Of course, I read it. I don't believe a word of it. My Windows-using friend, you may be new to the Mac, but I am not. You are not the first Windows user to complain that Mac treats folders are objects whose contents don't merge by default. You may rest assured that you will not be the last.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X: how to merge folder contents, not replace
- Thread starter Oats
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
that's the whole point, this is exactly where I started, I can't believe it is still going on ... it's obvious that both ways are right, but, no ... there is still discussion about what is more right... it is really very stupid ...
I do not accept like you that discussion would be there and it's ok... there is no meaning in that ... I don't see reason on insisting on one of the ways,
there is an issue, it should be solved.
so why those discussions are going on and on, again and
again?
there is no dependency from the angle by which your finger touches the trackpad for destination of your file operations either ...
well, size of leagues never really impressed me since I saw the size of the moon, not mentioning other objects out there ...
Well I don't feel like it either, but unfortunately your point of view contributing exactly to the opposite, your insisting, while it's obvious that there is a problem here, keeps those discussions ...
I don't want even start to think about how I am going to live with that issue for another decade, it is so ridiculous... I would rather stop using finder,
as you never know what other insisting it can contain ...
again, this issue should be solved, by one way or another
and the very survival of centralized software creation depends on how well it could absorb the different views to the problems.
Well I am sorry to disappoint you, may be it will make you think a bit? ...
I do not really know how windows explorer works with folders, as
I never used it for file operations ... and it looks like the same should be done with Mac and all Apple related ...
It doesn't matter for me how Finder treats folders by default, as long as it
doesn't take irreversible steps, without undo as such inconsistent applications should have.
Well, it should make you think, I hope that among those, one would
be really last, because it is very very stupid situation ...
The discussion goes on because more and more **new** Mac users keep joining after experiencing Windows. Like it or not, you are now a n00b.
As a seasoned Mac user, i can say simply that the "solution" exists between the keyboard and the chair.
Déjà vu. I think you asked that already. This time i'll answer with: because Windows users want to bring their bad habits over to the Mac platform.
Problem? Yes... problem = PEBKAC.
It's also incredibly simple, and that's the beauty. Folders replace folders just like files replace files. You already understand the rules now. All that's left is to lose those incorrect expectations learned on the Dark Side.
I can already tell you haven't read those other linked discussions. Listen, this debate has been engaged by people even smarter than us. You need to bring an open mind and take time to see both sides. I don't think you're really seeing both sides yet.
Because that would require the user to look, by hand, through both folders. Something a modern computer should be able to do for us.
In a shameless bit of self promotion have you tried
http://code.google.com/p/foldermerge
I wrote that a while back and from the feedback I had it worked well for quite a few people...Think it's on versiontracker as well.
Haven't worked on it for a long time, but just getting back into development through iPhone/iPad so maybe if there's work needed I'll pick it up again.
As i remember it's only a wrapper around a command line utility...
http://code.google.com/p/foldermerge
I wrote that a while back and from the feedback I had it worked well for quite a few people...Think it's on versiontracker as well.
Haven't worked on it for a long time, but just getting back into development through iPhone/iPad so maybe if there's work needed I'll pick it up again.
As i remember it's only a wrapper around a command line utility...
If it makes so much sense to merge files, then why does Safari not merge a file into another file if you re-download the same file?
Shouldn't the same "logic" apply?
The Mac itself is more than "able", so that sort of "modern" chatter is silly. The question boils down to: should or should not Finder produce such behavior for every single drag-n-drop operation (even as an option). The answer from Apple (and many concur) is an emphatic "no".
Clearly you have not studied the discussions i linked to, so you don't really understand what the meaningful arguments are all about.
I understand arguments to not make it the default - and agree with them.
What's the argument to not make it an option? Right click, drag, then select "merge" from the drop down menu?
Hal Itosis, I have the answer with one word: Option
Put a little [v] Replace whole folder, give additional button, make
it obvious, put it visible in each dialog, so nobody will loose anything again ...
if it's disturbs to your feeling of beauty, put this option in finders options,
and make default the way that nobody will loose anything after encounter this feature for the first time, or at least the loss will be easy recoverable or small, and easily treated by cmd-z.
This way, it makes people feel safe with experimenting with it, it encourage them to explore their system and learn more, instead of scaring them that one little mistake can create a huge problem ...
Even me with long experience with the computers, have this feeling now,
and it based now on REAL experience with Mac os X and REAL troubles ...
Mac OS X is a danger system for average user, right now
if even me, knowing how those things works, got into the troubles there ...
