Time Machine: Spit!!!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Tim Streater on 21 Nov 2009 17:27 On 21/11/2009 22:11, Andy Hewitt wrote: > That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version > of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes. Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other. What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM. And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a more detailed comparison is required. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" Bill of Rights 1689
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 17:34 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > On 21/11/2009 22:11, Andy Hewitt wrote: > > > That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version > > of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes. > > Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or > JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently > deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other. > What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at > it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM. > > And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a > more detailed comparison is required. Aye, and that's another reason why TM shouldn't be your sole backup. Rooting around in it must introduce some element of risk. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Tim Streater on 21 Nov 2009 17:42 On 21/11/2009 22:34, Andy Hewitt wrote: > Tim Streater<timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > >> On 21/11/2009 22:11, Andy Hewitt wrote: >> >>> That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version >>> of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes. >> >> Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or >> JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently >> deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other. >> What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at >> it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM. >> >> And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a >> more detailed comparison is required. > > Aye, and that's another reason why TM shouldn't be your sole backup. > Rooting around in it must introduce some element of risk. You mean 'cos I might dork it over? I only root around inside the backups using TM itself. If I need to do a TW-type comparison then I restore the file first (e.g. to my desktop, where it's not gonna overwrite my working copy). -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" Bill of Rights 1689
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 18:44 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > On 21/11/2009 22:34, Andy Hewitt wrote: > > Tim Streater<timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > >> On 21/11/2009 22:11, Andy Hewitt wrote: > >> > >>> That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version > >>> of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes. > >> > >> Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or > >> JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently > >> deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other. > >> What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at > >> it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM. > >> > >> And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a > >> more detailed comparison is required. > > > > Aye, and that's another reason why TM shouldn't be your sole backup. > > Rooting around in it must introduce some element of risk. > > You mean 'cos I might dork it over? I only root around inside the > backups using TM itself. If I need to do a TW-type comparison then I > restore the file first (e.g. to my desktop, where it's not gonna > overwrite my working copy). Yes, and no. Yes, it's possible to 'dork it over', but not necessarily yourself, it could be anyone. Maybe the kind of person that likes to root around their iPhoto or Aperture library and edit images directly (it happens). -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Rowland McDonnell on 22 Nov 2009 17:09
Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days? > >>> > >>> Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can > >>> go hang. > >> If it did not already exist, would Apple invent AppleScript today? > > > > Christ knows. AppleScript is appalling. > > > > But - well, I'd like to learn to program my Mac using *SOMETHING* so > > that I can perform simple automated jobs like I could on my BBC Micro > > back in the early 1980s. I've got this super Mac, but in some ways a > > BBC Micro is more use to me- simply because a Mac won't let me automate > > it. > > What sort of jobs? Hmm. I've given up thinking about automation since it's nearly impossible to do any more - decades of `improvements' and that's one thing which is definitely worse. So... Let's see. I can think of two jobs I do manually a lot which are really annoying. I'd like a script that'd dive down a directory tree recursively and move all files matching a specific pattern to the trash. (Job to be done: delete all *.log, *.aux, *.toc, *.lot, *lof, etc files if they are in a directory with a *.tex file of the same filename root) And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page size/orientation back to A4 portrait. >(And feel free to contact me off line if you'd > prefer) I quite like AppleScript (having scripted in virtually every OS > and language over the years). The biggest problem I find is where the > app doesn't support AppleScript fully so the promise is tantalising but > the reality less so. The biggest problem is simply persuading AppleScript to perform *ANY* tasks, I find. I've found it nearly impossible to figure out what scripting dictionary entries do or how to use them. One other problem is the lack of ability to control data types, and AppleScript's tendency to pick the wrong data type for the job in hand. Not to mention the fact that I found out the hard way Apple's totally uninterested in keeping AppleScript stable, or so it seems. I did once manage to cobble together some AppleScripts I found useful to use with LaTeX. I downloaded, printed out, and read a lot in the AppleScript reference manual from Apple, I bought AppleScript for Dummies which I read all of (it's very bad), I read many on-line guides. It took several weeks to figure out how to write scripts to delete - look, you run TeX on a *.tex file, you get a *.pdf output (shutup), and also a *.log file, usually a *.aux file, and often other debris too. I found out how to write a script that'd delete such files, but never could work out how to get it to work recursively. Anyway, like I say, after several weeks hard slog, I got the above script working, and a few others. Never could get it working recursively - but I could have written a Basic program to do the job in minutes. Recursively, too - dead easy. Impossible with AppleScript, so it seemed. Anyway, then I went from MacOS 7.6.1 to 9.0.4 and all my scripts broke. Since I had no idea why they worked in the first place, I couldn't fix 'em. > That said, if something can't be scripted in > AppleScript then it is unlikely to be scriptable in Bash or Perl on the > Mac either. For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can find out about on Macs. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |