._file ._Trashes ._pissedOff

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by rogue27:

    <strong>Why does the number of files matter to you? They don't take up any more space on your disk, so it shouldn't really be a problem. Or you can always go into the command line for a moment and type del ._*</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It does however present a problem if you were to for example upload a folder via FTP to a site, where all the ._* files would be transferred also. I currently have to go into my FTP-browser, create a new directory, select files from the Finder and then upload them to prevent the creation of unwanted write-protected (read delete-protected) .DS_STORE files allover my FTP accounts. Is stupid. This in particular is more a problem for the FTP client, which should ignore the DS_store files, but nevertheless.



    Insolent man, I feel your pain.



    [Edit=Oh, and OS X creates ._* files no matter if they use resource forks or not, in case anyone was wondering.]



    [ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
  • Reply 22 of 25
    spicolispicoli Posts: 49member
    It's also going to make my CD-ROMs messy underneath, since my assets folders will be full of the meta data yuck. I have w2k machines, big bad Macs (duals with =&gt;1GB ram) and Linux servers, I aim to use the best computer for the job.



    I find your Mac fananatic anti-windows stance to be closed minded. Yeah, M$ sucks as bad as any entity can suck, but I did not create this world, I just try to deal with it as presented to me.



    Comprende?[/QB][/QUOTE]



    So what is so wrong with metadata? i find it quite nice to not have to type the file extension on every single file, and to have the Os know what the file is with out having to tell it.



    And another thing don't talk down to the people you are asking for help. It makes you come off as a dick. We don't need any A-holes on this board.



    As far as the file transfering goes why not turn on apple talk on your win2k machine. Windows has good apple talk support. That or create share drives on your linux servers that both win and mac can use.
  • Reply 23 of 25
    radellafradellaf Posts: 1member
    I can understand that if there is no way to turn off all the "._" resource fork dot files, then alright, but what I don't understand is why the attitude is so often defending the "usefulness" of them rather than saying "yeah, they are annoying and usually useless, and I too sure wish someone would write a patch to the OS to disable them".



    I'm surprised, a lot, that nobody has, or at least none that I can find. Would it be that hard?



    I understand that copying files to FAT32 would lose some info, then, but as far as I can tell, it would never make a difference. Resource forks are only important to mac-ish files (like fonts) that I would never use a FAT32 drive FOR. Mostly, I use them for MP3 and graphics files, both of which have all the internal metadata features they need, and which are often read by simplistic devices that try to deal with "._" files as if they were actual media files (and reasonably so, as they still have the right extension). Furthermore, I'd love to have the .Trashes and .DS and every other dot file not be written. I'll accept that my icon positions won't be saved, and that all file deletions will be immediate. So be it.



    So, for real and true, nobody knows of a way to hack OS-X to disable dot files on FAT drives?



    Shame I only know embedded C...
  • Reply 25 of 25
    :-|:-| Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by radellaf View Post


    So, for real and true, nobody knows of a way to hack OS-X to disable dot files on FAT drives?



    Shame I only know embedded C...



    10.5 brought in a terminal tool for this called dot_clean. For example "dot_clean /path/folder" will join these files in that folder with their parent files. Check "man dot_clean" in terminal to read more.
Sign In or Register to comment.