How can I make alias files invisible?
Curmudgeon
problem:
Some time back, I had to restore my boot drive from my backup, and ever
since then the aliases for the etc, tmp, and var folders are visible in
finder windows. Whatever application I was using for backups - I think
at that point it was SuperDuper! - rendered them visible on the backup.
That didn't bother me but I don't want them visible when I open my boot
drive.
I've tried a number of applications I found on VersionTracker to repair
the problem but none of them seem to work on aliases. I know there was
an invisibility bit in ResEdit that one could easily set (or unset) but
I'm sure things have changed in OSX.
Is there a command line fix for this that I should know about (or maybe
an application I haven't found yet)? This is really bugging me.
By the way, I'm running 10.4.11 (fully updated) on a G4 Digital Audio.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Cheers!
Mudge
--
Life is change: How it differs from the rocks!
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
New worlds to gain: My life is to survive . . .
. . . and be alive for you.
John McWilliams
> This is a serious question about how to fix an admittedly quite trivial
> problem:
>
> Some time back, I had to restore my boot drive from my backup, and ever
> since then the aliases for the etc, tmp, and var folders are visible in
> finder windows. Whatever application I was using for backups - I think
> at that point it was SuperDuper! - rendered them visible on the backup.
> That didn't bother me but I don't want them visible when I open my boot
> drive.
>
> I've tried a number of applications I found on VersionTracker to repair
> the problem but none of them seem to work on aliases. I know there was
> an invisibility bit in ResEdit that one could easily set (or unset) but
> I'm sure things have changed in OSX.
>
> Is there a command line fix for this that I should know about (or maybe
> an application I haven't found yet)? This is really bugging me.
>
> By the way, I'm running 10.4.11 (fully updated) on a G4 Digital Audio.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mudge
>
for you.
* The shareware app, not drinks.
--
john mcwilliams
Gregory Weston
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> This is a serious question about how to fix an admittedly quite trivial
> problem:
>
> Some time back, I had to restore my boot drive from my backup, and ever
> since then the aliases for the etc, tmp, and var folders are visible in
> finder windows. Whatever application I was using for backups - I think
> at that point it was SuperDuper! - rendered them visible on the backup.
> That didn't bother me but I don't want them visible when I open my boot
> drive.
>
> I've tried a number of applications I found on VersionTracker to repair
> the problem but none of them seem to work on aliases. I know there was
> an invisibility bit in ResEdit that one could easily set (or unset) but
> I'm sure things have changed in OSX.
>
> Is there a command line fix for this that I should know about (or maybe
> an application I haven't found yet)? This is really bugging me.
>
> By the way, I'm running 10.4.11 (fully updated) on a G4 Digital Audio.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mudge
There are 3 ways a file can be invisible in OS X. The file can be listed
in a file named .hidden (which was deprecated in 10.4, but still
supported if present), it can have a name that starts with a '.', or it
can have a flag set in the directory entry that says it should be
invisible. That thing that you're sure has changed in OS X hasn't; that
3rd technique is what's used for the hidden UNIX directories and links
in Tiger and later OS X versions.
I'm suspecting that the tools you've tried that haven't worked are
resolving the link before operating on it (and thus hiding the
pointed-to item, rather than the link itself). It's unfortunately easy
to do because of, among other things, a documented bug in Apple's file
API.
If you happen to have the developer tools installed, there's a command
line tool that will do it for you.
/Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Jolly Roger
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> If you happen to have the developer tools installed, there's a command
> line tool that will do it for you.
>
> /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
And if you don't have Xcode installed, you can issue this command
instead:
chflags hidden /path/to/file
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Gregory Weston
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <uce-E538F5.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > If you happen to have the developer tools installed, there's a command
> > line tool that will do it for you.
> >
> > /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
>
> And if you don't have Xcode installed, you can issue this command
> instead:
>
> chflags hidden /path/to/file
While I can find references to this on the Internet, the man page for
chflags (10.4 and 10.5) doesn't mention the hidden flag. The man page
and the online references I found both assert that it doesn't work with
symlinks, though, and the 3 specific items the OP asked about where
links rather than directories themselves.
Jolly Roger
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-6EA11...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <uce-E538F5.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you happen to have the developer tools installed, there's a command
> > > line tool that will do it for you.
> > >
> > > /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
> >
> > And if you don't have Xcode installed, you can issue this command
> > instead:
> >
> > chflags hidden /path/to/file
>
> While I can find references to this on the Internet, the man page for
> chflags (10.4 and 10.5) doesn't mention the hidden flag.
It's in the man page in my installations of both 10.4 and 10.5. Are you
sure you didn't just miss it? Here's what the manual says about it:
hidden set the hidden flag [Hide item from GUI]
> The man page
> and the online references I found both assert that it doesn't work with
> symlinks, though, and the 3 specific items the OP asked about were
> links rather than directories themselves.
I hadn't noticed that. Thanks.
--
Please send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly
to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry
SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups.
You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Gregory Weston
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <uce-0A1B44.2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-6EA11...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <uce-E538F5.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you happen to have the developer tools installed, there's a command
> > > > line tool that will do it for you.
