Both solutions require you to set an environment variable on your Mac. Just execute the command below on a Mac OS X terminal window. You can do this automatically by adding the command to your. Mac OS X Leopard and new versions use a different environment variable.
Of course you can also make it automatic by inserting the command into. After having done that, try using tar again and like magic it now prevents tar from backing up those pesky resource fork files. Another type of file that you might also want to exclude from copying is the. This time you can just use the —exclude option of tar for that.
This article has indeed been heavily flagged, which has made it rank lower on the front page. It has also gotten a lot of upvotes, which is why it's still on the front page. As a counterpoint. I've only really been exposed to unix tradition files bag of bytes.
I learned something new and different from the discussion about this article. It's this kind of random knowledge that keeps me coming back to HN.
- Your Answer?
- remove OSX resource forks ._ files;
- Macintosh Resource Forks!
- Resource Forks, Bundles, etc. [answeattabco.tk].
- Subscribe to RSS.
Please stop posting comments that lower the quality of the site even further. Instead, post nothing or find a way to improve the discussion. Quite a few users have done so in this very thread, so you needn't look far for inspiration. How do you deal with a file with two sets of data?
I'm sure there's an Apple-y reason for the existence of this feature, but I can't imagine what it might be. Chesterton on the matter: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. I prefer the less verbose version: "Don't just do something. Stand there. Only now with your comment it occurred to me it has the same sense with the Chesterton quote, that it's against "just doing something" mindlessly! I've wondered about that from time to time. That'd make a great pull request. This would have been a lot more compelling if it basically wasn't just somebody stating the existence of resource forks and acting like that's a surprise.
This is not one of them. The filesystem situation on OS X has such a long, tortured, and widely documented history of technical and human failure that even the Cleveland Browns should feel sorry for it. There is at least one extremely old, legacy font file format supported by OS X in which the entire font is in the resource fork.
Other than that, resource forks themselves have been deprecated for the entire existence of OS X. This is like stumbling across some ancient vestige of DOS compatibility in Windows and treating that discovery like a smoking gun gotcha moment that you're certain is going to blow everyone's minds.
It's not much more than a coat of paint on top of HFS, which was introduced in ! I know that was years ago, but filsystems take a looooong time to get right. It's coming, guys, I promise! It was also developed for an entirely different non-UNIX operating system. Resource forks were really important and commonly used and understood in Classic Mac OS. The only crazy thing about the situation is that Apple hasn't made a more typical UNIX filesystem as the default since they retired the Classic environment. I hope you're not right. There are so many wonderful filesystems already out there, many of them already Open Source.
I'm not against research, but I'd rather have Apple fund one of these existing efforts. What out there is modern, good, and under a compatible license? They could probably buy up the rights to BeFS for really cheap now.
remove OSX resource forks ._ files
It was a beautiful file system, in my opinion. He apparently worked on a new file system for them but it never shipped. Not any more useless than any other non-checksumming filesystem. TLDR: Mac filesystems have resource forks. I guess the author has not used Macs too much, as they have been around since the 's. The utility of such a feature relative to its security, integrity and astonishment costs can be debated, however. I think it is chiefly used by malware developers at this time. ADSstreamsthrow on Dec 4, Which are, in my experience, more ransomware than malware.
To be fair, it's also used by DRM schemes and those aren't technically malware as such. I agree that they could probably be deprecated and removed nowadays.
TLDR: all standard applications for working with files are unaware of resource forks. This is confusing, and hurts new computer users. All apps designed for Macs by people who actually know what they are doing are resource fork aware, even though resource forks have gone out of fashion. Like it was said before, resource forks have been around since the first version of the Macintosh I believe MacOS was called "System" at that time , and it was a rather clever way to keep data such as dialog boxes, message strings and icons out of the executable file while keeping it a single file.
So it sure might be confusing and I see how but it's absolutely not very common. KirinDave on Dec 4, Gosh, are you saying that the common use of ADS was a common mac pattern and people very familiar with the history of macs would understand this well? Do you really think that refutes the point that they're confusing to everyone else? It was quite common, yes, and even more extended in the past, but I'm saying something else: that noticing it and having issues with it wasn't that common.
It's a leaky abstraction, but you don't often meet that leak. Case in point TFA's issue. He has a zero-sized font file where all the data are in the resource leak. No, as I wrote: "It sure can be confusing and I see how ".
Determining The Size Of A Resource Fork
As opposed to an OS that regularly uses them? You act like that's not intentional.
- word mac 2011 spelling checker?
- flip book maker for mac downloads!
- best mac home network setup.
If it's a feature that's there for legacy reasons only and it's used as little as possible by the system, and not one iota more, why the heck should Finder, et al expose it to users? In the very, very, very rare case that a user actually needs to get into the resource fork of some antiquated file, that user who is going to be very technical by definition, otherwise how the heck would they even stumble across such a file or care about what's in it?
Related mac os x resource fork command line
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved