pha21@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Braham Levy) (04/15/91)
In article <191@bria.UUCP>, mike@bria.UUCP (Michael Stefanik) writes: > In an article, root@thestepchild.sgi.com (Super-User) writes: > >A while back someone posted a review of a Norton Utilities package that > >hacked over the appropriate system calls to allow deleted files to be whats all the big deal about ??? if you really want a NU type thing then why not just do it with a shell script called "rm" an "mv", ie wake up and rewrite these to save a copy of deleted and clobbered files. okay this needs the same disk space but doesn't have the problem of relinking the kernel. this technique has been around for years (slip into boring old reminiscence mode) so why should i have to pay Pete Norton bundles for something that i can write myself in 30 seconds flat ??? all you don't get is a glitzy user interface. oh no why not write one in your favourite windowing system. as a final point : Would authors of news messages please refrain from spurious comments about how nice people are ?? i don't think that lines like ".. is a real puke" add anything to any arguement least of all that of the authors. i don't mind humour but do dislike this habit of insulting anyone and anything that is unknown. braham email: brahamlevy@uk.ac.keele (or similar) mail-mail : phone +44-782-621111x3943 j braham levy UDSP Lab, Electrical Engineering Group, Dept. of Physics, University of Keele, Keele, Staffs, UK.
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (04/16/91)
> whats all the big deal about ??? if you really want a NU type thing then > why not just do it with a shell script called "rm" an "mv", ie wake up and > rewrite these to save a copy of deleted and clobbered files. okay this needs > the same disk space but doesn't have the problem of relinking the kernel. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think that the point is that the Norton utilities don't rely on keeping deleted files in some "shadow" space. Norton can sometimes fail to recover a file because its disk sectors have been reused. But, this is better than forcing the user to periodically have to empty his "wastebasket" of preserved trash and forcing the user to deal with diminishing disk space until he does. At least, this is the perceived advantage - like it or not, that's what people want. J. Giles
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/16/91)
In article <191@bria.UUCP> uunet!bria!mike writes: >that he is putting his fingers in my kernel, with no appreciable benefit. Ugh! That practice is so problematic that I wouldn't use the product myself. >advantages are not that great, and certainly not worth the money that >there are asking. Especially since you can get the Adventure Shell for free, and it lets you resurrect files that you have killed.
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (04/16/91)
In article <21441@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > I think that the point is that the Norton utilities don't rely on > keeping deleted files in some "shadow" space. Norton can sometimes > fail to recover a file because its disk sectors have been reused. > But, this is better than forcing the user to periodically have to > empty his "wastebasket" of preserved trash and forcing the user to > deal with diminishing disk space until he does. At least, this is > the perceived advantage - like it or not, that's what people want. There are better ways to do this. If you use the old "move to a shadow space" trick, you can have a cron entry that will clean the shadow space every night right after the backup. You can instantly recover any files deleted that day, and you just have to go to the tapes to recover files deleted earlier. You never use more disk space than the files deleted that day and you have the ability to recover as far back as your backup scheme goes. cjs -- | "It is actually a feature of UUCP that the map of curt@cynic.uucp | all systems in the network is not known anywhere." curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | --Berkeley Mail Reference Manual (Kurt Schoens)
johanes@tagore.helios.nd.edu (Johanes Suhardjo) (04/17/91)
In article <15846@smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: |> Especially since you can get the Adventure Shell for free, and it lets |> you resurrect files that you have killed. What is this Adventure Shell. I would like to know more about it. ThanX. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ | Johanes Suhardjo | Civil Engineering | | suhardjo@ndcvx.cc.nd.edu | University of Notre Dame | | johanes@newton.ce.nd.edu | P.O. Box 825, Notre Dame, IN 46556 | ____________________________________________________________________________
rhartman@thestepchild.sgi.com (Robert Hartman) (04/17/91)
In article <1081@keele.keele.ac.uk> pha21@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Braham Levy) writes: >In article <191@bria.UUCP>, mike@bria.UUCP (Michael Stefanik) writes: >> In an article, root@thestepchild.sgi.com (Super-User) writes: >> >> >A while back someone posted a review of a Norton Utilities package that >> >hacked over the appropriate system calls to allow deleted files to be > >whats all the big deal about ??? if you really want a NU type thing then >why not just do it with a shell script called "rm" an "mv", ie wake up and >rewrite these to save a copy of deleted and clobbered files. okay this needs >the same disk space but doesn't have the problem of relinking the kernel. Hi! I'm the one who wrote the original message, not "root." Sorry about that. Apparently you didn't read the whole posting, because I discussed this very thing. I also noted that this is no help when it comes to file truncation via redirection in sh (and other shells without a "noclobber" variable). A user can't always get around that. >... so why should i have to pay Pete Norton bundles for something that i >can write myself in 30 seconds