> > > >
> > > > /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
> > >
> > > And if you don't have Xcode installed, you can issue this command
> > > instead:
> > >
> > > chflags hidden /path/to/file
> >
> > While I can find references to this on the Internet, the man page for
> > chflags (10.4 and 10.5) doesn't mention the hidden flag.
>
> It's in the man page in my installations of both 10.4 and 10.5. Are you
> sure you didn't just miss it? Here's what the manual says about it:
>
> hidden set the hidden flag [Hide item from GUI]
Read it very carefully before posting that message and double-checked
just now. My G5 was delivered with 10.2 which was upgraded in-place to
10.3 and 10.4. My MacBook was delivered with 10.4 and was upgraded
in-place to 10.5. All upgrades happened on their respective release
days, and all updates have been applied within days of becoming
available (almost always via Software Update, but 10.5.3 and 10.5.4 were
done via the combo). Neither of them mention the hidden flag.
G
Jolly Roger
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
So I supposed through those upgrades, you missed some man page updates.
I've learned that "upgrade" is something to be avoided with Mac OS X...
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Gregory Weston
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
It's interesting, though, that you've got it on a 10.4 machine while a
machine I have that was delivered with 10.4 and then upgraded to Leopard
doesn't have that version of the page.
What's the date at the bottom of the chflags man page on your machine(s)?
Jolly Roger
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
Maybe my memory is faulty there. I'm sure I remember using "chflags
hidden" on 10.4 machines, but I could be mistaken about the man page on
10.4.
> What's the date at the bottom of the chflags man page on your machine(s)?
May 14, 2005
Gregory Weston
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > So I supposed through those upgrades, you missed some man page updates.
> > > I've learned that "upgrade" is something to be avoided with Mac OS X...
> >
> > It's interesting, though, that you've got it on a 10.4 machine while a
> > machine I have that was delivered with 10.4 and then upgraded to Leopard
> > doesn't have that version of the page.
>
> Maybe my memory is faulty there. I'm sure I remember using "chflags
> hidden" on 10.4 machines, but I could be mistaken about the man page on
> 10.4.
>
> > What's the date at the bottom of the chflags man page on your machine(s)?
>
> May 14, 2005
An article on Daring Fireball claims that the first version of OS X to
include a chflags that recognizes the hidden flag was 10.5, and that it
only works on HFS+ volumes (although I'd imagine legacy HFS as well).
Looking around a bit, it looks like the hidden flag may be an Apple
addition, which makes a certain amount of sense.
FWIW, on both of my machines the man page is from May, 1995. Despite the
outdated man page, the hidden flag is recognized by the command on my
MacBook (10.5) but not my G5 (10.4).
Edifying. Thank you.
David Empson
> In article <uce-F79936.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > It's interesting, though, that you've got it on a 10.4 machine while a
> > machine I have that was delivered with 10.4 and then upgraded to Leopard
> > doesn't have that version of the page.
>
> Maybe my memory is faulty there. I'm sure I remember using "chflags
> hidden" on 10.4 machines, but I could be mistaken about the man page on
> 10.4.
>
> > What's the date at the bottom of the chflags man page on your machine(s)?
>
> May 14, 2005
A possible explanation for the discrepancy (though the details seem to
be different)...
The Leopard installer has a bug. If you do an "Upgrade" install, you end
up with a mixture of Leopard and Tiger man pages. This has been
discussed previously specifically with reference to the 'ls' man page.
My Mac Mini (still running 10.5.2) got Leopard via an Upgrade, and it is
suffering from this mixture of man pages.
If I do a "man chflags" on my Mac Mini, I get the Tiger version of the
man page, which does _not_ mention the hidden option. The date at the
bottom of that page says May 2, 1995.
My MacBook Pro (on 10.5.4) got Leopard via migration from a cloned
drive, and that method (or any other method other than "Upgrade") gives
you the correct set of Leopard man pages.
If I do a "man chflags" on my MacBook Pro, I get the Leopard version of
the man page, which describes the hidden option. The date at the bottom
of that page says May 14, 2005.
You can check for the problem with the following command in Terminal:
ls /usr/share/man/man1/chflags*
If your computer was "Upgraded" to Leopard, it will list two files:
/usr/share/man/man1/chflags.1 /usr/share/man/man1/chflags.1.gz
The 'man' command finds the chflags.1 file first, so it displays it.
Unfortunately, that is the Tiger man page, not the Leopard one.
If your computer had Leopard installed any other way, it will list one
file:
/usr/share/man/man1/chflags.1.gz
Leopard added lots of compressed man pages, but the "Upgrade" install
method didn't delete the corresponding Tiger non-compressed man pages.
I've filed this as a bug report with Apple, and they have at least
acknowledged they are looking at it. I expect that at some point one of
the 10.5.x updates will delete all the old man pages that aren't
supposed to be there any more.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Jolly Roger
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <uce-F79936.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's interesting, though, that you've got it on a 10.4 machine while a
> > > machine I have that was delivered with 10.4 and then upgraded to Leopard
> > > doesn't have that version of the page.
> >
> > Maybe my memory is faulty there. I'm sure I remember using "chflags
> > hidden" on 10.4 machines, but I could be mistaken about the man page on
> > 10.4.
