File Copying in OSX

philhoole · 30 May 2009 at 19:27

Hi,

I am trying to do something in OSX that seems so fundamentally easy in Windows yet seems to be a bit ridiculous if what I am finding is correct in OSX.

I have a NAS box that OSX can see and I can read and write to it without problem. I want to create a backup of my iTunes folder (along with other stuff) on the NAS.

OK, so I copy and paste my iTunes folder to the NAS and all is well.

But after a week I want to backup again so I copy and paste. The problem is it doesn't seem possible just to write only new/changed files. OSX only seems to offer to replace the whole folder which can take ages when it really only needs to update a handful of files.

In Windows this is easy. Windows does a copy and merge. Is there a workaround in OSX ?

Thanks

JAMAL · 30 May 2009 at 20:06

Chronosync will do that for you, its not free though.

skiba · 30 May 2009 at 20:19

Use rsync and cron.

e.g. rsync -avvz /source/path /dest/path

philhoole · 30 May 2009 at 21:35

Thanks for the replies - I think it confirms I am not missing something obvious.

You know there are times when I am convinced Apple are just being utterly stubborn about the way they implement some things.

yashiro · 30 May 2009 at 21:41

Apple users need to be more vocal and complain about the software.
They spend too long fawning over the designs and complaining about the hardware.

Finder is particularly cumbersome. It even makes Nautilus look good sometimes.

Spyhop · 30 May 2009 at 23:36

Yep, it is pretty lame that Finder won't merge. Isn't it nice how it "just works" in Windows Explorer (ohgodihatethatslogan)

It can be even worse than the OP's case, where files in the destination dir that are no longer in the source dir end up getting deleted (the message on the warning dialog doesn't do a very good job of making it clear what will happen)

MagicBoy · 30 May 2009 at 23:45

This is one of a couple of finder "issues" that pee me off.

nightkhaos · 31 May 2009 at 12:11

I don't understand what the issue, maybe I'm missing something, but Finder does "merge" folders in exactly the same way Windows does, i.e. if there is a file that already exists it asks you if you want to replace it, or skip it.

Spyhop · 31 May 2009 at 12:49

Folder instance one has files: a, b, c, d
Folder instance two has files: c, e

Drag instance one on to instance two and the resultant folder has files: c, e

i.e. it doesn't have the option to merge, it just replaces the directory

You could argue that it makes sense conceptually (blah), but in practice it's often just a pain in the ass.

whitecrook · 31 May 2009 at 12:58

this is the way it always has been. it's a fundamental difference.

I have seen mac people be equally baffled by the windows behaviour or merging rather than replacing.

it's perfectly logical.

yashiro · 31 May 2009 at 13:21

Destructive copy resulting in data loss is not logical or expected for most people.

Windows doesn't do it. Neither does Linux.

NickK · 31 May 2009 at 14:13

I wonder if you could write an AppleScript or Automator workflow todo it?

Could write a simple Objective-C program todo it..

whitecrook · 31 May 2009 at 15:07

use the command line and it'll merge the data. i.e. cp -R /srcpath /destpath

NickK · 31 May 2009 at 15:20

I looked at cp but I can't see any don't overwrite if older flag.

Draeconis · 1 Jun 2009 at 17:56

I fell foul of this a while ago when I updated bits of my iTunes library to iTunes plus. It downloaded to my Mac, and I copied the local iTunes folder that contained a few updated songs over my proper library, stored on an external drive, thinking they would simply merge. It completely overwrote the library with the local folder containing a few files. I was gutted, as I lost a fair amount of music!

This I think, was the first time I thought Windows actually managed something better.

whitecrook · 1 Jun 2009 at 20:12

NickK said:
I looked at cp but I can't see any don't overwrite if older flag.

I don't think there is one.
You probably want rsync for that.

cp will just replace any file that is named the same. i.e. the same way as Windows does it.

If you want to do it graphically, then I think what you have to do is open the folder and select all the files within, then move them. As it's the files you want to move / replace, not the folder, although don't quote me on that.

Spyhop · 1 Jun 2009 at 20:29

whitecrook said:
If you want to do it graphically, then I think what you have to do is open the folder and select all the files within, then move them. As it's the files you want to move / replace, not the folder, although don't quote me on that.

Enter: a nested directory structure!

whitecrook · 2 Jun 2009 at 01:58

wush said:
Enter: a nested directory structure!

Yes. That's why I said one should move the files.

The point of the finder is that there is no such thing as a 'directory'. It's 'folders'. It's a tangible object. It's not a representation of any thing, it IS a thing in and of itself. It can't be in 2 places at once. (how can something exist twice if it is 'a' thing?) etc etc. It's the whole philosophy of the Finder.

Sure MacOSX (particulary the Finder) has come in for a lot of flack over the brain dead way it does things. But there are good reasons why go back 20+ years as to why things are done the way they are done. It's not wrong, it's just different.

And hence, it's the finder you people are having trouble with - not MacOSX so use another tool. Some tool were suggested above, but you can also just use the built in tools from the terminal. This works like it does in Window and Linux.