On 29/09/2007, Peter da Silva wrote:
> If you unpack an archive and it's already been unpacked
> you should not end up with a duplicate copy.
Sometimes you want one. It should at least ask (and let you set a
permanent preference if you prefer one way over the other).
--
Earle Martin
On 27-Sep-2007, at 05:04, Earle Martin wrote:
In the old Mac OS, you'd get folders called "Copy of Foo-Bar-0.1" and
"Copy 2 of Foo-Bar-0.1", etc.
You did?
I didn't, I got a message that aladdin expander (or whatever it was
called this week) didn't know what the fuck a .tar.gz was.
Personal
On 27/09/2007, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> *but* WTF aren't you just using tar zxf Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz ? :)
I'm glad you put a smiley there, otherwise I wouldn't have known you
were trolling.
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Earle Martin wrote:
> You may have a tarball you wish to open, named, say,
> Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz. If you double-click it, it expands to a folder
> called, predictably, Foo-Bar-0.1. However, if you then double-click it
> again (without removing the first expanded folder), it
* Earle Martin [2007-09-27 12:10]:
> However, if you then double-click it again (without removing
> the first expanded folder), it produces a folder called...
> Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-Bar-0.3. Yes, Mac OS X has decided to
> increment the version numbers on your downloaded software.
Firefox used
On 27 Sep 2007, at 11:04, Earle Martin wrote:
In the old Mac OS, you'd get folders called "Copy of Foo-Bar-0.1" and
"Copy 2 of Foo-Bar-0.1", etc. Whoever replaced this behavior with the
current braindead one is a goddamn moron.
Still does when you copy files. The borkheaded logic is somewhere i
You may have a tarball you wish to open, named, say,
Foo-Bar-0.1.tar.gz. If you double-click it, it expands to a folder
called, predictably, Foo-Bar-0.1. However, if you then double-click it
again (without removing the first expanded folder), it produces a
folder called... Foo-Bar-0.2. Again? Foo-B