> >
> > > What's the date at the bottom of the chflags man page on your machine(s)?
> >
> > May 14, 2005
>
> A possible explanation for the discrepancy (though the details seem to
> be different)...
>
> The Leopard installer has a bug. If you do an "Upgrade" install, you end
> up with a mixture of Leopard and Tiger man pages.
You also end up with a micture of other things. For instance, you'll
find your Perl installation is hosed due to a mangled set of items in
the /System/Library/Perl folder.
I've long avoided "upgrades" with Mac OS X for various reasons, but
Leopard really seems to stoop to a new low regarding just how badly it
can screw things up!
Curmudgeon
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <uce-F79936.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
[much discussion of how tools and man pages are updated deleted...]
OP here. I have been following this thread hoping that it would shed
some light on whether my issue with visible etc, tmp, and var aliases
(or links as they might more accurately be described) can be rendered
invisible again. It appears that they cannot, and I will simply have
to live with their annoying persistence. It's hard for me to believe
that's really true, but nobody has yet suggested a remedy that works.
By the way, my thanks to whomever suggested Cocktail, but all it does
is toggle the visibility of otherwise invisible files. It hasn't any
impact on the three "folders" I'm trying to invisibilize. The system
won't allow me to rename them .etc, .tmp, and .var so I seem to SOL.
Any other ideas? Voodoo, maybe? There's got to be a way to do this!
Tom Stiller
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-CDF14...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <uce-F79936.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> [much discussion of how tools and man pages are updated deleted...]
>
> OP here. I have been following this thread hoping that it would shed
> some light on whether my issue with visible etc, tmp, and var aliases
> (or links as they might more accurately be described) can be rendered
> invisible again. It appears that they cannot, and I will simply have
> to live with their annoying persistence. It's hard for me to believe
> that's really true, but nobody has yet suggested a remedy that works.
>
> By the way, my thanks to whomever suggested Cocktail, but all it does
> is toggle the visibility of otherwise invisible files. It hasn't any
> impact on the three "folders" I'm trying to invisibilize. The system
> won't allow me to rename them .etc, .tmp, and .var so I seem to SOL.
>
> Any other ideas? Voodoo, maybe? There's got to be a way to do this!
>
What does the command:
ls -lO /
produce?
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Jeffrey Goldberg
> I've filed this as a bug report with Apple [about left over man pages
> when updating], and they have at least
> acknowledged they are looking at it.
I also filed a report and was told that it was a known issue.
> I expect that at some point one of
> the 10.5.x updates will delete all the old man pages that aren't
> supposed to be there any more.
Let's hope.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
http://improve-usenet.org/
Gregory Weston
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-CDF14...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <uce-F79936.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> [much discussion of how tools and man pages are updated deleted...]
>
> OP here. I have been following this thread hoping that it would shed
> some light on whether my issue with visible etc, tmp, and var aliases
> (or links as they might more accurately be described) can be rendered
> invisible again. It appears that they cannot, and I will simply have
> to live with their annoying persistence. It's hard for me to believe
> that's really true, but nobody has yet suggested a remedy that works.
Did you actually try the SetFile command? That should work fine.
G
Curmudgeon
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> In article <270720081709030959%le...@me.alone>,
> Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-CDF14...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > > dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <uce-F79936.0...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> >
> > [much discussion of how tools and man pages are updated deleted...]
> >
> > OP here. I have been following this thread hoping that it would shed
> > some light on whether my issue with visible etc, tmp, and var aliases
> > (or links as they might more accurately be described) can be rendered
> > invisible again. It appears that they cannot, and I will simply have
> > to live with their annoying persistence. It's hard for me to believe
> > that's really true, but nobody has yet suggested a remedy that works.
>
> Did you actually try the SetFile command? That should work fine.
>
> G
Hey, GW. Sorry, I should have credited you as well. I don't currently
have the Developer Tools installed, but if that's what it takes to rid
myself of this annoyance, I will happily do so. I'll let you know what
the outcome is. Thanks again.
David Empson
> In <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson wrote:
>
> > I've filed this as a bug report with Apple [about left over man pages
> > when updating], and they have at least
> > acknowledged they are looking at it.
>
> I also filed a report and was told that it was a known issue.
Yes, mine too, as I see now that I looked for it again.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Curmudgeon
Stiller <tomst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here 'tis:
[adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lo /
total 340650
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 249856 Jul 11 20:18 AppleShare PDS
drwxrwxr-x 42 root admin - 1428 Jul 17 19:18 Applications
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 360448 Jul 18 03:51 Desktop DB
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 60754 Jul 13 10:58 Desktop DF
drwxr-xr-x 2 steve staff - 68 Sep 14 2003 Desktop Folder
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 0 Oct 18 2003 DesktopPrinters DB
drwx------ 3 root wheel - 102 Oct 26 2005 File Transfer
Folder??
