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


Click here to return to the 'One more caveat...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
One more caveat...
Authored by: foobar104 on May 22, '03 04:34:09AM

I'd hardly go so far as to suggest that the necessity to turn many files into a single file (with Stuffit or what have you) means one cannot use PGP. In point of fact, stuffing or zipping a collection of files and then encrypting the resulting archive is quite easy to do, and very effective. Far more so, I dare say, than twiddling with dodgy UNIX shell scripts. After all, with the free Stuffit product and the free PGP product, the process is a simple matter of two drag-and-drop operations. A breeze, and absolutely foolproof.



[ Reply to This | # ]
I disagree...
Authored by: bitwiseshiftleft on May 22, '03 02:35:30PM

Um. DropStuff isn't free (well, it effectively is, but you ARE supposed to pay for it).

And for what I'm doing, that shell function (mine is not a script) is pretty much fool-proof. It's also faster because (1) tgz is faster than DropStuff, (2) CLI apps generally load faster than GUI apps, (3) no DropStuff registration to click through, (4) as coded there, it assumes encryption to the default key, which is what I want to do, and (5) DropStuff and PGP are not in my dock.

I like UNIX, I'm comfortable with the shell. And furthermore, I work with UNIX and Linux boxes a lot, and it's nice to have my files in a format they can understand.

The only files it would fail on for me are finder icons and aliases, and I don't care so much about those anyway (I use symlinks more). They're certainly unimportant on a backup disc.



[ Reply to This | # ]
I disagree...
Authored by: foobar104 on May 22, '03 03:09:44PM
And for what I'm doing, that shell function (mine is not a script) is pretty much fool-proof.

I mean no offense, but "pretty much fool-proof" is just like "a little bit pregnant."

It's also faster

That's hardly significant, even if true. We're talking about taking a two-second operation and turning it into a 1.75-second operation.

I like UNIX, I'm comfortable with the shell. And furthermore, I work with UNIX and Linux boxes a lot, and it's nice to have my files in a format they can understand.

That's fine, but that pretty much moves this particular item out of the realm of a Mac OS X hint and makes it a UNIX hint. Most of the people who use Mac OS X are Mac users, not UNIX users, and your suggestion would not be appropriate for them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I disagree...
Authored by: amacaulay on Jul 17, '03 02:36:51AM

Not wanting to perpetuate an argument, but the hint is in the Unix section of the site.

As a Mac user of many years and occasional Unix user, the foundation of MacOS X on BSD gave me the best of both worlds at a point where I didn't have the time to learn to install and maintain Linux but did need regular access to a Unix command line.

Sorry to go off topic, but I would hate Hinters to be put off submitting hints that I find both useful and interesting.



[ Reply to This | # ]