanted to do away with the "you need to check in your changes" part - because folks who aren't trained in revision control systems wouldn't remember to do their check-ins. But Apple also went with the lazy system of "you can edit immediately without having to check out and lock your copy". And *I* think that was the mistake. Until you declare "I *am* going to edit this file" the file should not be editable. The old system, before versions, was "you can edit this file immediately without having to check it out, but if you forget to save your changes, you may be screwed, and by the way, if you edit the file, since you've been training yourself to save all the time, you may overwrite the file when you didn't mean to, and you won't be able to recover the old version unless you are using Time Machine". Unfortunately, they've muddled it. As we've demonstrated, (a) unintended changes can get saved to a file - dangerously - because they get saved even if you never hit "save"; and (b) it's not enough to say "okay, then you can go to Versions and get back to what you intended" because (i) you shouldn't have to do that; and (ii) because - and here's the other dangerous part - the versions database is hidden and gets lost without warning if you move the file to another filesystem or are using a sync system like Dropbox. Unless the version history is tightly tied to the file, so that it cannot get easily lost, it's *not* enough to say "just go to versions and revert". And even if it were enough, that's not a very reasonable solution. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to recover from problems that shouldn't happen anyway. Accidents (ie. cat walking on keyboard) happen. It's important to make recovery from those accidents easy (hance, in theory, being able to roll back a version), but it's even more important to minimize the likelihood of those accidents happening in the first place (by making it harder to accidently screw up your file in the first place). It's the difference between having airbags and avoiding the obstacle in the first place. Obviously you should have airbags. But even better is not crashing the car in the first place, so before you worry about airbages, you make steering secure and predictable. > >> Just because some GUI application allows you to reconstitute previous >> version of the file from a "versions" database does not detract that the >> file itself is fully overwrtten whenever you save or auto-save it. > > Well, I expect it to be overwritten on a Save. ;) Auto-save is dangerous. I agree. As it was in Lion, in my opinion, it was still "beta" - not a fully fleshed out product, and still with signficant flaws. It should be optional, like the "natural" scrolling and the hidden scrollbars. I do not understand why it wasn't optional. But I do think, overall, it's a *great* thing and once they get some of the things we're talking about here worked out, it'll be a vast improvement for most people. It's certainly *not* the catastrophe that people have been painting it. > >> The problem with auto-save is that >> one doesn't know ifhen it decides to mofidy a file or can't prevent it >> from modifying a file you have no intention of modifying. > > Right. The program which can change a file is usually the viewer too. > "Just looking" is now dangerous. Unless the file is locked. Which happens automatically after two weeks. It *should* happen a lot sooner than that. The more I work with it, the more I'm convinced of this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 13:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <502be395$0$1317$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #29507 |
Bread wrote: > Correct. Which is, as I've been saying, why file locking is so > important. From the very beginning, I've been saying that autosave and > versions is still an unfinished idea. Apple tried to make it > "interfaceless" and make it "just happen" but version control and such > automation is simply not that easy. It was not unfinished. Apple tried to do away with the concept of having to save a document, just like you don't have to save when you make changes to contacts, calendar and other database applications. What Apple failed to realise is that people want control over when a save is made to a document. And people want to be able to manage their documents as they wish, not the stuff it is doing on IOS with each app having its own documents. (unable to file all documents for a project in the same folder for instance since your pictures have to go to the photo editor, your spreadsheets to te spredsheet editor, your text to the text editor apps) This was not unfinished. It was an error in what direction to take.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k0hpva$fkn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #29507 |
On 08-15-2012 13:45, Bread wrote:> Unless the version history is tightly
tied to the file, so that it
> cannot get easily lost, it's *not* enough to say "just go to versions
> and revert". And even if it were enough, that's not a very reasonable
> solution. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to recover from
> problems that shouldn't happen anyway.
Moreover, as pointed out elsewhere, until you actually do that manual
operation, any person or app that uses the file gets the garbage.
And what if it is a file that actually needs version control and
therefore already has it? Do we get entertained by periodic fights
between subversion and Lion ?