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 0 Jul 3 22:25 Icon?
drwxrwxr-t 56 root admin - 1904 May 12 20:28 Library
-rw-rw-rw- 1 root admin - 15739276 Jan 17 2005 NAVMac800QSFile
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 190 Jul 6 18:31 NAV??? 7.0
QuickScan
drwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 512 Jul 25 02:23 Network
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 414208 Jul 1 13:02 Norton FS Data
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 100 Jul 11 20:18 Norton FS Index
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 79675392 Jul 11 20:12 Norton FS Volume
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 72906752 Jul 4 06:24 Norton FS Volume 2
-rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 0 Oct 18 2003 OpenFolderListDF?
drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel - 136 Jul 1 08:54 System
drwxr-xr-x 2 steve staff - 68 Oct 12 2003
TheFindByContentFolder
drwxr-xr-x 4 steve staff - 136 Jul 1 12:01
TheVolumeSettingsFolder
drwxr-xr-x 2 steve staff - 68 Dec 4 2005 Trash
drwxrwxr-t 8 root admin - 272 May 6 17:04 Users
drwxrwxrwt 11 root admin - 374 Jul 25 02:23 Volumes
drwxr-xr-x 4 root admin - 136 Feb 26 2004 automount
drwxr-xr-x 40 root wheel - 1360 Jan 29 11:01 bin
drwxrwxr-t 2 root admin - 68 Sep 12 2003 cores
dr-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel - 512 Jul 25 02:23 dev
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root admin - 11 Jul 1 15:10 etc -> private/etc
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root admin - 9 Jul 25 02:23 mach -> /mach.sym
-r--r--r-- 1 root admin - 604360 Jul 25 02:23 mach.sym
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel - 4352200 Oct 10 2007 mach_kernel
drwxr-xr-x 7 root wheel - 238 Jul 25 02:23 private
drwxr-xr-x 63 root wheel - 2142 Jul 1 08:50 sbin
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root admin - 11 Jul 1 15:38 tmp -> private/tmp
drwxr-xr-x 12 root wheel - 408 Nov 9 2005 usr
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root admin - 11 Jul 1 16:04 var -> private/var
Confession: Despite fifteen years at Bell Labs, I am not at all UNIX
conversant, so the above doesn't mean as much to me as it might. I'll
be very happy to accept any guidance you can provide. Thanks.
Jolly Roger
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> Here 'tis:
>
> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lo /
No. You need to use a upper-case letter O - not a lower-case letter o,
and not the number zero:
ls -lO /
Tom Stiller
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Confession: Despite fifteen years at Bell Labs, I am not at all UNIX
> conversant, so the above doesn't mean as much to me as it might. I'll
> be very happy to accept any guidance you can provide. Thanks.
Right! the command is:
ls -lO /
note the upper case "O" (size *does* matter) ;-)
You should see something like:
ls -lO /
total 45533
drwxrwxr-x+ 182 root admin - 6188 Jul 28 08:56 Applications/
-rwxrwxrwx@ 1 carole admin - 372 Mar 21 2001 Default*
-rw-r--r--@ 1 root admin hidden 210432 Jun 22 21:06 Desktop DB
-rw-r--r--@ 1 root admin hidden 1984994 Jun 22 20:36 Desktop DF
drwxr-xr-x@ 8 root admin hidden 272 Jun 19 2006 Desktop
Folder/
drwxrwxr-x@ 17 root admin - 578 Jul 12 15:31 Developer/
-rw-rw-r--@ 1 tms admin hidden 0 Apr 21 2004 Icon?
drwxrwxr-t+ 76 root admin - 2584 Jul 8 12:14 Library/
drwxrwx---@ 24 root admin - 816 Jun 19 2006 Log Files/
drwxr-xr-x@ 2 root wheel hidden 68 Nov 3 2007 Network/
drwx---rwx@ 3 root 65534 hidden 102 Jun 19 2006 Network
Trash Folder/
drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel - 136 Jun 9 08:13 System/
.
.
.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mudge
Chris Ridd
> -rw-rw-rw- 1 root admin - 15739276 Jan 17 2005 NAVMac800QSFile
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 190 Jul 6 18:31 NAV??? 7.0
> QuickScan
> drwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 512 Jul 25 02:23 Network
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 414208 Jul 1 13:02 Norton FS Data
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 100 Jul 11 20:18 Norton FS Index
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 79675392 Jul 11 20:12 Norton FS Volume
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 steve staff - 72906752 Jul 4 06:24 Norton FS Volume 2
Just a quick question - you're not *really* using Norton any more are
you? I can't remember if the latest version of Norton is good or bad,
but earlier versions have been pretty appalling and actually *caused*
filesystem corruption. Personally I'd avoid Norton altogether.
Cheers,
Chris
Curmudgeon
<n...@spam.no> wrote:
> In article <6f6cqoF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Just a quick question - you're not *really* using Norton any more are
> > you? I can't remember if the latest version of Norton is good or bad,
> > but earlier versions have been pretty appalling and actually *caused*
> > filesystem corruption. Personally I'd avoid Norton altogether.
>
> You beat me to it. Norton? Jesus...
No, that Norton stuff is vestigial. I haven't used it at all for years
except under 9.2.2 to attempt some file recovery (which actually worked
very well). I have DiskWarrior and FileSalvage on hand now so I should
never need it again.
