Slashdot Mirror
Undelete In Linux
Manuel Arriaga writes "[To the editors: I am not a professional programmer, nor will I ever be one. My income does not depend on my computing/programming skills, and hopefully it never will. So promoting free software I wrote does not help me in any financial way, no matter how indirect. libtrash is free software (GPL2), and I distribute it for free from my website. I have nothing to gain from the increased exposure, except for knowing that I am helping others. And I know slashdot isn't freshmeat... With that out of the way:]
I have seen this topic discussed in the LKML multiple times by now, and many more people asking in the newsgroups why "I can't recover my deleted file on GNU/Linux".
Here is my answer to that question. libtrash gives Linux a real "trash can". And it has been doing so (with varying degrees of stability) for more than one year now.
If you consider it appropriate, make this information public on slashdot."
slashdot isn't freshmeat
Yes. So let's not have software posted on the front page, eh?
So... what? Linux is incapable of ever having a log appear for the user that, by use of clever formatting, tries to convey what files were deleted, and where they were, and how many?
I can think of some ways of doing that. I would say that any sort of Unix OS needs some serious ass kicking by HCI specialists, but frankly I think that it would be easier to dump Unix in the crapper and start over with UI as the predominant concern.
(and no, OS X is not a Unix with a good UI, it has a craptastic UI. It gets dumped too)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I agreed with everything you said up till "very real". Then I wanted to kill you.
;-)
When you have an example of doing something in an only partly real sense, let me know
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
All Windows applications that want to display the "certified for" logo are required to use Windows Installer. Mind you, Windows Installer is just the back-end; there are several applications that you can use to create a custom front-end to the installer. InstallShield and Wise are two such applications. While they are different applications, they both ultimately use the *same* MSI database and Windows Installer back-end. This allows for a single point in which to check dependencies as well as provide a rich set of uninstall/rollback features.
One good thing about Windows Installer is that the install is an atomic procedure. That is, if it fails for any reason (file missing, user cancel, etc.), then it will completely roll-back and not leave bits of a partially installed application.
My point is, is that while it's possible to use different front-end installers, they all use the same back-end, unlike the different Linux package systems.
Rpm doesn't work right, but apt sure does. Serious linux users don't use rpm based distro's anyway so its not a 1 to 1 comparison.
if you don't know how to change your system to testing or unstable thats your problem.. don't cry about it on slashdot.