Stories with Tag Hidden Files

• Automating the cleaning of macOS-specific ( ._ and .DS_Store) files on Eject

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-09 02:00:06

  Verbose tl;dr

  This blog post details how to automatically remove macOS-specific files (.DS_Store and ._*) from external drives upon ejection. The author uses a combination of AppleScript and a LaunchAgent to trigger a cleanup script whenever a volume is ejected. The script leverages dot_clean to efficiently delete these often-annoying hidden files, preventing their proliferation on non-macOS systems. This automated approach replaces the need for manual cleanup and ensures a cleaner experience when sharing drives between different operating systems.

  This blog post by "The Ginger Beard Man" details a method for automatically removing macOS-specific files, namely "._*" (AppleDouble files) and ".DS_Store" files, from external drives upon ejection. These files are created by macOS for various system-level functions, such as storing metadata and resource forks, but can be a nuisance on other operating systems and clutter shared drives.

  The author explains that while manually deleting these files is possible, it becomes tedious and error-prone, especially with frequent use of external drives. Therefore, they present an automated solution using a combination of AppleScript and the built-in eject command-line utility.

  The core of the solution revolves around a custom AppleScript that iterates through every mounted volume except the boot volume. For each volume, it checks if it's a local or network volume. If it's a local volume and the volume name doesn't match specific exclusions (in the provided example, "Time Machine" is excluded), the script constructs and executes a dot_clean command. dot_clean is another command-line utility, readily available through package managers like Homebrew, which efficiently removes the unwanted "._*" and ".DS_Store" files. After cleaning, the script proceeds to eject the volume.

  To seamlessly integrate this process with the system's eject functionality, the author replaces the default eject command with a shell script wrapper. This wrapper first calls the custom AppleScript to clean and eject the specified volume. This replacement is achieved by placing the wrapper script in a directory that precedes the system's /usr/bin in the user's PATH environment variable. Thus, when the user ejects a drive through Finder or the command line, the wrapper script is executed first, ensuring the cleaning process happens before the actual ejection.

  The author provides the complete code for both the AppleScript and the shell script wrapper, along with clear instructions on how to install dot_clean, create the necessary files, make the script executable, and adjust the PATH environment variable. They also emphasize the importance of understanding the implications of modifying the PATH and offer advice on reverting the changes if needed. Finally, they mention the option of adapting the script for specific needs, such as excluding different volumes or using alternative cleaning methods.

  • macOS
  • Mac OS X
  • file management
  • Automation
  • Cleaning
  • Eject
  • Disk Eject
  • Hidden Files
  • Dot Files
  • DS_Store
  • ._*
  • shell script
  • bash
  • AppleScript
  • terminal
  • unix
  • workflow
  • productivity

  Summary of Comments ( 18 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42987848

  Verbose tl;dr

  Commenters on Hacker News largely appreciated the simplicity and directness of the provided AppleScript solution for removing macOS-specific files from external drives upon ejection. Some highlighted the potential for data loss if used carelessly, especially with networked drives or if the script were modified to delete different files. Others offered alternative solutions, including using dot_clean, incorporating the script into a Hazel rule, or employing a shell script with find. The discussion also touched upon the annoyance factor of these files on other operating systems and the historical reasons for their existence, with some suggesting that their prevalence has diminished. A few commenters mentioned more robust solutions for syncing and backing up, which would obviate the need for such a script altogether.

  The Hacker News post "Automating the cleaning of macOS-specific ( ._ and .DS_Store) files on Eject" generated several comments discussing the author's approach and alternative solutions for managing macOS-specific files on external drives.

  One commenter questioned the necessity of the script, pointing out that .DS_Store files are generally hidden and don't cause issues for most users. They also mentioned that these files serve a purpose for macOS systems and deleting them might have unintended consequences. This commenter suggested educating Windows users about hiding system files instead of automatically deleting them.

  Another commenter highlighted the potential for data loss if the script were to malfunction, emphasizing the importance of robust error handling and thorough testing, particularly when dealing with file system operations. They proposed a more cautious approach involving moving the files to a temporary trash directory instead of immediately deleting them.

  Building on this cautionary theme, another user recounted a personal experience of data loss due to a similar automated cleanup script, reinforcing the risks associated with such solutions.

  One commenter offered an alternative using dotfiles, a common way to manage system configurations, suggesting that the script could be integrated into a user's dotfiles repository for better version control and portability.

  Another user suggested a different technical approach, recommending the use of a shell script triggered by the eject command itself, rather than relying on external tools or applications. They outlined a basic shell command structure for accomplishing this.

  Some users discussed the broader issue of cross-platform file management and the challenges posed by operating system-specific files. One commenter noted that similar issues arise with Windows-specific files like Thumbs.db and advocated for greater awareness and tolerance of these files across different operating systems.

  Finally, several comments focused on the technical details of the script itself, discussing the use of specific commands and suggesting improvements to its logic and error handling. One user questioned the efficiency of the script's find command and suggested an alternative approach using locate. Another user pointed out a potential bug in the script's handling of spaces in filenames.

  In summary, the comments section offered a mix of perspectives, including questioning the need for the script, expressing concerns about data loss, suggesting alternative solutions, and delving into the technical specifics of the script's implementation. The comments highlighted the complexities and potential pitfalls of automated file system manipulation and emphasized the importance of caution and thorough testing.

• The practical (Unix) problems with .cache and its friends

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 07:26:51

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post argues against using generic, top-level directories like .cache, .local, and .config for application caching and configuration in Unix-like systems. These directories quickly become cluttered, making it difficult to manage disk space, identify relevant files, and troubleshoot application issues. The author advocates for application developers to use XDG Base Directory Specification compliant paths within $HOME/.cache, $HOME/.local/share, and $HOME/.config, respectively, creating distinct subdirectories for each application. This structured approach improves organization, simplifies cleanup by application or user, and prevents naming conflicts. The lack of enforcement mechanisms for this specification and inconsistent adoption by applications are acknowledged as obstacles.

