OS X: how to merge folder contents, not replace

[Howard Brazee]

You notice I said "which can be improved upon". And earlier in this thread I was clear in saying Apple should give us a right-click option to override the default behavior. Giving us the option to do "think different" isn't a bad thing.

Unless, of course, Big Brother is Apple.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Finder doesn't need the feature (despite what some think).

Finder doesnt need half the stuff thats in it either, but i dont think any of us want to go back to a monochrome, single-window browser with no sidebar, shortcuts, or various views. Did you whine about CoverFlow not being needed when Steve started bragging about it? I'd rather have standard functionality (merging folders) than flashy eye-candy. But i suppose whatever pleases the uneducated masses is fine.

 

[Howard Brazee]

Who are the "uneducated masses"? The ones who don't want to do things Apple's way?

"Think Different" shouldn't be limited to "different from Microsoft".

 

[talmy]

If you use the command line you can perform a merge using the tar program.
So it is possible to do a merge, just not with Finder.

 

[MisterMe]

Who are the "uneducated masses"? The ones who don't want to do things Apple's way?

"Think Different" shouldn't be limited to "different from Microsoft".

Truly amazing. People complain about the mess that is Windows. The switch to the Mac to rid themselves of the mess and then demand that Apple replicate the Windows mess on MacOS X.

 

[Triptol]

I've always thought that it made sense. If I'm moving folder contents around by dragging the folder itself, to me, it's as if the folder is an opaque file, and not something that contains others. This is, coincidentally, how Apple's bundles work. If I want it to do a merge, I open the folder -A and then drag those to the folder. But if I want an overwrite, I just drag the folder itself.

Would you prefer for normal files to "merge" contents too when dragged like that? I prefer the single method applied to both types of file system objects.

I just can't believe that people actually believe this to be the way to go (original poster please don't take this personal). We are talking a copy or a move operation. Which copies or moves original data to a new target location.

You just can't expect any system to go into a dataloss situation when you try to copy or move data from a to b. And still, this is exactly what happens with finder. I tell it to move data from a to b and it kills the data in b.

IF it would move the original contents of B to the trash there would be some kind of defense, but since this data is actually at loss, this is just insane and completely puts finder on the list of dangerous programs that should be avoided.

 

[Hal Itosis]

I just can't believe that people actually believe this to be the way to go (original poster please don't take this personal). We are talking a copy or a move operation. Which copies or moves original data to a new target location.

You just can't expect any system to go into a dataloss situation when you try to copy or move data from a to b. And still, this is exactly what happens with finder. I tell it to move data from a to b and it kills the data in b.

IF it would move the original contents of B to the trash there would be some kind of defense, but since this data is actually at loss, this is just insane and completely puts finder on the list of dangerous programs that should be avoided.

When we copy a file over a file, the original doesn't "go into the trash" so... therefore, you must find computers entirely insane in general (if consistency is any yardstick).

 

[bradleyland]

I've been a Mac user for years so I'm painfully aware of this behavior, but I just switched a friend and she lost a lot of her music because of the way file copy/move works in Finder. What I don't understand is why the "Replace" dialog box doesn't look more like this:

I study UX, so I understand the concept at work in finder (folder as an object vs folder as a collection), but combining a hierarchy of files with a merge action is just too important and common a task to relegate to the command line or a third-party utility. The work around is fairly straight forward for flat file structures, but as soon as you have a hierarchy, the task becomes far more complicated than it should be.

 

[bradleyland]

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.

I see. So it's our weak intellect and your unique ability to manage workflow that create this problem for us and allow you to avoid it? It all marks perfect sense now.

Try looking at the world at eye-level, rather than down the slope of your nose some time. Merging a hierarchy of folders containing filesystem objects of the same name isn't a "trivial" task, but your argument could be summarized as: "because it is hard, it should be relegated to a utility or pushed outside the scope of Finder"... Finder, whose primary job is providing access to and managing the filesystem. I can't think of a better application for this purpose.