Chris Ridd
> In article <no-3AB4A5.14...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Andy
> <n...@spam.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <6f6cqoF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick question - you're not *really* using Norton any more are
>>> you? I can't remember if the latest version of Norton is good or bad,
>>> but earlier versions have been pretty appalling and actually *caused*
>>> filesystem corruption. Personally I'd avoid Norton altogether.
>>
>> You beat me to it. Norton? Jesus...
>
> No, that Norton stuff is vestigial. I haven't used it at all for years
> except under 9.2.2 to attempt some file recovery (which actually worked
> very well). I have DiskWarrior and FileSalvage on hand now so I should
> never need it again.
Phew. I was fooled by the dates on some of the Norton files looking
pretty recent.
Cheers,
Chris
Curmudgeon
Stiller <tomst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well unfortunately, what I see is:
[adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lO /
ls: illegal option -- O
usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWZabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
[adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve%
which is why I tried "o" instead. Please advise . . .
Cheers!
Mudge
--
Chris Ridd
> Well unfortunately, what I see is:
>
> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lO /
> ls: illegal option -- O
> usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWZabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve%
>
> which is why I tried "o" instead. Please advise . . .
I think it is a Leopard-only option - are you running Tiger?
Cheers,
Chris
Tom Stiller
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> Well unfortunately, what I see is:
>
> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lO /
> ls: illegal option -- O
> usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWZabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve%
>
> which is why I tried "o" instead. Please advise . . .
>
I don't know what version of 'ls' you have. I know the man page for ls
dated May 19, 2002 says the usage is:
ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTW@abcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
but if you read through the man mage, you find:
-O Include the file flags in a long (-l) output.
listed in the options.
On the other hand, the version of ls that I have on my G3 running
10.4.11 does exhibit the behavior you describe.
Curmudgeon
<chri...@mac.com> wrote:
Right you are, Chris! As I said in my original message (long since
buried in this meandering thread), I'm running 10.4.11 on a hot rod
Digital Audio G4. So there you go . . .
Cheers backatcha!
Curmudgeon
Stiller <tomst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <290720080707163940%le...@me.alone>,
> Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
>
> > Well unfortunately, what I see is:
> >
> > [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lO /
> > ls: illegal option -- O
> > usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWZabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
> > [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve%
> >
> > which is why I tried "o" instead. Please advise . . .
> >
> I don't know what version of 'ls' you have. I know the man page for ls
> dated May 19, 2002 says the usage is:
> ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTW@abcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
>
> but if you read through the man mage, you find:
> -O Include the file flags in a long (-l) output.
>
> listed in the options.
>
> On the other hand, the version of ls that I have on my G3 running
> 10.4.11 does exhibit the behavior you describe.
Thanks, Tom. See my earlier reply to Chris Ridd. I am on 10.4.11
(albeit on a souped up Digital Audio G4).
Chris Ridd
> In article <6f8iuqF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
> <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-29 13:07:16 +0100, Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> said:
>>
>>> Well unfortunately, what I see is:
>>>
>>> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve% ls -lO /
>>> ls: illegal option -- O
>>> usage: ls [-ABCFGHLPRSTWZabcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1] [file ...]
>>> [adsl-70-131-83-28:~] steve%
>>>
>>> which is why I tried "o" instead. Please advise . . .
>>
>> I think it is a Leopard-only option - are you running Tiger?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris
>
> Right you are, Chris! As I said in my original message (long since
> buried in this meandering thread), I'm running 10.4.11 on a hot rod
> Digital Audio G4. So there you go . . .
Rats, sorry. There's a website with the 10.4 manpages on:
<http://www.manpagez.com/man/1/ls/osx-10.4.php>. It looks like -o
(lowercase letter o) is what you want and what you tried. However one
of the changes between 10.4 and 10.5 looks like it was to make the
other HFS+ "Finder" flags like "hidden" more consistently accessible.
So I can't see how to show this flag using 10.4 tools.
Instead of getting the developer tools installed, the 14-day demo of
Bar Bones Super Get Info appears to let you toggle a file/folders
hidden (calls it invisible) flag. Try it out.
Here if I "Open Hidden" I can see /private, /etc, and so on, and
opening /etc without resolving the alias shows me /etc points to
/private/etc, and is Invisible.
Cheers,
Chris
Curmudgeon
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
(in answer to my question about how to render visible alias/link files
[/etc, /tmp, /var] properly invisible):
> > If you happen to have the developer tools installed, there's a command
> > line tool that will do it for you.
> >
> > /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
Well, I finally got around to installing the Developer Tools and
invoked the command you passed me and here's what was returned:
[adsl-70-131-94-203:~] steve% /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V ./etc
Invalid Argument -P -a
Usage: SetFile [option...] file...
-a attributes # attributes (lowercase = 0, uppercase = 1)*
-c creator # file creator
-d date # creation date (mm/dd/[yy]yy [hh:mm[:ss] [AM |
PM]])*
-m date # modification date (mm/dd/[yy]yy [hh:mm[:ss] [AM
| PM]])*
-t type # file type
Note: The following attributes may be used with the -a option:
A Alias file
B Bundle
C Custom icon*
D Desktop*
E Hidden extension*
I Inited*
M Shared (can run multiple times)
N No INIT resources
L Locked
S System (name locked)
T Stationary
V Invisible*
Z Busy*
Note: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are allowed with folders
Note: Period (.) represents the current date and time.
