Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #71607 > unrolled thread

Migrating to new machine

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

Contents

  Migrating to new machine John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-19 06:52 -0700
    Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-19 16:37 +0100
      Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-19 16:41 +0000
        Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-19 20:09 +0100
          Re: Migrating to new machine Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-03-19 16:28 -0400
            Re: Migrating to new machine me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-19 20:45 +0000
            Re: Migrating to new machine JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-19 17:32 -0400
              Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-20 13:07 +0000
                Re: Migrating to new machine JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-20 11:53 -0400
                  Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-20 16:27 +0000
                    Re: Migrating to new machine JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-20 13:23 -0400
                Re: Migrating to new machine Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-20 19:23 +0000
            Re: Migrating to new machine Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-03-20 07:56 +0100
              Re: Migrating to new machine Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-20 11:20 +0000
              Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-20 13:14 +0000
                Re: Migrating to new machine Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-20 19:25 +0000
          Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-19 20:39 +0000
            Re: Migrating to new machine richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-03-19 21:23 +0000
              Re: Migrating to new machine richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-03-19 21:25 +0000
            Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-20 09:32 +0100
              Re: Migrating to new machine Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-20 11:22 +0000
                Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-20 13:10 +0100
                  Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-20 13:21 +0000
                    Re: Migrating to new machine Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-20 19:19 +0000
                    Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-21 11:10 +0100
                      Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-21 13:18 +0000
                        Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-21 14:40 +0100
                          Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-21 13:43 +0000
                            Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-21 17:33 +0100
              Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-20 13:18 +0000
                Re: Migrating to new machine Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 10:10 -0400
                  Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-20 14:32 +0000
                    Re: Migrating to new machine Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 11:35 -0400
                  Re: Migrating to new machine nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-20 12:30 -0400
    Re: Migrating to new machine me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-19 16:33 +0000
      Re: Migrating to new machine Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-19 16:40 +0000
    Re: Migrating to new machine nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-03-22 10:46 +0100
      Re: Migrating to new machine John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-22 13:45 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#71664

Okay, so one time? In band camp? J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> was all, like:


> [lots of good reasons]
> but the good reasons do not apply for a one of a kind job
> on your own machine where you are all of the users,
> just to set some obvious problems right,

Yes, they do.

For one thing, are you going to disable the root account after mucking
about? If not, you've let a huge security hole on your system. HUGE.

Best practices are best for a reason, and should be followed.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
"If you can't do something smart, do something right."

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

#71665

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> was al
l, like:
> 
> 
> > [lots of good reasons]
> > but the good reasons do not apply for a one of a kind job
> > on your own machine where you are all of the users,
> > just to set some obvious problems right,
> 
> Yes, they do.
> 
> For one thing, are you going to disable the root account after mucking
> about? If not, you've let a huge security hole on your system. HUGE.

Yes, of course.

> Best practices are best for a reason, and should be followed.

What's best practice depends on context.
What's best for a sysop maintaining a company-wide computer network
may not be best for an individual owner
maintaining just one machine of which he is sole owner and user,

Jan

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

#71672

On 2015-03-20, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> was al
> l, like:
>> 
>> 
>> > [lots of good reasons]
>> > but the good reasons do not apply for a one of a kind job
>> > on your own machine where you are all of the users,
>> > just to set some obvious problems right,
>> 
>> Yes, they do.
>> 
>> For one thing, are you going to disable the root account after mucking
>> about? If not, you've let a huge security hole on your system. HUGE.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>> Best practices are best for a reason, and should be followed.
>
> What's best practice depends on context.
> What's best for a sysop maintaining a company-wide computer network
> may not be best for an individual owner
> maintaining just one machine of which he is sole owner and user,

The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.

-- 
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]

#71686

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like:
> On 2015-03-20, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> was al
>> l, like:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > [lots of good reasons]
>>> > but the good reasons do not apply for a one of a kind job
>>> > on your own machine where you are all of the users,
>>> > just to set some obvious problems right,
>>> 
>>> Yes, they do.
>>> 
>>> For one thing, are you going to disable the root account after mucking
>>> about? If not, you've let a huge security hole on your system. HUGE.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>> Best practices are best for a reason, and should be followed.
>>
>> What's best practice depends on context.
>> What's best for a sysop maintaining a company-wide computer network
>> may not be best for an individual owner
>> maintaining just one machine of which he is sole owner and user,

> The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
> practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
> computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
> who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
> judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.

+1

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's
too dark to read.

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

#71722

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-20, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, so one time? In band camp? J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> was
 al
> > l, like:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > [lots of good reasons]
> >> > but the good reasons do not apply for a one of a kind job
> >> > on your own machine where you are all of the users,
> >> > just to set some obvious problems right,
> >> 
> >> Yes, they do.
> >> 
> >> For one thing, are you going to disable the root account after mucking
> >> about? If not, you've let a huge security hole on your system. HUGE.
> >
> > Yes, of course.
> >
> >> Best practices are best for a reason, and should be followed.
> >
> > What's best practice depends on context.
> > What's best for a sysop maintaining a company-wide computer network
> > may not be best for an individual owner
> > maintaining just one machine of which he is sole owner and user,
> 
> The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
> practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
> computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
> who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
> judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.

Suppose you need to hang a picture on the wall.
A professional these days must find goggles,
ear muffs, a drill attachement for dust catching,
and a slaved workshop vacuum cleaner
before he can do anything in the approved way.

I just get the hammer drill,
put an old newspaper on the floor,
and do five seconds brrrrrrt.

Absolutely irresponsble of course.
Being an amateur I should in addition
have donned gloves too, to be safe,

Jan

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

#71728

On 2015-03-21, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
>> practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
>> computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
>> who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
>> judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.
>
> Suppose you need to hang a picture on the wall.
> A professional these days must find goggles,
> ear muffs, a drill attachement for dust catching,
> and a slaved workshop vacuum cleaner
> before he can do anything in the approved way.
>
> I just get the hammer drill,
> put an old newspaper on the floor,
> and do five seconds brrrrrrt.
>
> Absolutely irresponsble of course.
> Being an amateur I should in addition
> have donned gloves too, to be safe,

Translation: "I like to learn the hard way, and haven't learned this
lesson just yet."

Good luck with that. ; )

-- 
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]

#71730

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-21, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
> >> practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
> >> computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
> >> who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
> >> judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.
> >
> > Suppose you need to hang a picture on the wall.
> > A professional these days must find goggles,
> > ear muffs, a drill attachement for dust catching,
> > and a slaved workshop vacuum cleaner
> > before he can do anything in the approved way.
> >
> > I just get the hammer drill,
> > put an old newspaper on the floor,
> > and do five seconds brrrrrrt.
> >
> > Absolutely irresponsble of course.
> > Being an amateur I should in addition
> > have donned gloves too, to be safe,
> 
> Translation: "I like to learn the hard way, and haven't learned this
> lesson just yet."
> 
> Good luck with that. ; )

The problem with those who think they understand security
is that they don't understand that security 
should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis too,

Jan

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

#71731

On 2015-03-21, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-21, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
>> >> practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
>> >> computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
>> >> who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
>> >> judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.
>> >
>> > Suppose you need to hang a picture on the wall.
>> > A professional these days must find goggles,
>> > ear muffs, a drill attachement for dust catching,
>> > and a slaved workshop vacuum cleaner
>> > before he can do anything in the approved way.
>> >
>> > I just get the hammer drill,
>> > put an old newspaper on the floor,
>> > and do five seconds brrrrrrt.
>> >
>> > Absolutely irresponsble of course.
>> > Being an amateur I should in addition
>> > have donned gloves too, to be safe,
>> 
>> Translation: "I like to learn the hard way, and haven't learned this
>> lesson just yet."
>> 
>> Good luck with that. ; )
>
> The problem with those who think they understand security
> is that they don't understand that security 
> should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis too,

Bullshit. Using sudo doesn't cost a thing. Enjoy your one-person last
word party now.