And before you get all high and mighty with me, I've paid my sysadmin dues and authored plenty of shell scripts. I manage Unix systems as part of my daily life and have contributed to scripts used by more than one service provider with whom I have relationships. The "philosophy" of Mac products is that your average user shouldn't need even a yellow belt in script-fu in order to accomplish simple tasks.

Finder already possesses all the UI structures [1] required to adequately handle simple merges. The philosophy of a shell utility like rsync is entirely different than the philosophy of a GUI tool that is included with a mainstream operating system. Rsync is flexible and powerful because many of it's potential use cases involve unattended action. I need to be able to provide answers to branching logic at the time I write the script, and not require my presence at runtime. Life in user-land is far less structured.

I read through your merge conditions in the linked thread. I think that they are all reasonable questions that a flexible utility should be able to answer, but it doesn't negate the need for a simplistic merge that ignores those conditions.

I assert that the "common" task doesn't need to handle those conditions. The outcomes that you describe are acceptable. The time commitment to structure a file merge with smart branching logic is often equivalent to the time required to sort out any resulting mess. I've seen plenty of people who are new to shell scripting spend hours writing a shell script for a task they'll perform once and would have taken less time to do manually. Nothing wrong with exercising your higher-level thinking muscles, but at some point we have to get some work done.

[1] This dialog:

Could be modified to this:

Simple conflict resolution already exists:

 

[Howard Brazee]

While I have consistently been on the side that a merge option should be available from the finder (but not the default), I will point out a difficulty.

Unlike Windows, OS X has directories that look like files. Let's say we merge the applications directories from two computers. We will want to treat each .app as a single file.

 

[MisterMe]

I see. So it's our weak intellect and your unique ability to manage workflow that create this problem for us and allow you to avoid it? It all marks perfect sense now.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

And before you get all high and mighty with me, I've paid my sysadmin dues and authored plenty of shell scripts. I manage Unix systems as part of my daily life and have contributed to scripts used by more than one service provider with whom I have relationships. ...

I love how newbies with difficulty weaning themselves off Windows tout their computer credentials. Did you work at Bell Labs developing UNIX or at Honeywell on MULTICS before that?

Look. MacOS X is a well-developed OS that has worked well for decades. Can it be better? Certainly. I would certainly argue that Apple has dramatically improved its Macintosh operating systems since 1984. OTOH, Windows is a conglomeration of kludges that Microsoft seems no longer able to get a handle on.

The way that MacOS X handles objects has been developed over the last 26 years and is easy to learn, expected, and well-understand by Mac newbies and veterans alike.

You are in a new land. You need to learn new ways.

 

[Hal Itosis]

but combining a hierarchy of files with a merge action is just too important and common a task to relegate to the command line or a third-party utility.

That is contrary to logic.

• The basic merge is not all that "common" in day-to-day drag-n-drop file manipulation.
  
  
• But, if/when a scenario presents itself wherein it becomes "common" (i.e., frequent), then
  
  
  1. yes, it is important... and
     
     
  2. that importance (plus the frequency) makes a sync utility the best approach... because,
     
     
• the typical complexities which occur in the real world cause a basic merge to create a mess sometimes.

I.e., if a user knows what they're doing, and a basic merge is really what they need... then that's okay perhaps. But, there is *more* potential for users who don't understand the subtle imperfections of merging to *misuse* it, and end up with stuff in the wrong place (and/or duplicate items in different places).

Better to deny the first group (the ones who know what they're doing) one convenient way to merge, than to provide the second group (newbies, technophobes, etc.) many ways to make mistakes. [The ones who know what they're doing can easily find another way (as opposed to grandma trying to undo a merge she didn't mean).]

I've been a Mac user for years so I'm painfully aware of this behavior.

There is no pain. It's so simple my mother can learn it in one minute: folders replace folders... so act accordingly. That's it; one rule. It's only the expectation of some magical drag-n-drop merge behavior (and blindly clicking a dialog button without reading) that creates any pain.

I'm still waiting for someone to follow my links and post back here with a worthy challenge to my 4 scenarios.

No takers so far. [yes i could post them here myself... but that would be too easy.]

 

[sjinsjca]

If I want it to do a merge, I open the folder -A and then drag those to the folder. But if I want an overwrite, I just drag the folder itself.

+1. I share your mystification at the OP's question. Want to copy the contents of folder A into folder B: Open folder A, select whatever you want to copy, drag to folder B. Done. Perfectly intuitive.

Want to replace a file with another of the same name? Drag the new file onto the old one. (It'd be nice if the old file would end up in the trash, but no OS does that.)

Want to replace an entire folder with another of the same name? Same deal. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Howard Brazee]

+1. I share your mystification at the OP's question. Want to copy the contents of folder A into folder B: Open folder A, select whatever you want to copy, drag to folder B. Done. Perfectly intuitive.

Want to replace a file with another of the same name? Drag the new file onto the old one. (It'd be nice if the old file would end up in the trash, but no OS does that.)

Want to replace an entire folder with another of the same name? Same deal. What's so hard to understand?

How about merging a hierarchy of nested folders?

 

[MisterMe]

How about merging a hierarchy of nested folders?

How about it? Objects replace other objects having the same name. Contents don't enter into it.

 

[Howard Brazee]

How about it? Objects replace other objects having the same name. Contents don't enter into it.

I expect the desire is to merge all of the documents in a hierarchical set of folders. In my workplace we use such document folders extensively.

But obviously not to merge everything in a package.

 

[drunifex]

I've always thought that it made sense. If I'm moving folder contents around by dragging the folder itself, to me, it's as if the folder is an opaque file, and not something that contains others. This is, coincidentally, how Apple's bundles work. If I want it to do a merge, I open the folder -A and then drag those to the folder. But if I want an overwrite, I just drag the folder itself.

Would you prefer for normal files to "merge" contents too when dragged like that? I prefer the single method applied to both types of file system objects.

Yeah but only on toy scenarios. What about large tree structures.

 

[aerostar]

Maybe .. but there is a catch

There is however, in my opinion, a potentially serious flaw in the manner finder handles this.

Suppose you want to move a folder containing 2 files :

- One dmg file
- a text file

you Cmd-Drag the folder to the new location ... alas, the dmg file is still mounted.

You are going to get the error message "Cannot delete dmg file in use, blah, blah"

You then, unmount the dmg and try to move the folder again, you have now the famous "Replace the folder thing" with the Stop and Continue options.

If you choose Continue, you will loose the old folder with the text file in it ...

 

[illy123]

No offence to the fan-boys but I think it is very sad that they are defending such a user unfriendly feature of an apparently user friendly OS. I can imagine a lot of users losing data due to this and that is inexcusable.

Just because OSX is much better than Windows does not mean that all of its features are.

 

[MisterMe]

No offence to the fan-boys but I think it is very sad that they are defending such a user unfriendly feature of an apparently user friendly OS. I can imagine a lot of users losing data due to this and that is inexcusable.

Just because OSX is much better than Windows does not mean that all of its features are.

You can't have it both ways. MacOS X cannot simultaneous be better than Windows while having its features behave the same way as Windows.

Many switchers think of the Mac as a Windows bug fix. The exact opposite is true. It is the master designer product of which Windows is the cheap albeit higher-priced knock-off. Where the diverge, Windows is the camel to the MacOS X horse.

You know the saying: A camel is a horse designed by committee. Every whine and caterwaul about the lack of folder merge in the blind on the Mac assumes that the user is thinking about a folder's contents whenever the user sees a folder. On the Mac, Apple asks you to deal only with what is in front of you. If you want to go deeper, then you may go deeper. This paradigm is essential to the design and behavior of the OS.