Note: [yy]yy < 100 assumes 21th century, e.g. 20yy
So I invoked it without the -P option:
[adsl-70-131-94-203:~] steve% /Developer/Tools/SetFile -aV ./etc
Invalid File Attribute Specified.Invalid File Attribute
Specified.ERROR: File Not Found. (-43) on file: -aV
ERROR: File Not Found. (-43) on file: ./etc
Any additional ideas? Thanks in advance.
Richard Maine
> In article <uce-E538F5.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > > /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V <file_path>
> [adsl-70-131-94-203:~] steve% /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V ./etc
> Invalid Argument -P -a
Odd in 2 regards.
1. I just tried it (on a temp dir I made instead of fiddling with /etc)
and it worked fine.
2. That error message looks odd in that it seem sto be complaining about
a single argument named "-P -a". I can't explain that.
> So I invoked it without the -P option:
Well, you really do need the -P option to do what you want, but that
aside..
> [adsl-70-131-94-203:~] steve% /Developer/Tools/SetFile -aV ./etc
> Invalid File Attribute Specified.Invalid File Attribute
> Specified.ERROR: File Not Found. (-43) on file: -aV
You need a blank between the -a and the V. This maked me wonder whether
some blanks got omitted from your first attempt also, but it doesn't
obviously look so.
> ERROR: File Not Found. (-43) on file: ./etc
Also, why are you specifying ./etc instead of just /etc without the dot?
They mean different things and the one without the dot is almost surely
what you want. The dot means "currect directory". Thus ./etc means
something named etc in the current directory. That would be right only
if your current directory happened to be the root dir (which it normally
isn't unless you specifically went there). The plain /etc means the etc
in the root directory, which is what you want.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Chris Ridd
> Any additional ideas? Thanks in advance.
Get the free demo of Super Get Info from www.barebones.com; it works
and there's less typing to go wrong :-)
Cheers,
Chris
Gregory Weston
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
Something's weird. The -P option is the one that says "don't follow the
link I'm about to hand you" so you really do need it in there. What I
find interesting is that the usage info you got doesn't acknowledge that
option, while on my machine just now it does.
What version of the dev tools did you install?
Curmudgeon
<chri...@mac.com> wrote:
Thanks again, Chris, but the copies of the Super Get Info demo I have
downloaded from the Bare Bones site have all claimed to be expired the
very first time I've opened them. I've contacted the Bare Bones folks
but they cannot explain what's causing the problem (which was a known
bug in the previous version but only under 10.5.X and I'm on 10.4.11).
Strange . . .
It would seem that no matter which approach I've tried that I'm doomed
to live with visible /etc, /tmp, and /var links.
Cheers!
Curmudgeon
<chri...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-07-29 13:02:32 +0100, Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> said:
>
> > In article <no-3AB4A5.14...@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Andy
> > <n...@spam.no> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6f6cqoF...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just a quick question - you're not *really* using Norton any more are
> >>> you? I can't remember if the latest version of Norton is good or bad,
> >>> but earlier versions have been pretty appalling and actually *caused*
> >>> filesystem corruption. Personally I'd avoid Norton altogether.
> >>
> >> You beat me to it. Norton? Jesus...
> >
> > No, that Norton stuff is vestigial. I haven't used it at all for years
> > except under 9.2.2 to attempt some file recovery (which actually worked
> > very well). I have DiskWarrior and FileSalvage on hand now so I should
> > never need it again.
>
> Phew. I was fooled by the dates on some of the Norton files looking
> pretty recent.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
They are in fact quite recent since the file recovery activity has been
just during the past six weeks or so. I lost my data drive as I was in
the midst of repartitioning my backup drive. Great timing, eh wot?
Curmudgeon
<chri...@mac.com> wrote:
Thanks, Chris, but no joy. See my earlier message . . .
Jolly Roger
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> It would seem that no matter which approach I've tried that I'm doomed
> to live with visible /etc, /tmp, and /var links.
I wonder if deleting and re-creating the links (using an admin account)
would result in links that could then be hidden...
Curmudgeon
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
The most recent version I had available was that on the Tiger install
DVD (10.4.0), so I installed that one and then reran the 10.4.11 Combo
Updater hoping it would bring them closer to current, but I didn't see
any evidence that it touched the Developer folder. Is this another of
those "only available under Leopard" gotchas I've run into?
Curmudgeon
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <090820081712003326%le...@me.alone>,
> Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
>
> > It would seem that no matter which approach I've tried that I'm doomed
> > to live with visible /etc, /tmp, and /var links.
>
> I wonder if deleting and re-creating the links (using an admin account)
> would result in links that could then be hidden...
I'd be willing to do that if I was positive I knew what I was doing.
Would you be willing to walk me through the process? This is pretty
scary from where I'm sitting since I know that when I tried to move
these guys into an invisible folder, the system wouldn't boot. Many
thanks in advance . . .
