|
While we're talking Terminal, I move back and forth between machines a lot. 90% of the time, I'm on a Mac, but sometimes I use other platforms. So I keep my 1PW vault on Dropbox. And since Dropbox is one of the very first things I install on a new computer, I was wondering if I should hardlink my dot files to somewhere in my Dropbox and then have a simple script to hardlink them back whenever I am on a new computer. It would be slightly quicker, maybe, than fishing them out of Crashplan or Github. Plus, if I have multiple computers, they should theoretically sync? Is this a dumb idea? It feels vaguely dumb.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:How does the photo library handle stuff that is located on removable drives? I personally wouldn't want a bunch of scans of old documents sprinkled in with photos of my loved ones. I imagine that's what would happen if you were to view photos in the timeline/moments view. There's probably a better, separate app for managing and storing document scans on Dropbox, iCloud Drive, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:How does the photo library handle stuff that is located on removable drives? I was reading over on how to setup your photo library for the upcoming app / iCloud Photo Library and my guess is the best way to go about it is to create a separate library for the removable media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:While we're talking Terminal, I move back and forth between machines a lot. 90% of the time, I'm on a Mac, but sometimes I use other platforms. So I keep my 1PW vault on Dropbox. And since Dropbox is one of the very first things I install on a new computer, I was wondering if I should hardlink my dot files to somewhere in my Dropbox and then have a simple script to hardlink them back whenever I am on a new computer. It would be slightly quicker, maybe, than fishing them out of Crashplan or Github. Plus, if I have multiple computers, they should theoretically sync? Is this a dumb idea? It feels vaguely dumb. You could write a bash script that, when run from your Dropbox directory, creates all of the various links in your home directory. Just put the commands you normally run, except use the pwd in place of your Dropbox directory. If the OS X commands differ slightly from the GNU ones, you can do environment detection in a bash script and there's probably like a million StackOverflow threads that will help you with that. Of course the problem gets harder if you might be logging into systems with weird shells installed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:While we're talking Terminal, I move back and forth between machines a lot. 90% of the time, I'm on a Mac, but sometimes I use other platforms. So I keep my 1PW vault on Dropbox. And since Dropbox is one of the very first things I install on a new computer, I was wondering if I should hardlink my dot files to somewhere in my Dropbox and then have a simple script to hardlink them back whenever I am on a new computer. It would be slightly quicker, maybe, than fishing them out of Crashplan or Github. Plus, if I have multiple computers, they should theoretically sync? Is this a dumb idea? It feels vaguely dumb. EDIT: Misread what was being asked. Proteus Jones fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Uh how does 1password relate to his problem at all besides him mentioning it in passing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:While we're talking Terminal, I move back and forth between machines a lot. 90% of the time, I'm on a Mac, but sometimes I use other platforms. So I keep my 1PW vault on Dropbox. And since Dropbox is one of the very first things I install on a new computer, I was wondering if I should hardlink my dot files to somewhere in my Dropbox and then have a simple script to hardlink them back whenever I am on a new computer. It would be slightly quicker, maybe, than fishing them out of Crashplan or Github. Plus, if I have multiple computers, they should theoretically sync? Is this a dumb idea? It feels vaguely dumb. I'm not sure how much faster using Dropbox would be. I keep all my dotfiles on github using dotbot. It automatically symlinks everything for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:I'm not sure how much faster using Dropbox would be. I keep all my dotfiles on github using dotbot. It automatically symlinks everything for you. Dotbot makes keeping dot files (and all related stuff like vim plugins) up-to-date into a cinch. If you're already using github (or a similar external upstream), it's a no-brainer. If you're not using github but are in a terminal enough to worry about dotfile consistency, start using github. Also, I'm assuming everyone using Terminal with any frequency uses iTerm2 already. If not, start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
I have a 4TB external that is sporadically used. Often when I do things like open file save dialogues, Finder freezes for a few annoying seconds while it tries to wake up the external. I get to hear it spinning up for some time until I can save my file. Is there any way I can keep the drive connected and yet avoid this delay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I have a 4TB external that is sporadically used. Often when I do things like open file save dialogues, Finder freezes for a few annoying seconds while it tries to wake up the external. I get to hear it spinning up for some time until I can save my file. Is there any way I can keep the drive connected and yet avoid this delay? Energy Saver pane in system preferences has a toggle for 'put the hard disk to sleep when possible'. Uncheck it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