  Chris Siebenmann's blog post, "The practical (Unix) problems with .cache and its friends," delves into the multifaceted issues surrounding the use of dot directories, specifically those intended for caching, in user home directories on Unix-like systems. While the XDG Base Directory Specification aimed to standardize the location of such directories (like .cache, .config, and .local), thereby improving organization and predictability, the practical implementation has revealed several shortcomings that impact system administrators and users alike.

  Siebenmann primarily focuses on the challenges these directories present for system backups and administration. The decentralized nature of these dot directories means that significant amounts of data, often transient and rapidly changing cache information, are scattered across numerous user home directories. This poses a problem for backup strategies. Including these directories in backups leads to inflated backup sizes, consuming valuable storage space and increasing backup times. Excluding them entirely, however, risks losing user-specific application configurations and potentially disrupting workflows upon restoration. This leaves administrators in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between bloated backups and potentially incomplete restorations.

  Furthermore, the blog post highlights the difficulty in managing disk space consumption related to these dot directories. Caching directories, by their very design, can grow rapidly and unpredictably. While disk quotas can be employed to limit overall user disk usage, they don't offer granular control over specific directory sizes within the home directory. This makes it challenging to prevent runaway cache directories from consuming excessive disk space and potentially impacting system stability. Users may be unaware of the burgeoning size of these hidden directories, further complicating the issue.

  Another point of concern raised is the lack of clear guidelines for managing the lifecycle of cached data. The XDG specification doesn't dictate how or when applications should purge outdated or unnecessary cache files. This leads to situations where stale or irrelevant data persists indefinitely, consuming disk space without providing any benefit. The absence of a standardized mechanism for cache eviction leaves users and administrators with the burden of manually cleaning up these directories, a process that can be tedious, error-prone, and often overlooked.

  Finally, the blog post touches upon the inconsistent implementation and adoption of the XDG specification across different applications. While many modern applications adhere to the standard, legacy applications and those developed without awareness of the specification may continue to create their own idiosyncratic dot directories, further exacerbating the organizational and management challenges. This inconsistency undermines the very purpose of the standardization effort, perpetuating the problems the specification was intended to solve. In conclusion, while the XDG Base Directory Specification represents a step towards better organization of user data, its practical implementation introduces complexities related to backups, disk space management, and cache lifecycle control, presenting ongoing challenges for Unix system administrators.

  • unix
  • Linux
  • Filesystem
  • .cache
  • XDG Base Directory Specification
  • Temporary Files
  • Caching
  • Disk Space
  • system administration
  • Dotfiles
  • Hidden Files
  • file management
  • best practices

  Summary of Comments ( 41 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945109

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree that standardized cache directories are a good idea in principle but messy in practice. Several point out inconsistencies in how applications actually use $XDG_CACHE_HOME, leading to wasted space and difficulty managing caches. Some suggest tools like bcache could help, while others advocate for more granular control, like per-application cache directories or explicit opt-in/opt-out mechanisms. The lack of clear guidelines on cache eviction policies and the potential for sensitive data leakage are also highlighted as concerns. A few commenters mention that directories starting with a dot (.) are annoying for interactive shell users.

  The Hacker News post "The practical (Unix) problems with .cache and its friends" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42945109) has generated several comments discussing the merits and drawbacks of the XDG Base Directory Specification, particularly concerning the .cache directory.

  Several commenters agree with the author of the linked blog post that while the specification is well-intentioned, its implementation has created practical issues. One commenter points out the annoyance of having numerous hidden directories cluttering their home directory, making navigation and management more cumbersome. They argue for a simpler, less fragmented approach to storing application data.

  Another commenter echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the proliferation of these directories complicates tasks like backups and disk space analysis. They wish for a more consolidated approach, perhaps allowing applications to store cache data within their own installation directories, provided appropriate permissions are managed. This approach is countered by another user who highlights the security implications, stating that allowing applications write access to their installation directories could create vulnerabilities if those directories are shared by multiple users or if the application itself is compromised.

  The discussion also touches upon the inconsistent adoption of the standard across different applications. Some commenters note that many applications still create their own application-specific directories within the home directory, rendering the XDG specification somewhat ineffective. They suggest that stronger enforcement or clearer guidelines are needed for developers to adhere to the standard.

  One commenter offers a practical workaround by using symbolic links to relocate the .cache directory to a dedicated partition or directory, allowing them to manage cache data separately. Another user suggests employing a tool like trash-cli to easily purge the contents of these directories when necessary.

  Some users express skepticism about the overall benefit of the standard, questioning whether the complexity introduced outweighs the advantages. They argue that the original intent – separating different types of application data – hasn't been fully realized, leading to a situation where users are burdened with managing a multitude of hidden directories without significant practical gain.

  A few commenters suggest alternative solutions, such as utilizing a dedicated /var/cache directory for all applications or leveraging more advanced filesystem features for managing temporary data. The idea of having package managers automatically clean up cache directories associated with uninstalled applications is also raised.

  In essence, the comments reflect a mixed reaction to the XDG Base Directory Specification and its implementation. While acknowledging the theoretical benefits of separating application data, many commenters express frustration with the practical implications of the standard, particularly the proliferation of hidden directories and inconsistent adoption across applications. Several workarounds and alternative approaches are suggested, highlighting a desire for a simpler, more streamlined approach to managing application data on Unix-like systems.