--
Wes Groleau
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
— unknown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-16 06:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jg8uf9-ev72.ln1@news1.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #29507 |
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:45:17 -0700, Bread wrote: > Unless the file is locked. Which happens automatically after two weeks. > It *should* happen a lot sooner than that. The more I work with it, the > more I'm convinced of this. My gut feeling is that the period should be user settable, but I'll admit I haven't put much thought into ways of shooting yourself in the foot here. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 00:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a90nsaFihnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29473 |
Lewis wrote: > In message <a90ho6Fbi6U1@mid.individual.net> > Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> TextEdit is a perfect example. It's a Swiss Army knife, which I make quite >> a bit of use of, but more often than not, as a *viewer*. One of my most >> common sins is typing into the wrong window when working in many windows. >> With Auto Save, this immediately corrupts the original file. > > No it doesn't corrupt anything at all. This is a complete and utter > misstatement of facts. The original unedited file is not lost, > discarded, overwritten, nor destroyed. The file is no longer correct. Corrupted is a reasonable expression for invalidated content. If you don't like it, pick another. The file is now wrong and will be until the error is noticed (perhaps spectacularly) and corrected. The fact that the file is recoverable does not change the fact that it has been made wrong. >> In Lion, I can >> close the window with no warning given at all. ML ameliorates this >> somewhat, if I understand it, by allowing a rollback when one closes the >> window. But until the time the file is recovered, it is WRONG. Not good if >> it is a running script or some other form of shared document that others >> might access in the meantime. > > Aha! Finally a valid criticism of AutoSave! I would offer that the odds > of opening a script in Lion that was not 'locked' and accidentally > making a change that was saved without your knowledge is a pretty slim > chance, all in all. As I understand it, Auto Save is always in effect, but versioning only works on HFS+ volumes. I do a lot of stuff on shared, non-HFS+ drives. Seems like there is much opportunity for unrecoverable corr^w inadvertent changes if one uses [M]L apps against such shared files. The NAS that I access does have a Time Machine like capability. Every directory had a hidden .snapshot directory off of it, containing hourly, daily & weekly images of files, much as TM does. Making saves produce a new snapshot (instead of time) and throwing a TM style GUI on it would have been much more to my liking as a way for OS X to go. > This would be a good reason to have keep the file locking in 10.8. It does seem like explicit locking & unlocking (without having to jump through Finder hoops) would be good. But that would probably be too much for the simpleton environment Apple is trying to create. :/ The two week auto-lock is strange... (I can screw up a lot of stuff in that time!! ;) > I'm not sure how this works in 10.8, but I know that in Script Editor, it does "the right thing". I'm curious. What would that be? If it auto saves, the script is co^w wrong until recovered. Computers are a lot less forgiving than other humans. Perhaps the problem here is you don't have this kind of situation on an iOS device, because you don't share files in this manner. It's strictly a single user environment and files exist only in tight association with their apps. Yet this is the model Apple is pushing into OS X. >> It is this disregard for the sanctity of originals which I have a huge >> problem with. Yes, save versions of explicitly saved/saved >> as/duplicated/whatever files. Auto save to a DRAFT file!! > > I do prefer how vim manages recovery files, but that would be a terrible > interface for your average user. The way autosave works in 10.7 and 10.8 > is the way that it should work because that is what is best for the > non-geek users (most everyone). Us geeks have to be aware of things like > this and maybe take a couple of steps to prevent these issues. Another source of inadvertent keystrokes is my brain not switching correctly between vi & GUI typing. I've typed things like [esc]0g into GUI windows more times than I care to admit. ;) > For myself, I can honestly say that I have never edited a script in > TextEdit and that the possibility of doing so has never occurred to me. OK, my example is a little unusual. (Most often I am using vi. ;) Substitute any process that would be accessing a text file at the same time one is LOOKING at it with TextEdit. I don't use Numbers, but what would happen if one were viewing a spreadsheet on a shared server and inadvertently changed something? What would stop everyone in the department from getting the wrong data until the file was restored?? >> This thread is sort of a rant, me taking an opportunity to express sadness >> that Apple seems to be making the OS X world be dummy-friendly. I >> understand the motive, $$market$$. I'm just sad about it because I *really* >> do think my MBP(5,5) is the best computer I've ever owned. All other >> laptops look & feel like cheap junk compared to a unibody. SL is IMHO the >> best OS, because it wasn't dummified. Maybe there needs to be one more pref >> in OS X, to set User Level. > > I prefer 10.8 to 10.6, but I prefer 10.6 to 10.7. Yeah, I wish half my fleet could wasn't stuck going no further than 10.7. I do feel that Apple will probably work this save stuff out eventually, but I've got machines which will never get to enjoy that. :( Cheers! Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 08:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk2mlvs.2cj8.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #29481 |
In message <a90nsaFihnU1@mid.individual.net> Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > Lewis wrote: >> In message <a90ho6Fbi6U1@mid.individual.net> >> This would be a good reason to have keep the file locking in 10.8. > It does seem like explicit locking & unlocking (without having to jump > through Finder hoops) would be good. It looks like in 10.8 you can lock a file by simply clicking next to its name int he title bar of the document and selecting lock. >>I'm not sure how this works in 10.8, but I know that in Script Editor, >>it does "the right thing". > I'm curious. What would that be? If it auto saves, the script is co^w > wrong until recovered. Computers are a lot less forgiving than other humans. No, it autosave and if the current state is invalid, it saves it separately. <http://tidbits.com/article/13135> > Another source of inadvertent keystrokes is my brain not switching correctly > between vi & GUI typing. I've typed things like [esc]0g into GUI windows > more times than I care to admit. ;) Been there, done that. Perhaps we should make a T-Shirt? -- I'm not old, I'm chronologically challenged.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-2531F2.09241015082012@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #29486 |