flat ??? all you don't get is a glitzy >user interface. oh no why not write one in your favourite windowing >system. That's not the point. I don't have to pay Pete Norton anything to get around it. Just because I can work around the problem myself (by using csh and writing some scripts for mv and rm) doesn't mean it isn't there. My point had very little to do with NU per se, execpt to say that if someone does want to buy it, and it's operation is transparent, so what? Why trash something that doesn't harm the system and saves people grief? My main point had to do with the recognition that any persistent condition that allows users to lose important data is either an implementation bug or a flaw in the design. Take your pick. It is not a feature, and it is certainly not consistent with the elegance of the UNIX design--which I greatly admire in all other respects. >as a final point : Would authors of news messages please refrain from spurious >comments about how nice people are ?? i don't think that lines like > ".. is a real puke" >add anything to any arguement least of all that of the authors. >i don't mind humour but do dislike this habit of insulting anyone and >anything that is unknown. Here I think you've confused my message with someone else's. I never posted that, and I can't remember when I've ever posted a deliberate insult. When I commented that I didn't understand why so many brilliant people spend so much energy defending something so easily fixed, I meant exactly that. IMNSHO, there are a lot of very brilliant people out there with blinders on when it comes to this particular point. I honestly don't understand why that is. >braham -r (Robert Hartman)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.182050.2028@odin.corp.sgi.com> rhartman@thestepchild.sgi.com (Robert Hartman) writes: > My main point had to do with the recognition that any persistent > condition that allows users to lose important data is either an > implementation bug or a flaw in the design. [ ... ] > IMNSHO, there are a lot of very brilliant > people out there with blinders on when it comes to this particular > point. I honestly don't understand why that is. Probably because nobody knows how to make the system distinguish between important data and unimportant data. The only hardware that can satisfy your requirements---i.e., that does not let users lose data---is a WORM. ---Dan
rhartman@thestepchild.sgi.com (Robert Hartman) (04/17/91)
In article <26480:Apr1622:26:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >In article <1991Apr16.182050.2028@odin.corp.sgi.com> rhartman@thestepchild.sgi.com (Robert Hartman) writes: >> My main point had to do with the recognition that any persistent >> condition that allows users to lose important data is either an >> implementation bug or a flaw in the design. > >Probably because nobody knows how to make the system distinguish between >important data and unimportant data. The only hardware that can satisfy >your requirements---i.e., that does not let users lose data---is a WORM. > >---Dan No Dan, you let the user tell you which files shouldn't be clobbered by treating deletion/truncation as another type of file access and giving it a separate permission mode--like I suggested. Other OSs do this (Tandem did this ten years ago), so it's not like I'm asking for the moon. Well, I've said my say on this. Perhaps I've said too much. -r
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/18/91)
In article <21441@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >I think that the point is that the Norton utilities don't rely on >keeping deleted files in some "shadow" space. Yes they do. >Norton can sometimes >fail to recover a file because its disk sectors have been reused. I believe you're thinking of the DOS version. A file's disk sectors are not made available for reuse until the a user-configured time period has elapsed. I'm amazed at the amount of misinformation people have on Norton UnErase for UNIX. It appears that most of the comments that appear here are from people who have read magazine "reviews" or are regurgitating falsehoods they've seen on the net. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (04/19/91)
In article <21441@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > >I think that the point is that the Norton utilities don't rely on >keeping deleted files in some "shadow" space. Norton can sometimes >fail to recover a file because its disk sectors have been reused. Oops. I think your DOS is showing! NU for Unix does exactly that, saves deleted files in a "Phantom" directory. NU for PC/MS-DOS is the one that tries to rebuild a file from it's left-over entries in the FAT. The two are quite different. -- ======================================================== Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (04/20/91)
> Oops. I think your DOS is showing! NU for Unix does exactly that, > saves deleted files in a "Phantom" directory. NU for PC/MS-DOS is > the one that tries to rebuild a file from it's left-over entries in > the FAT. The two are quite different. Yes, I don't have NU on any UNIX that I have available to me. Certainly it is not on my workstation. My point was, however, that regardless of how the tool works internally, the end user only cares about the result. He doesn't _want_ to have to hand-weed the phantom garbage pail. What he wants (or, at least, what I want) is to be able to delete a file and forget it. Only when I later decide that I accidentally discarded something valuable do I even want to be aware of the existence of the "phantom" garbage backup. The other contributors to this thread were claiming that NU was unnecessary because UNIX let you do all this stuff manually - and that's exactly what I _don't_ want to do. Nor do I want to have to take time to write a shell script to do it (which will, of course, be incompatible with anyone else's script to perform a similar function). J. Giles