I am really at shock! , how such dumb thing could be so protected, it is
incredible ...
... holly wars again, have nothing to do with them ... not part of it ...
it's not... because people first loose their data and then look for solution, it's happens again and again, and it will happen again and again ... but since your incredible ignorance toward their data, I think it doesn't bother you too much ...
I just wish to mark there a key word for you: more and more
I can see that beauty and has nothing against it, I just prefer to discover such beauty by detecting option in settings and not by detecting vanished
important files in huge amounts, erased forever week ago ...
At the end it's the matter of taste, this is how I prefer to discover things ...
I really prefer not get discharge of 100 volts for explaining me something ...
The approach you protect, also reminds me those scum people that steal by putting some unnoticeable item in the agreement, and then claim that their victim was stupid, and even have fun of him ...
it's just disrespect, as simple as that.
It's the same story, first they claim what is light and what is dark, then they have a good excuse for pushing and ignoring people and creating more dark then it was before they started ...
How about a little respect toward my expectations?
Well, I did, now it's your turn ...
I don't have a wish to discuss this further, I very hope you understand ...
Probably the primary reason is that the merge folks are familiar with is pretty brain-dead (all of which is discussed thoroughly in the linked articles). It only "works" if new or newer files are involved. When it comes to removed, renamed, reverted and/or deleted items... a basic merge just makes a mess. [the funny part is, most Windows users don't realize this, because it produces extra files which they don't notice unless they inspect the results.]
All in all, a simplistic merge is seldom what's actually needed... so why add some half-ass feature which a real folder sync utility performs properly (and can be scheduled if need be). Somehow I also question the organizational methods and workflow practices of these Windows aficionados, who seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time dorking around with "file management" in situations where these brain-dead file merges are supposedly so necessary. In the real world, things are often more complex than that.
[again, detailed examples are outlined and debated in those linked threads.]
The times I want to merge, I don't want to sync. Those are different functions. Instead, I want them to work similar to the merge function in iPhoto - put two folders of documents into one.
When Windows users do it, and there are duplicates, they get asked what they want to do with those duplicates. It doesn't check dates, they have to know. I believe the Unix command does the same thing.
Sometimes users know what they want.
At least Apple lets us use BASH, when we want to "think different".
When Windows users do it, and there are duplicates, they get asked what they want to do with those duplicates. It doesn't check dates, they have to know. I believe the Unix command does the same thing.
Sometimes users know what they want.
At least Apple lets us use BASH, when we want to "think different".
You really need to absorb entire sentences to grasp their intended meaning. "More and more" new converts coming from Windows does not subsequently make their perceptions and beliefs appropriate for Mac OS.
I believe I do, yes.
Not the way I meant it it isn't.
Not in every case (i.e.,moved items).
You're trying to avoid studying those linked articles, so this is getting tedious.
Good luck, let me know how it all works out.
You are wrong. They won't merge, but won't replace either:
Code:
server:~ admin$ mkdir foo
server:~ admin$ mkdir bar
server:~ admin$ mkdir bar/foo
server:~ admin$ touch foo/newfile
server:~ admin$ touch bar/foo/byebye
server:~ admin$ ls -R foo bar
bar:
foo
bar/foo:
byebye
foo:
newfile
server:~ admin$ mv -v foo bar
mv: rename foo to bar/foo: Directory not emptyI use tar if I want to merge in a Unix environment.
wot no merge?
After working on computers since 1974 I find the fact that the MAC does not merge folders of the same name quite amazing. Having just been bought my Mac by my daughter I was merrily bring my documents across from my Linux laptop and my XP desktop using Dropbox. The little window says that the a folder of the same name exiists and will be replaced - I did not think it meant that everything in that folder would be deleted permanently - perhaps a large red triangle with a message like "Do you REALLY want to delete all your data i the target folder?" would be approriate. By the time I discovered this I had lost gigabytes of data. I have had go back to linux and Windows backups. Tech support at Apple acted like they had never heard of anyone being so stupid and claimed that Windows acts the same way.
On Windows you are offered to overwrite files within the folders OR to keep both files. Linus is similar - neither destroy your data without further warning!
We had adequate warnings on the ICL George Mainframes in the 1970's so I would have thought Mac would have caught up. I was told by tech support that files and folders would have to be merged individually manually. That is crazy in 2010.