In article <slrnk2mlvs.2cj8.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > It looks like in 10.8 you can lock a file by simply clicking next to its > name int he title bar of the document and selecting lock. In 10.7 too. You can Lock, Duplicate, Revert to last saved version, or Browse all versions. -- Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <k0gnk2$59c$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #29481 |
On 2012-08-15 04:46:00 +0000, Rich Gray said: > Lewis wrote: >> In message <a90ho6Fbi6U1@mid.individual.net> >> Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>> TextEdit is a perfect example. It's a Swiss Army knife, which I make quite >>> a bit of use of, but more often than not, as a *viewer*. One of my most >>> common sins is typing into the wrong window when working in many windows. >>> With Auto Save, this immediately corrupts the original file. >> >> No it doesn't corrupt anything at all. This is a complete and utter >> misstatement of facts. The original unedited file is not lost, >> discarded, overwritten, nor destroyed. > > The file is no longer correct. Corrupted is a reasonable expression > for invalidated content. The original, unedited file is not there anymore. It may be recovered, possibly, via Versions, but if you go look at your filesystem, it's not there. There's a new and incorrect file. "corrupted" is a reasonable word for it. > If you don't like it, pick another. The file is now wrong and will be > until the error is noticed (perhaps spectacularly) and corrected. The > fact that the file is recoverable does not change the fact that it has > been made wrong. The real danger is that the file may *not* be recoverable. The versions database is stored in an invisible database at the root of that filesystem. If you move the file to another drive, the version history is lost and the file before the unintended edits is *not* recoverable. >> This would be a good reason to have keep the file locking in 10.8. > > It does seem like explicit locking & unlocking (without having to jump > through Finder hoops) would be good. But that would probably be too > much for the simpleton environment Apple is trying to create. :/ The > two week auto-lock is strange... (I can screw up a lot of stuff in > that time!! ;) *immediate* auto-locking whenever the file is closed would be a better solution. If you open a file, you need to explicitly say "okay - I *do* mean to edit this!" before you are allowed to edit it. Every time. The assumption shouldn't necessarily be "just because I've opened this file, I intend to edit it and save my changes". Two weeks was just some oddball compromise between some folks over at Apple. Autosave and Versions are a *good* thing. They're just not quite finished. Locking needs to be improved, and transparency as to what's happening needs to be improved, as does the issue of keeping the revision database attached to the file, if possible. It's too easy to lose your revision history right now, and it happens without warning or hope of recovery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 14:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <502bf07f$0$39100$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #29508 |
Bread wrote: > Autosave and Versions are a *good* thing. They're just not quite > finished. Versions is totally separate from autosave. Autosave for documents is NOT a good thing. I don't mind if on can enable autosave as a preference for an application. But it must not become a built-in paradigm that is used by Apple provided applications but not by the rest of the world. Versions may help correct the mistake that autosave is by allowing you to spend the time to recover a previous version of a file assuming the app uses versions and assuming you know that you mistakenly modified the file and spend the time to recover the original. The fact that versions allows you to sometimes recover from the damage doesn't detract from the fact that autosave causes damage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 12:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56ehn86kul.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #29508 |
Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> writes: (snip) > Autosave and Versions are a *good* thing. They're just not quite > finished. Locking needs to be improved, and transparency as to what's > happening needs to be improved, as does the issue of keeping the > revision database attached to the file, if possible. It's too easy to > lose your revision history right now, and it happens without warning > or hope of recovery. Yes, this is where I come down too. I like the idea that I won't lose my work if the power fails or if my computer crashes. But it has to be combined with the ability to minimize the risk of _accidentally_ changing files, and with the transparency of understanding what has happened easily. And I don't think we're there yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 15:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <502bfbae$0$1272$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #29514 |
Doug Anderson wrote: > Yes, this is where I come down too. I like the idea that I won't lose > my work if the power fails or if my computer crashes. Serious software do autosafes to a temprary file without changing the real file. After a power failure, software detects that the temporary files were left and offers the opportunity to restart the previous session., using the temp files to re-apply the changes to the real file. We've had this on VMS for decades, and even software like InDesign/Page Maker had this for a long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <o3etf9-do4.ln1@news1.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #29515 |
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:42:38 -0400, JF Mezei wrote: > Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Yes, this is where I come down too. I like the idea that I won't lose >> my work if the power fails or if my computer crashes. > > Serious software do autosafes to a temprary file without changing the > real file. After a power failure, software detects that the temporary > files were left and offers the opportunity to restart the previous > session., using the temp files to re-apply the changes to the real file. > > We've had this on VMS for decades, and even software like InDesign/Page > Maker had this for a long time. But on VMS with EDIT/TPU they managed to mess it up by going for block rather than keystroke journalling. It didn't always work. OpenOffice/LibreOffice also have the concept of recovering documents after a system crash. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 23:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k0hq8s$fkn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #29515 |
On 08-15-2012 15:42, JF Mezei wrote:
> Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Yes, this is where I come down too. I like the idea that I won't lose
>> my work if the power fails or if my computer crashes.