Chris Ridd
> The most recent version I had available was that on the Tiger install
> DVD (10.4.0), so I installed that one and then reran the 10.4.11 Combo
> Updater hoping it would bring them closer to current, but I didn't see
> any evidence that it touched the Developer folder. Is this another of
> those "only available under Leopard" gotchas I've run into?
The only way to get updated developer tools is to download them
directly from Apple. Software Update does not touch them.
I can't remember whether Xcode 2.5 (the last version that will run on
Tiger) has a SetFile that supports -P :-(
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Ridd
> It would seem that no matter which approach I've tried that I'm doomed
> to live with visible /etc, /tmp, and /var links.
Did you ever try modifying the .hidden file in the root directory? Do this:
cp /.hidden /tmp
That may complain "file does not exist". That's OK, the next lines will
work despite this.
echo etc >> /tmp/.hidden
echo tmp >> /tmp/.hidden
echo var >> /tmp/.hidden
Those lines append etc, tmp and var to the .hidden file in /tmp
sudo cp /tmp/.hidden /
That copies the modified file back to /.hidden. You may need to log out
and in again, or restart the Finder to make it notice.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Ridd
> They are in fact quite recent since the file recovery activity has been
> just during the past six weeks or so. I lost my data drive as I was in
> the midst of repartitioning my backup drive. Great timing, eh wot?
Horrible timing!
Just the thought of using any tool in Mac OS 9 to modify a Unix disk
gives me the willies... This would be a good time to do a repair
permissions in Tiger to fix up whatever bits of the OS Norton's changed
accidentally.
Cheers,
Chris
P. Sture
Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
I have Xcode 2.5 (on Tiger), and SetFile is there, dated 21-Sep-2007.
--
Paul Sture
Chris Ridd
SetFile has shipped with all versions of Xcode. Does the Xcode with 2.5
support the -P flag, or is that a 3.x feature?
Cheers,
Chris
Gregory Weston
The version included with 2.4.1 definitely does. I haven't gotten around
to updating to 2.5 on my 10.4.11 machine.
Jolly Roger
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-0DC00...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <090820081712003326%le...@me.alone>,
> > Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> >
> > > It would seem that no matter which approach I've tried that I'm doomed
> > > to live with visible /etc, /tmp, and /var links.
> >
> > I wonder if deleting and re-creating the links (using an admin account)
> > would result in links that could then be hidden...
>
> I'd be willing to do that if I was positive I knew what I was doing.
> Would you be willing to walk me through the process? This is pretty
> scary from where I'm sitting since I know that when I tried to move
> these guys into an invisible folder, the system wouldn't boot. Many
> thanks in advance . . .
I haven't ever done it, myself; but there shouldn't be much to it. It
would go something like this:
sudo rm /etc
sudo ln -s /private/etc etc
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Chris Ridd
> I haven't ever done it, myself; but there shouldn't be much to it. It
> would go something like this:
>
> sudo rm /etc
> sudo ln -s /private/etc etc
>
> Rinse, lather, repeat.
A bit of the startup scripts used to repair all the tmp links IIRC. I'm
not where it has gone to though nowadays.
Cheers,
Chris
Curmudgeon
<chri...@mac.com> wrote:
Oh, have no fear! I was able to recover a *huge* percentage of what I
thought was gone forever using Norton under 9.2.2 and FileSalvage under
10.4.11, and then ran repairs using DiskWarrior. The system has been
very solid since with the sole exception of this visible links problem.
I haven't updated the Developer Tools yet nor have I tried the command
line fix you suggested since I have been working on a few time-critical
projects (y'know, *real* work), but I'll report back as soon as I can.
Thanks again for all your help.
P. Sture
Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
There is no -P listed in the help text with the Xcode 3.5 version.
--
Paul Sture
Chris Ridd
> I haven't updated the Developer Tools yet nor have I tried the command
> line fix you suggested since I have been working on a few time-critical
> projects (y'know, *real* work), but I'll report back as soon as I can.
Real work? Pff. ;-)
Give the repair permissions a chance when you've got a moment. One of
the reasons for the feature in the first place was to repair damage
caused by running programs in OS 9.
Cheers,
Chris
Curmudgeon
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> In article <6g715oF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> said:
> >
> > > The most recent version I had available was that on the Tiger install
> > > DVD (10.4.0), so I installed that one and then reran the 10.4.11 Combo
> > > Updater hoping it would bring them closer to current, but I didn't see
> > > any evidence that it touched the Developer folder. Is this another of
> > > those "only available under Leopard" gotchas I've run into?
> >
> > The only way to get updated developer tools is to download them
> > directly from Apple. Software Update does not touch them.
> >
> > I can't remember whether Xcode 2.5 (the last version that will run on
> > Tiger) has a SetFile that supports -P :-(
>
> The version included with 2.4.1 definitely does. I haven't gotten around
> to updating to 2.5 on my 10.4.11 machine.
OP here. I updated my DevTools to 2.5 and verified that SetFile does
indeed support the -P option, so I crossed my fingers and invoked the
following:
/Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V /etc
/Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V /tmp
/Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V /var
The results?