-- 
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]

#71738

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-21, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-03-21, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The best practices we are talking about are basic security best
> >> >> practices that apply to *anyone* who cares about the security of their
> >> >> computer and data. And they are actually *more* important for home users
> >> >> who may be less familiar with their computers and therefore less able to
> >> >> judge the security implications of what they do with their computers.
> >> >
> >> > Suppose you need to hang a picture on the wall.
> >> > A professional these days must find goggles,
> >> > ear muffs, a drill attachement for dust catching,
> >> > and a slaved workshop vacuum cleaner
> >> > before he can do anything in the approved way.
> >> >
> >> > I just get the hammer drill,
> >> > put an old newspaper on the floor,
> >> > and do five seconds brrrrrrt.
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely irresponsble of course.
> >> > Being an amateur I should in addition
> >> > have donned gloves too, to be safe,
> >> 
> >> Translation: "I like to learn the hard way, and haven't learned this
> >> lesson just yet."
> >> 
> >> Good luck with that. ; )
> >
> > The problem with those who think they understand security
> > is that they don't understand that security 
> > should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis too,
> 
> Bullshit.

I'm knocked out by the strength of your arguments.

> Using sudo doesn't cost a thing.

If used regularly, no.
If you have to relearn the Unix stuff each time, yes.

> Enjoy your one-person last word party now.

Poor gambit,

Jan

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

#71671

On 2015-03-20, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-19, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2015-03-19, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> >> > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I've had a Macbook Pro die on me though I was able to make a Time
>> >> >> Machine backup, and then migrate that to a working computer (an MBAir)
>> >> >> It created another user, the result now being that a number of folders
>> >> >> are locked with the red circle meaning don't enter. I can change
>> >> >> permissions so that "everybody" can Read and Write, but still no access
>> >> >> to the locked folders, such as Documents, Music and so forth.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> What might be done to access all these folders?
>> >> >
>> >> > Log in as the user who own them,
>> >> > or if you can't, activate the root user,
>> >> 
>> >> Note: There's no need to activate the root user when you can simply log
>> >> into any administrator account and use sudo.
>> >
>> > The point of activating the root user is that you don't have to sudo,
>> 
>> It's a much better idea to use sudo, mostly do to the widely-accepted
>> principle of least privilege, but also for other good reasons. 
>
> [lots of good reasons]
> but the good reasons do not apply for a one of a kind job
> on your own machine where you are all of the users,
> just to set some obvious problems right,

You may choose to ignore them, but they still absolutely apply, with the
single exception of sharing the root password. All of the rest of what I
said applies. And using sudo isn't all that less convenient than
enabling the root user. 

-- 
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]

#71674

In article <cn2l0hFg7j0U4@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> You may choose to ignore them, but they still absolutely apply, with the
> single exception of sharing the root password. All of the rest of what I
> said applies. And using sudo isn't all that less convenient than
> enabling the root user. 

You can also drop into root (without "enabling" an account):

sudo su
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

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

#71675

On 2015-03-20, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <cn2l0hFg7j0U4@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> You may choose to ignore them, but they still absolutely apply, with the
>> single exception of sharing the root password. All of the rest of what I
>> said applies. And using sudo isn't all that less convenient than
>> enabling the root user. 
>
> You can also drop into root (without "enabling" an account):
>
> sudo su

Absolutely, though that does negate some of the best practices I
mentioned earlier. It's still much safer and better than enabling root.

-- 
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]

#71677

In article <cn2pb0Fg7j0U14@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-03-20, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <cn2l0hFg7j0U4@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You may choose to ignore them, but they still absolutely apply, with the
> >> single exception of sharing the root password. All of the rest of what I
> >> said applies. And using sudo isn't all that less convenient than
> >> enabling the root user. 
> >
> > You can also drop into root (without "enabling" an account):
> >
> > sudo su
> 
> Absolutely, though that does negate some of the best practices I
> mentioned earlier. It's still much safer and better than enabling root.

