Norton Go Home (Revisited)

[Robert Hartman]

In article <1081 at keele.keele.ac.uk> pha21 at seq1.keele.ac.uk (Braham Levy) writes:
>In article <191 at bria.UUCP>, mike at bria.UUCP (Michael Stefanik) writes:
>> In an article, root at thestepchild.sgi.com (Super-User) writes:
>>
>> >A while back someone posted a review of a Norton Utilities package that
>> >hacked over the appropriate system calls to allow deleted files to be
>
>whats all the big deal about ???  if you really want a NU type thing then
>why not just do it with a shell script called "rm" an "mv", ie wake up and
>rewrite these to save a copy of deleted and clobbered files. okay this needs 
>the same disk space but doesn't have the problem of relinking the kernel. 

Hi!  I'm the one who wrote the original message, not "root."  Sorry
about that.  Apparently you didn't read the whole posting, because I
discussed this very thing.  I also noted that this is no help when it
comes to file truncation via redirection in sh (and other shells
without a "noclobber" variable).   A user can't always get around
that.

>... so why should i have to pay Pete Norton bundles for something that i
>can write myself in 30 seconds flat ??? all you don't get is a glitzy
>user interface. oh no why not write one in your favourite windowing
>system.

That's not the point.  I don't have to pay Pete Norton anything to get
around it.  Just because I can work around the problem myself (by using
csh and writing some scripts for mv and rm) doesn't mean it isn't
there.  My point had very little to do with NU per se, execpt to say
that if someone does want to buy it, and it's operation is transparent,
so what?  Why trash something that doesn't harm the system and saves
people grief?

My main point had to do with the recognition that any persistent
condition that allows users to lose important data is either an
implementation bug or a flaw in the design.  Take your pick.  It is not
a feature, and it is certainly not consistent with the elegance of the
UNIX design--which I greatly admire in all other respects.

>as a final point : Would authors of news messages please refrain from spurious 
>comments about how nice people are ?? i don't think that lines like 
>		".. is a real puke" 
>add anything to any arguement least of all that of the authors. 
>i don't mind humour but do dislike this habit of insulting anyone and 
>anything that is unknown. 

Here I think you've confused my message with someone else's.  I never
posted that, and I can't remember when I've ever posted a deliberate
insult.  When I commented that I didn't understand why so many
brilliant people spend so much energy defending something so easily
fixed, I meant exactly that.  IMNSHO, there are a lot of very brilliant
people out there with blinders on when it comes to this particular
point.  I honestly don't understand why that is.

>braham

-r (Robert Hartman)