-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Howorth wrote: > Pardon me for interjecting, but you're asking for help and people > are trying to help but many of your responses to their comments > strike me at least as pretty negative.
I'm sorry if I come over like that; I just re-checked my replies and frankly I don't see where I was aggressive. I'm not a native speaker though, and if I'm doing something wrongly, please tell me off-list, I like to improve. In any case, sorry if anybody feels offended, it was certainly not my intention. > You're questioning the correctness of Keith and Paul here, but > you've already stated that you don't know much about resource > forks Sorry to ask, but where did I say that? > and just below you say you don't care. Keith and Paul > obviously do think they're important. In that circumstance, I'd > suggest you'd be well advised to do some research on the subject > before questioning people. Actually, I said that I didn't care about the resource forks *being backed up*. I understand that they're important to the OS in a few respects, and I know what they're used for. It's just that I see my Mac as "mobile-friendly Unix", so basically all *my* needs don't use resource forks. > Now I don't know anything about Macs or their filesystems, so when I saw > their comments, I went googling and I found some hints that perhaps you > should care about the resource forks and metadata. For example, there's > a statement here that they are vital to hardlink implementation: > <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2002-June/014016.html> Thanks, that helped me *lots*; not so much in itself, but it put me on the track to search about Mac hardlink implementation. Short version: It completely breaks POSIX semantics and generally sucks. Read this if you really want to break your brain: http://rixstep.com/2/20040621,00.shtml Taking the worse FS, and then emulating the better one badly on it, is really embarrassing. I haven't been looking in the general direction of Ubuntu that much for /years/. > So if I wanted to make Mac backup work I'd be deeply interested in > filesystem details, rsync versions etc. As a first step, I think I'd try > to back up the Mac to a Linux box with a Linux filesystem. Get that to > work properly. Then maybe to a Linux filesystem on a Mac. Finally to a > native Mac filesystem. My Linux box is quite full of VMs right now. I will do the next best thing, though, for now: Make the external disk UFS (which Mac OS supports natively), and see if that's enough to fix it. If it isn't, I'll just have to see how many virtual boxes I can move to archive... :( > BTW, dirvish is 'just' a wrapper round rsync, so yes, rsync is used for > local transport. THX for that info. Yours, Bernd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFQfNojAQAqv3HuJURAuf6AKCd2cCNM/D54r8bSCTcMQ1Lz/QLoACfbU07 eQE+8V4RHvgfZA4nd0ouDjI= =im24 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