We are mostly our own sysadmins, and while I haven't enabled a root 
account on my Mac, and I don't log in from boot-up that way in Linux, 
there comes a time when a bunch of stuff will have to be done as root, 
and sudo just becomes a bore. I have separately coloured prompts for 
root -- in red, just so I'm always aware of who and where I am.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

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

#71682

In article <550c2a64$0$42998$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> You can also drop into root (without "enabling" an account):
> 
> sudo su

sudo -s

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

#71616

In comp.sys.mac.system John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've had a Macbook Pro die on me though I was able to make a Time 
> Machine backup, and then migrate that to a working computer (an MBAir) 
> It created another user, the result now being that a number of folders 
> are locked with the red circle meaning don't enter. I can change 
> permissions so that "everybody" can Read and Write, but still no access 
> to the locked folders, such as Documents, Music and so forth.
> 
> What might be done to access all these folders?

If the migrated user's name is foo, and the user you trying to access 
the files from is bar, log in to an admin account and enter this in 
Terminal:

sudo chown -R bar ~foo

That will give ownership of everything in the foo home folder to user 
bar.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

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

#71617

On 2015-03-19, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.system John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I've had a Macbook Pro die on me though I was able to make a Time 
>> Machine backup, and then migrate that to a working computer (an MBAir) 
>> It created another user, the result now being that a number of folders 
>> are locked with the red circle meaning don't enter. I can change 
>> permissions so that "everybody" can Read and Write, but still no access 
>> to the locked folders, such as Documents, Music and so forth.
>> 
>> What might be done to access all these folders?
>
> If the migrated user's name is foo, and the user you trying to access 
> the files from is bar, log in to an admin account and enter this in 
> Terminal:
>
> sudo chown -R bar ~foo
>
> That will give ownership of everything in the foo home folder to user 
> bar.

Yes, that's exactly how I would handle this. After you do this, you'll
be able to copy anything you want from the ~foo folder (and subordinate
folders) into your new user account.

Feel free to post here if you need further guidance copying any special
items, such as key chain passwords, libraries such as iTunes, iPhoto,
Contacts, and so on.

-- 
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]

#71794

John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> I've had a Macbook Pro die on me though I was able to make a Time 
> Machine backup, and then migrate that to a working computer (an MBAir)
> It created another user, the result now being that a number of folders
> are locked with the red circle meaning don't enter. I can change 
> permissions so that "everybody" can Read and Write, but still no access
> to the locked folders, such as Documents, Music and so forth.
> 
> What might be done to access all these folders?

And a possible next step:
once sorted out you will have another unique user ID
On the Macbook it presumably was 501, it will be higher now.
This may give problems with external disks.

SuperDuper for example wil insist on recopying everything,
which will take days for terabtyte volumes.

There are various howtos on-line that explain
how you can change your unique user ID,
if needed.

It is not completely straightforward,

Jan

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

#71834

On 3/22/15   PDT 2:46 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I've had a Macbook Pro die on me though I was able to make a Time
>> Machine backup, and then migrate that to a working computer (an MBAir)
>> It created another user, the result now being that a number of folders
>> are locked with the red circle meaning don't enter. I can change
>> permissions so that "everybody" can Read and Write, but still no access
>> to the locked folders, such as Documents, Music and so forth.
>>
>> What might be done to access all these folders?
>
> And a possible next step:
> once sorted out you will have another unique user ID
> On the Macbook it presumably was 501, it will be higher now.
> This may give problems with external disks.
>
> SuperDuper for example wil insist on recopying everything,
> which will take days for terabtyte volumes.
>
> There are various howtos on-line that explain
> how you can change your unique user ID,
> if needed.
>
> It is not completely straightforward,

Thank you, Jan, and the other Gents.

It seems that the actual user (my son) was able to login himself, and 
then I deleted the account I set up to bring in the migration. It ain't 
over, though, as the large female is still in the dressing room.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web