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

-- 
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.

Curmudgeon 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
> 
  Cocktail* can make my invisible visible and vice-versa, so it may work 
for you.


   * The shareware app, not drinks.
-- 
john mcwilliams

In article <240720081030597704%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@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

In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@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

In article <jollyroger-6EA116.14393424072008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@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.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <uce-0A1B44.20312224072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-6EA116.14393424072008@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@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

In article <jollyroger-E0B630.19534324072008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-0A1B44.20312224072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-6EA116.14393424072008@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <uce-BABAD6.01501725072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-E0B630.19534324072008@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-0A1B44.20312224072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-6EA116.14393424072008@news.individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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.

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

In article <jollyroger-8079AA.01014625072008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-BABAD6.01501725072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-E0B630.19534324072008@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <uce-0A1B44.20312224072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <jollyroger-6EA116.14393424072008@news.individual.net>,
> > > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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.
> 
> 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.

What's the date at the bottom of the chflags man page on your machine(s)?

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-8079AA.01014625072008@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-BABAD6.01501725072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-E0B630.19534324072008@news.individual.net>,
> > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-0A1B44.20312224072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <jollyroger-6EA116.14393424072008@news.individual.net>,
> > > > >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article 
> > > > > > <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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.
> > 
> > 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

-- 
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

In article <jollyroger-2F85A4.09054325072008@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@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.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>  Gregory Weston <uce@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
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
 dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  Gregory Weston <uce@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!

-- 
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

In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
>  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> 
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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!

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.

In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> >  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > 
> > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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

In <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@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.

> 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/

In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> >  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > 
> > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <uce-DD2D09.02113928072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > >  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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.

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.

Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> In <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@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
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <tomstiller-632F3D.18551027072008@news.verizon.net>, Tom
Stiller <tomstiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > >  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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?

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.

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.

In article <280720080947538089%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@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 /

-- 
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

In article <280720080947538089%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <tomstiller-632F3D.18551027072008@news.verizon.net>, Tom
> Stiller <tomstiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>,
> >  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
> > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > > >  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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?
> 
> 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

[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

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

On 2008-07-28 15:47:53 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> -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

In article <6f6cqoF9tqvfU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Chris Ridd <chrisridd@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...

-- 
| Cheers,                                 |
| Andy.                                   |                  
| Improve Usenet:  Killfile Google Groups |
|        http://improve-usenet.org/       |

In article <no-3AB4A5.14470629072008@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Andy
<no@spam.no> wrote:

> In article <6f6cqoF9tqvfU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Chris Ridd <chrisridd@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.

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.

On 2008-07-29 13:02:32 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> In article <no-3AB4A5.14470629072008@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Andy
> <no@spam.no> wrote:
> 
>> In article <6f6cqoF9tqvfU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Chris Ridd <chrisridd@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

In article <tomstiller-B5FFEB.11414228072008@news.verizon.net>, Tom
Stiller <tomstiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <280720080947538089%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <tomstiller-632F3D.18551027072008@news.verizon.net>, Tom
> > Stiller <tomstiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>,
> > >  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>,
> > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > > > >  dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > > > >  Gregory Weston <uce@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?
> > 
> > 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
> 
> [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/
>   .
>   . 
>   .
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

-- 
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.

On 2008-07-29 13:07:16 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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

In article <290720080707163940%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@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.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article <6f8iuqFafq5mU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
<chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-07-29 13:07:16 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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 . . .

Cheers backatcha!

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.

In article <tomstiller-AB4C1B.09123429072008@news.verizon.net>, Tom
Stiller <tomstiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <290720080707163940%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@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).

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.

On 2008-07-30 01:30:17 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> In article <6f8iuqFafq5mU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
> <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-07-29 13:07:16 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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

In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Gregory Weston <uce@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.

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.

Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@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

On 2008-08-06 18:17:44 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> 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

In article <060820081217449006%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@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.

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?

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <6fafgqFamjoeU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
<chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> 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

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!

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.

In article <6f8ff7FaaaqvU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
<chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-07-29 13:02:32 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:
> 
> > In article <no-3AB4A5.14470629072008@freenews.iinet.net.au>, Andy
> > <no@spam.no> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <6f6cqoF9tqvfU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Chris Ridd <chrisridd@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?

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.

In article <6fu8rcFdej05U1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
<chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-08-06 18:17:44 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:
> 
> > 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

Thanks, Chris, but no joy.  See my earlier message . . .

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.

In article <090820081712003326%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@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...

-- 
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

In article <uce-EAE96C.16453306082008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <060820081217449006%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-E538F5.12330524072008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <uce@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.
> 
> 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?

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?

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.

In article <jollyroger-0DC00D.17222509082008@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <090820081712003326%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@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 . . .

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.

On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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 :-(

Cheers,

Chris

On 2008-08-09 23:12:00 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> 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

On 2008-08-09 23:14:33 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> 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

In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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 :-(
> 

I have Xcode 2.5 (on Tiger), and SetFile is there, dated 21-Sep-2007.

-- 
Paul Sture

On 2008-08-10 07:50:17 +0100, "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> said:

> In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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 :-(
>> 
> 
> I have Xcode 2.5 (on Tiger), and SetFile is there, dated 21-Sep-2007.

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

In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
 Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <090820082013055232%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-0DC00D.17222509082008@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <090820081712003326%leave@me.alone>,
> >  Curmudgeon <leave@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.

-- 
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

On 2008-08-10 14:51:28 +0100, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:

> 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

In article <6g722rFe875iU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Ridd
<chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-08-09 23:14:33 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:
> 
> > 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

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.

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.

In article <6g7in7FdetfmU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:

> On 2008-08-10 07:50:17 +0100, "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> said:
> 
> > In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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 :-(
> >> 
> > 
> > I have Xcode 2.5 (on Tiger), and SetFile is there, dated 21-Sep-2007.
> 
> 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?
> 

There is no -P listed in the help text with the Xcode 3.5 version.

-- 
Paul Sture

On 2008-08-10 19:17:50 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> said:

> 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

In article <uce-497884.06563410082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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!

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.

In article <110820081500047973%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <uce-497884.06563410082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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.

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

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

In article <uce-70F0AB.17562711082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <110820081500047973%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-497884.06563410082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <6g715oFeim50U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > >  Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 2008-08-09 23:27:29 +0100, Curmudgeon <leave@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.
> 
> 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

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!

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.

In article <120820080831038744%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <uce-70F0AB.17562711082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@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.

-- 
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

In article <jollyroger-405433.08474212082008@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <120820080831038744%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-70F0AB.17562711082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <uce@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

-- 
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.

In article <160820081615496796%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-405433.08474212082008@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <120820080831038744%leave@me.alone>,
> >  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <uce-70F0AB.17562711082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > Gregory Weston <uce@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!

-- 
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

In article <jollyroger-76C418.20534816082008@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <160820081615496796%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-405433.08474212082008@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <120820080831038744%leave@me.alone>,
> > >  Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <uce-70F0AB.17562711082008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > > Gregory Weston <uce@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!

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.

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.

In article <170820080931000187%leave@me.alone>,
 Curmudgeon <leave@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.

-- 
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
   - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:22:46 -0400, Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <170820080931000187%leave@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <leave@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

On 2008-08-18 00:55:31 +0100, Tony <tony@nospam.com> said:

> "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