You whine about lack of folder merge in the blind. You also bleat about not being able to safely store files in the Mac Trash Can. These and other "missing" Windows features are not conveniences. They are workarounds for critical Windows design flaws. They are not necessary on the Mac because the Mac does not have the Windows design flaws.

Cast off your wicked Windows ways. Learn to use the Mac. Then you will truly see the Glory.

 

[illy123]

You can't have it both ways. MacOS X cannot simultaneous be better than Windows while having its features behave the same way as Windows.

Many switchers think of the Mac as a Windows bug fix. The exact opposite is true. It is the master designer product of which Windows is the cheap albeit higher-priced knock-off. Where the diverge, Windows is the camel to the MacOS X horse.

You know the saying: A camel is a horse designed by committee. Every whine and caterwaul about the lack of folder merge in the blind on the Mac assumes that the user is thinking about a folder's contents whenever the user sees a folder. On the Mac, Apple asks you to deal only with what is in front of you. If you want to go deeper, then you may go deeper. This paradigm is essential to the design and behavior of the OS.

You whine about lack of folder merge in the blind. You also bleat about not being able to safely store files in the Mac Trash Can. These and other "missing" Windows features are not conveniences. They are workarounds for critical Windows design flaws. They are not necessary on the Mac because the Mac does not have the Windows design flaws.

Cast off your wicked Windows ways. Learn to use the Mac. Then you will truly see the Glory.

Superfluous flattery and anecdotes aside ...

OSX is advertised as a 'just works' solution that should be simple for the general public to follow and the 'general public' = Windows users. At the moment it is far too easy to lose data which is pathetic for an operating system in 2010.

Apple's solution:

"Just turn on Time Machine. Not that big of a deal.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone 5"

Glad you didn't mention Cut and Paste as that would have opened a can of worms

 

[MisterMe]

...

OSX is advertised as a 'just works' solution that should be simple for the general public to follow and the 'general public' = Windows users. ...

MacOS X does "just work." However, it won't continue "just work" if Apple changes its fundamental design just some Windows user is unwilling to unlearn bad habits encouraged by Microsoft's system.

 

[illy123]

MacOS X does "just work." However, it won't continue "just work" if Apple changes its fundamental design just some Windows user is unwilling to unlearn bad habits encouraged by Microsoft's system.

"We weren't the first to add an option to merge a folder and stop all your data being deleted without even entering the trash but we will be the first to do it right"

 

[godrifle]

By Jove, I think he's got it!

I love how newbies with difficulty weaning themselves off Windows tout their computer credentials. Did you work at Bell Labs developing UNIX or at Honeywell on MULTICS before that?

Look. MacOS X is a well-developed OS that has worked well for decades. Can it be better? Certainly. I would certainly argue that Apple has dramatically improved its Macintosh operating systems since 1984. OTOH, Windows is a conglomeration of kludges that Microsoft seems no longer able to get a handle on.

The way that MacOS X handles objects has been developed over the last 26 years and is easy to learn, expected, and well-understand by Mac newbies and veterans alike.

You are in a new land. You need to learn new ways.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Not invented here syndrome. If you worked at all with large numbers of files that need to be ordered hierarchically (like web development for example), you'd have an appreciation for what folks are asking for with a simple merge.

 

[godrifle]

+1. I share your mystification at the OP's question. Want to copy the contents of folder A into folder B: Open folder A, select whatever you want to copy, drag to folder B. Done. Perfectly intuitive.

Want to replace a file with another of the same name? Drag the new file onto the old one. (It'd be nice if the old file would end up in the trash, but no OS does that.)

Want to replace an entire folder with another of the same name? Same deal. What's so hard to understand?

What's so hard to understand about the OP's question? What if I have a folder with 200 subfolders. I simply don't want to open them and copy their contents by hand. I want to *merge* them.