Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'You CAN do this.' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
You CAN do this.
Authored by: Anonymous on Oct 23, '02 11:09:43AM

I concur, since I did not specifically state moving anything with resource forks or mac applications. I use this for files, namely text files supporting a web site, as in the example. This would have no impact. I don't know why anyone would rsync mac applications when there are many other methods of moving or installing them.

This hint is safe under the scenenario I provided and this is provided under the "Unix" catergory. Yes, you can lose icons for files but your Mac can associate the files with the correct application.

Nothing to be afraid of.

[ Reply to This | # ]
You CAN do this, but at some risk
Authored by: SOX on Oct 23, '02 12:30:48PM

For moving plain files rsync works fine as long as you dont mind losing creator codes and icons. So like you say nothing to fear there.

But when moving applications or complex documents with creator codes there is much to fear.

For example one I had to reformat my hard disk, so I made the bad mistake of tarring up all of my files and moving them over a linux machine.
when I untarred not a single one of my applications worked!!! and some of my documents could not be opened by their original apps.

So their is lots to fear since rsync works the same as tar. the good news is that this warning mostly applies to classic apps which heavily use the resource forks. Mac OS X apps have a different structure and thus tend not to have too many problems when they are rsynced.

Note if you dont want to use RsyncX there is an interesting workaround that works great. Create a UFS partion. this can be a real partition or virtual one created by disk copy. drag all of your files into this partion and then use rsync. This will work perfectly because when you drag the files from the HFS+ disk to the UFS disk, the mac dumps the HFS database entryies and resource forks in to a real separate (hidden with a ._ prefix) file that rsync handles correctly as long as you remember to copy it too

[ Reply to This | # ]
Please stop implying this is mostly safe...
Authored by: Basilisk on Oct 23, '02 12:42:13PM

Its only safe assuming one understands the differences between applications that store data in their resource forks and those which don't. It is not a safe general backup strategy, and is not something to recommend unless one understands the limitations.

Yes, using standard rsync is safe if one is only syncing flat data files like text, image, and most sound formats. One loses the creator code, but this can be replaced.

Standard rsync is completely unsafe for any MacOS X application, particularly Carbon applications that run in 9 and X (which almost always use resource forks).

Standard rsync is also unsafe for application files which do store relevant data in the resource fork. This includes some fairly common file formats, including the ever-so-humble SimpleText document (which stores formatting information in a 'styl' resource). This is a trivial example, but arguing that no one uses SimpleText is beside the point. The point is that unless one is sure that your file formats are rsync safe it is better to use RsyncX.

I'm not clear on why folks feel a need to defend rsync here, since no one is arguing that rsync isn't a great idea (I use it everyday). Just use RsyncX an keep yourself safe.

[ Reply to This | # ]