>
> Serious software do autosafes to a temprary file without changing the
> real file. After a power failure, software detects that the temporary
> files were left and offers the opportunity to restart the previous
> session., using the temp files to re-apply the changes to the real file.
>
> We've had this on VMS for decades, and even software like InDesign/Page
> Maker had this for a long time.
Even Microsoft Office takes that approach. (Although in my expereince
it doesn't work.)
--
Wes Groleau
"What progress we are making! In the Middle Ages, they would have
burnt me; nowadays they are content with burning my books.”
— Sigmund Freud, 1933
"He was never to know that even that was only an illusory progress,
that ten years later they would have burned his body as well.”
— Ernest Jones, 1953
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-16 09:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rlluf9-ev72.ln1@news1.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #29481 |
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:46:00 -0400, Rich Gray wrote: > Another source of inadvertent keystrokes is my brain not switching > correctly between vi & GUI typing. I've typed things like [esc]0g into > GUI windows more times than I care to admit. One that still gets me is typing :q into a GUI, thus changing it. When I first started with OS X, VMS was my full time job, and getting out of the habit of exiting editors with CTRL-Z took some time. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k0hnid$60s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #29473 |
On 08-14-2012 23:14, Lewis wrote:
> I prefer 10.8 to 10.6, but I prefer 10.6 to 10.7.
I can say the same, but ONLY from reading about it.
I consider 10.7 a big step backward, but not big enough to go through
the hassle of rebuilding my 10.6.
Where Lion (from my point of view) broke a few things and offered
_nothing_ I wanted to compensate, 10.8 sounds like it does offer me a
few things AND almost fixes the things 10.7 broke.
So I am going to install it--but I'm keeping a bootable clone of 10.7
just in case.
--
Wes Groleau
Expert, n.:
Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-16 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk2oq6d.2j99.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #29538 |
In message <k0hnid$60s$1@dont-email.me> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > On 08-14-2012 23:14, Lewis wrote: >> I prefer 10.8 to 10.6, but I prefer 10.6 to 10.7. > I can say the same, but ONLY from reading about it. > I consider 10.7 a big step backward, but not big enough to go through > the hassle of rebuilding my 10.6. I wouldn't go that far. There are issues with 10.7, and some things that annoyed me (the way the scroll bars work in Lion is a lot worse than in Mountain Lion). > So I am going to install it--but I'm keeping a bootable clone of 10.7 > just in case. When I get on my 10.7 machine I find something that annoys me that was fixed in 10.8 (like the Address Book/Contacts which I completely despise in 10.7). -- "There's nothin' wrong with bein' a son of a bitch." -- Gaspode the Wonder Dog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-15 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k0hnq9$7fq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #29473 |
On 08-14-2012 23:14, Lewis wrote:
> Rich Gray <devnull@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> TextEdit is a perfect example. It's a Swiss Army knife, which I make quite
>> a bit of use of, but more often than not, as a *viewer*. One of my most
>> common sins is typing into the wrong window when working in many windows.
>> With Auto Save, this immediately corrupts the original file.
>
> No it doesn't corrupt anything at all. This is a complete and utter
> misstatement of facts. The original unedited file is not lost,
> discarded, overwritten, nor destroyed.
Think again.
If it is part of a website, something is certainly corrupted.
If it is a script run by cron, something is certainly corrupted.
If it is a launchd item, something is certainly corrupted.
Even the most passionate lover of autosave can think of other examples.
--
Wes Groleau
Expert, n.:
Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web