That seems really inefficient  But thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
If the scenario you describe is just to save a file to your main drive but you're experiencing the delay, you can unmount the spare volume until you need it as another option. You can keep it connected but drag it to the trash to unmount. Remount with either disk utility or write a script that you can double click to remount it as needed. Found an AppleScript that will toggle the mount status of a specified volume: http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20120211184732735 E: and here's an app: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mountain/id528726140?mt=12 Shin-chan fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That seems really inefficient Well then you can wait for it to spin up. I don't understand how it's inefficient. You're the one who wants it to already be spun up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Pivo posted:Well then you can wait for it to spin up. I don't understand how it's inefficient. You're the one who wants it to already be spun up. Shin-chan posted:If the scenario you describe is just to save a file to your main drive but you're experiencing the delay, you can unmount the spare volume until you need it as another option. Ideally, it would spin down after a period of inactivity and only spin up when I explicitly access the volume. Right now, it spins up when I implicitly access it, for example when I open a modal Finder window. But it's no big thing, I'm just going with Pivo's proposal of turning off the Energy Saver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
What are people using to download youtube videos these days?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
The new MS Office is available as a beta: http://products.office.com/en-US/mac/mac-preview
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Pivo posted:Well then you can wait for it to spin up. I don't understand how it's inefficient. You're the one who wants it to already be spun up. No, he wants it not to spin up at all when he isn't explicitly accessing it. This is a massive and long-standing annoyance in the open/save dialogs. You don't have to be saving to or navigating within a drive for it to have to spin up. I have 5 platter drives in my Mac Pro and it is a 10-15 second delay waiting for them all to spin up, even though 95% of the time I'm saving to the boot SSD or my projects SSD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
thegreatcodfish posted:The new MS Office is available as a beta: Works fine except Outlook does this: Crashed Thread: 5 Dispatch queue: com.apple.root.user-initiated-qos Exception Type: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGSEGV) Exception Codes: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at 0x0000000000000000 Booo :[ Any ideas of how to fix this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
thegreatcodfish posted:The new MS Office is available as a beta: All I want is for excel on Mac to work just like it does in windows and I imagine most people feel the same way... Is this too much to ask?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Brotato Broth posted:If it's running, moc doesn't seem to recognize it: Shameful self-quoting, could use some assistance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Has anyone used Duplicate Annihilator for Aperture, or any other comparable piece of software to get rid of duplicates in their Aperture libraries? I'm trying to get everything assembled in a sane fashion before Photos comes out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:Has anyone used Duplicate Annihilator for Aperture, or any other comparable piece of software to get rid of duplicates in their Aperture libraries? I'm trying to get everything assembled in a sane fashion before Photos comes out. I don't know about your question, but are you actually thinking of switching to Photos from Aperture? Photos seems like a watered down solution meant for people who shoot JPEGs and probably use Instagram filters. I'm actually planning to switch to Lightroom. What makes Photos compelling for an Aperture user? I got the email from Apple today too and laughed at it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
wolffenstein posted:Uh how does 1password relate to his problem at all besides him mentioning it in passing. I misread. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
mike- posted:All I want is for excel on Mac to work just like it does in windows and I imagine most people feel the same way... Is this too much to ask? Apparently not. This actually feels like a proper port, and not some weird garbage app that you can't pass files between Windows and Mac on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