ERROR: Unexpected Error. (-5000) on file: /etc
ERROR: Unexpected Error. (-5000) on file: /tmp
ERROR: Unexpected Error. (-5000) on file: /var
No change whatsoever. The links remain visible.
Shazbat!
Gregory Weston
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
Sorry. You need to execute the command as a more privileged user.
Presuming you're in an admin account, just precede the above commands
with 'sudo ' and enter your password when prompted. Like:
sudo /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V /etc
Curmudgeon
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
Hey, Greg! That may have finally done the trick. When I invoked the
command(s) you suggested, I was challenged for my password the first
time around and there were no error messages. As soon as I can, I will
log out and back in and see whether it worked. I'll report back . . .
Cheers!
Jolly Roger
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
The change would have been immediate, unless the Finder is goofing up.
Even then, restarting the Finder will definitely tell you if it worked.
Curmudgeon
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <120820080831038744%le...@me.alone>,
> Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
>
> > In article <uce-70F0AB.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> >
> > > sudo /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V /etc
> >
> > Hey, Greg! That may have finally done the trick. When I invoked the
> > command(s) you suggested, I was challenged for my password the first
> > time around and there were no error messages. As soon as I can, I will
> > log out and back in and see whether it worked. I'll report back . . .
>
> The change would have been immediate, unless the Finder is goofing up.
> Even then, restarting the Finder will definitely tell you if it worked.
Thanks to Greg and Roger, my etc, tmp, and var links are now blissfully
invisible. I had to run SetFile against both the boot drive and clone.
The changes weren't automatically cloned for some reason but booting on
it and then invoking SetFile against the links there did the trick. As
Roger suggested, the Finder had to be relaunched for the changes to be
evident.
Jolly Roger
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-40543...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <120820080831038744%le...@me.alone>,
> > Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <uce-70F0AB.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > sudo /Developer/Tools/SetFile -P -a V /etc
> > >
> > > Hey, Greg! That may have finally done the trick. When I invoked the
> > > command(s) you suggested, I was challenged for my password the first
> > > time around and there were no error messages. As soon as I can, I will
> > > log out and back in and see whether it worked. I'll report back . . .
> >
> > The change would have been immediate, unless the Finder is goofing up.
> > Even then, restarting the Finder will definitely tell you if it worked.
>
> Thanks to Greg and Roger, my etc, tmp, and var links are now blissfully
> invisible. I had to run SetFile against both the boot drive and clone.
> The changes weren't automatically cloned for some reason but booting on
> it and then invoking SetFile against the links there did the trick. As
> Roger suggested, the Finder had to be relaunched for the changes to be
> evident.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mudge
Great to hear. Thanks for reporting back!
Curmudgeon
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
It's only the courteous and generous thing to do. It drives me crazy
when folks ask for help and then never finish the story so the rest of
us can benefit from the solution (or lack of same). Thanks again for
all your help. Same to Greg and Chris and Tom and all others who took
the time to reply.
Gregory Weston
Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
> > > Thanks to Greg and Roger, my etc, tmp, and var links are now blissfully
> > > invisible. I had to run SetFile against both the boot drive and clone.
> > > The changes weren't automatically cloned for some reason but booting on
> > > it and then invoking SetFile against the links there did the trick. As
> > > Roger suggested, the Finder had to be relaunched for the changes to be
> > > evident.
> >
> > Great to hear. Thanks for reporting back!
>
> It's only the courteous and generous thing to do. It drives me crazy
> when folks ask for help and then never finish the story so the rest of
> us can benefit from the solution (or lack of same). Thanks again for
> all your help. Same to Greg and Chris and Tom and all others who took
> the time to reply.
Like JR, glad to hear it finally worked out. Often even the helpers get
some benefit out of discussions like this, such as finding the limits of
certain tools or distributions.
Tony
> In article <170820080931000187%le...@me.alone>,
> Curmudgeon <le...@me.alone> wrote:
>
>> > > Thanks to Greg and Roger, my etc, tmp, and var links are now
>> blissfully
>> > > invisible. I had to run SetFile against both the boot drive and
>> clone.
>> > > The changes weren't automatically cloned for some reason but
>> booting on
>> > > it and then invoking SetFile against the links there did the
>> trick. As
>> > > Roger suggested, the Finder had to be relaunched for the changes to
>> be
>> > > evident.
>> >
>> > Great to hear. Thanks for reporting back!
>>
>> It's only the courteous and generous thing to do. It drives me crazy
>> when folks ask for help and then never finish the story so the rest of
>> us can benefit from the solution (or lack of same). Thanks again for
>> all your help. Same to Greg and Chris and Tom and all others who took
>> the time to reply.
>
> Like JR, glad to hear it finally worked out. Often even the helpers get
> some benefit out of discussions like this, such as finding the limits of
> certain tools or distributions.
>
"chflags hidden" (Hide item from GUI) should also work (and no need to
have the developer tools installed).
"chflags nohidden" to display.
--
Tony
Chris Ridd
> "chflags hidden" (Hide item from GUI) should also work (and no need to
> have the developer tools installed).
> "chflags nohidden" to display.
You need to read the *whole* thread. That chflags feature turns out to
be Leopard-only, and the problem was on a Tiger box. :-(
Cheers,
Chris