After working on computers since 1974 I find the fact that the MAC does not merge folders of the same name quite amazing. Having just been bought my Mac by my daughter I was merrily bring my documents across from my Linux laptop and my XP desktop using Dropbox. The little window says that the a folder of the same name exiists and will be replaced - I did not think it meant that everything in that folder would be deleted permanently - perhaps a large red triangle with a message like "Do you REALLY want to delete all your data i the target folder?" would be approriate. By the time I discovered this I had lost gigabytes of data. I have had go back to linux and Windows backups. Tech support at Apple acted like they had never heard of anyone being so stupid and claimed that Windows acts the same way.
On Windows you are offered to overwrite files within the folders OR to keep both files. Linus is similar - neither destroy your data without further warning!
We had adequate warnings on the ICL George Mainframes in the 1970's so I would have thought Mac would have caught up. I was told by tech support that files and folders would have to be merged individually manually. That is crazy in 2010.
No, because of the oft-touted "desktop metaphor" that OSX apparently does so well. Putting two like documents in a file cabinet will not merge them, not is there any way to do it other than copying all the data by hand, or on a computer by opening up the application, copying, saving, etc. With a physical folder one can visually scan the documents inside and trash the old ones, but should you really have to look through each document on a computer when it has been shown with Explorer, Dolphin, and a few other (mostly all) file managers. But no, lets sacrifice functionality in order to keep this oh-so-important metaphor alive while completely ignoring it other places like the Trash system.
What does the year have to do with anything?
Macs have been capable of complex folder operations since the beginning as well, if the appropriate utility is employed. Using a drag-and-drop file browser to initiate such operations and expecting it to handle all possible contigencies correctly is naive and unrealistic. Just read the man page for rsync sometime to see what sort of options one may need to consider. An occasional brain-dead merge may be handy once in a blue moon (such as when their contents are unique), but that isn't enough to warrant providing the function in Finder. The need for this is typically very seldom. And I contend that: if someone frequently does encounter that need, then their workflow would be enhanced by using an appropriate program (either a click away or scheduled automatically, and properly configured for the task at hand).
The fact that users are expecting this behavior merely illustrates that they have no real appreciation for the range of scenarios wherein a 'merge' produces improper results. They more or less have accepted it being available without really giving it that much thought. The feature does have its place, but Finder isn't that place. This is about a philosophy... so the "year" 2010 is insignificant.
Another success story of your philosophy, for you Hal Itosis.
Are you going to tell that a man who works with computers since 1970,
is problem between screen and chair? have some respect! seriously.
I think this one worth repeating,
neither destroy your data without further warning!
Voice of wisdom ...
Hal Itosis, you don't get it, people are not ready to loose gigabytes to discover this dumb philosophy in 2010... just like I already said,
you better start listening ... I never saw such behavior since I saw folders, and that was 20 years ago.
if you wish to replace the entire folder, you can just delete it before, but you will do it consciously ...
why would you put one above another, without checking what inside, and if you already checking, then you can delete it as well, because you already there anyway ... there is no need for such replace, it has no meaning, it even doesn't save time, because anyway you'll go and check the folder before ...
usually people know what inside and merge when they think is proper, and if they don't then you would not help them by deleting chaos, they have a tendency to have ...
if you don't listen to me, listen to a wise man wadochi...
give it up ...
you better start listening ... I never saw such behavior since I saw folders, and that was 20 years ago.
if you wish to replace the entire folder, you can just delete it before, but you will do it consciously ...
why would you put one above another, without checking what inside, and if you already checking, then you can delete it as well, because you already there anyway ... there is no need for such replace, it has no meaning, it even doesn't save time, because anyway you'll go and check the folder before ...
usually people know what inside and merge when they think is proper, and if they don't then you would not help them by deleting chaos, they have a tendency to have ...
if you don't listen to me, listen to a wise man wadochi...
give it up ...
People reading this, please report to Apple about that threat , so at least they will not be able to say anymore that they never heard about problem with dumb replace function.
Wow you are long winded...
Are you so naive that you believe the time we live in has no affect on the philosophy of the age?
Merge is not complex, only a simple mind would think so.
Be a good OS - don't delete user data - NO, bad Mac...BAD!
I love OS X but hearing these sort of arguments defending such a terrible interface decision makes the whole fan-boyism of the Mac world all to real to me...
What a lame post.
I don't know what you think that was, but without technical examples (as opposed to name calling), you prove absolutely nothing. Follow those links i gave. You'll see people a lot smarter than you either fail to convince or finally understand. Finder doesn't need the feature (despite what some think).
When you can write better rsync shell scripts than me, then your "wise" remarks might attain some significance.
- Status