You can tell it's a real port because now Onedrive for Business is now equally terrible on both Windows and OS X. On a serious note it looks like if you enable the developer mode in excel, it lets you use addins, including the analysis toolpak. Is that new for OS X?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Pivo posted:I don't know about your question, but are you actually thinking of switching to Photos from Aperture? Photos seems like a watered down solution meant for people who shoot JPEGs and probably use Instagram filters. I'm actually planning to switch to Lightroom. What makes Photos compelling for an Aperture user? I got the email from Apple today too and laughed at it. I am. I mainly use Aperture for organization as it handled the amount of pictures I have (about 300GB) better than iPhoto did, but not really to do any kind of deep editing. I just use it as a nice dumping ground, essentially, and Photos looks like it'll handle that use case better. I also like the integration with iCloud and my iPhone, which is where I shoot 95% of pictures nowadays anyways, and being able to easily share stuff with my wife.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:Dotbot makes keeping dot files (and all related stuff like vim plugins) up-to-date into a cinch. If you're already using github (or a similar external upstream), it's a no-brainer. If you're not using github but are in a terminal enough to worry about dotfile consistency, start using github. I'm moving that way. How do you put dot files in a git repository without the rest of the home directory ending up there? A big rear end .gitignore file?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I'm moving that way. How do you put dot files in a git repository without the rest of the home directory ending up there? A big rear end .gitignore file? just only git add your dot files or keep them in a 'dotfiles' repo if you really want to git add \* and commit a script that copies them over to ~ in the same repo
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I'm moving that way. How do you put dot files in a git repository without the rest of the home directory ending up there? A big rear end .gitignore file? Stick them in a subdirectory that uses github as a remote, then link the dotfiles to the right places. It's much neater than making your home directory into a repo and only adding a handful of files, and makes things like git status more tolerable. F'rex, this is what I did before using dotbot (sub in your own essential dotfiles): set up the git repo, move your dotfiles into the git repo, symlink your dotfiles back into place (so future changes made in the repo are mirrored automatically), make an install script that does just that for setting up on a new system. code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:Stick them in a subdirectory that uses github as a remote, then link the dotfiles to the right places. It's much neater than making your home directory into a repo and only adding a handful of files, and makes things like git status more tolerable. I literally just vomited. Why not just copy them with the cp command instead of using mv which destroys the original file? Then you create symbolic links to link back? Disgusting. There is a lot of unnecessary typing in there as well. All around, just bad... I don't understand why you'd want to relocate your actual dotfiles out of ~/ and then smlink them back.. seems utterly pointless, and honestly you're just making a mess out of home. If you're going to add it to a new system, why not just scp? You can EVEN set up your ~/git/dotfiles/ folder as if it is your home folder, cd into your home folder, start sshd on your machine that you are transferring from, cd to your home dir, and then code:code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
nosl posted:I literally just vomited. Why not just copy them with the cp command instead of using mv which destroys the original file? Then you create symbolic links to link back? Disgusting. There is a lot of unnecessary typing in there as well. All around, just bad... I don't understand why you'd want to relocate your actual dotfiles out of ~/ and then smlink them back.. seems utterly pointless, and honestly you're just making a mess out of home. I'm sorry you're an idiot who doesn't understand source control or symlinks. I mean, really? SCP? How stupid do you have to be to think it's even vaguely comparable to SVN, let alone git?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
why not do what pivo suggested and only add the files you want to the commit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
I really don't get the necessity of linking them either. Think about it like a real software project. git has the canonical version, but you still have to 'push to production' (or whatever your new age hipster boss decides to call it this 'sprint'). In that case it'd just be copying the files over... Also then you can modify the files for system-specific stuff without modifying your repo. I THINK WE MAY BE OVERTHINKING THIS GUISE
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
You're badly missing the point and are the one who sounds really stupid. Pivo posted:I really don't get the necessity of linking them either. Think about it like a real software project. git has the canonical version, but you still have to 'push to production' (or whatever your new age hipster boss decides to call it this 'sprint'). In that case it'd just be copying the files over... Also then you can modify the files for system-specific stuff without modifying your repo. The point is to keep your environment in sync to avoid having a bunch of host-specific, slightly different rc files all over the place. If you need to add something for the host that you're on, you add it to your repo. If it's a change that you only want on a certain OS or class of hosts, you wrap some logic around that in your rc and commit it. If it's a real unique snowflake situation, you add a line to the rc to source a ~/.bash.local file that lives outside of source control. The problem with just sourcing a bash.local that lives outside of a VCS is that you give up all the benefits like, y'know, being able to play on a dev branch, rollback, and see commit messages. So just do everything in a repo and symlink it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Or just have your home directory shared between all your hosts because gently caress it, we do it live. Honestly we're way overthinking this and it's way off-topic for this thread. The reality is that if you need version control for your environment settings, the way you do it is going to depend heavily on your own workflow. There are a million ways to do it. Isn't it Friday? I'm a few beers in, you should be too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:I'm sorry you're an idiot who doesn't understand source control or symlinks. Strawman. I don't think it's remotely similar, I'm saying there's no reason to use git or svn when you're just moving files from machine-to-machine. Why use a revision control system meant for large coding projects for your dotfiles? Makes no sense. That's why I suggested ssh or just cp. I don't understand symlinks? How long have you been using UNIX? Why relocate everything else to a git dir, put your dotfiles on the web, pull updates from github or your git repo, and use a symbolic link back to $HOME when you can just.. you know... host it yourself on your own server, preserving your $HOME structure and simply copy it over your local network, back to $HOME, recursively? But then again, I was sort of a dumbass for using 'git,' as the dir name in the example when trying to suggest not using git (although I was simply trying to follow your syntax after skimming your post)... I understand how git and SVN work (the former is better than the latter in my opinion, but that's just opinion). Also, if you'll actually dig into my post and read what I actually posted, you'll see I posted a local example as well, in other words, advocating that the poster simply keep everything on his own local network and keeps it simple, rather than making a loving git repo for his dotfiles and rape his $HOME just to symlink everything else back, so it's completely sensitive to any fuckups in his git repo. Using git or svn here is not the answer, period. Pivo posted:I THINK WE MAY BE OVERTHINKING THIS GUISE My point exactly. But hey, whatever makes you use the most symlinks and puts all your dotfiles on a git repo, amirite? nosl fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Is there a VLC/MKV player that can run from a flash driver without requiring any installation? It's for a friend and I'm not really sure what to try to find for Mac.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
I'd say the vast majority of small OS X applications (like media players) can run from a flash drive without anything special. VLC, MPlayerX, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'd say the vast majority of small OS X applications (like media players) can run from a flash drive without anything special. VLC, MPlayerX, etc. Awesome thank you. I know jack poo poo about Mac OS X and won't be able to test this before I give it to them so I just want to be sure. I just found VLC player has a Mac version and it looks like it's stand-alone so I think that will do the trick. Greatly appreciate the quick response!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Neat. I revived an old favorite, and bought another two seats for New Audio Technologies' Spatial Sound Card, so I could have virtual surround for my headphones again. Only it seems someone there hosed up, because their virtual sound card redirection kernel extension is signed with --resource-rules, which was obsoleted by 10.9.5 and 10.10. So it won't load and therefore work at all without me enabling kext dev mode, at least until I get them to fix their poo poo. They still haven't fixed their software distribution system, either. Basically, you have an account on their store, and it contains all of the licenses for every single product you've ever purchased from them. I accidentally "purchased" the free product, Spatial Audio Game Engine, which is a spatial sound enhanced port of Doom 3, which happened to require the (broken) non-Mac App Store version of Doom 3 to work. Guess what? When you go to download your software from NAT, they don't let you pick and choose individual software packages or your individual license files to download. Instead, they generate a new installer on the fly, every loving time, that contains every loving piece of software you have a license for, and package every one of your licenses into the installer automatically. This generator takes about 20 minutes each time, and then the download is about 600MB because of the Doom 3 thing. And every time you add a new license to a product, you have to generate and download a new installer. They also license in two methods. Either you can use two seats to license any generic USB flash drive as a dongle, which means that you have to have that flash drive plugged in the whole time you're using the software, or you can use one seat for a specific machine. And Boot Camp counts as a second machine, if you want to use the Windows version of the software on the same machine. End of rant, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 08:59
|
|
