Norton Utilities Under UNIX 386?

[Brian Yoder]

In article <3636 at zorba.Tynan.COM> sl at van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <3586 at zorba.Tynan.COM> uunet!ucsd.edu!ttidcb.tti.com!hollombe%sdcsvax (The Polymath) writes:
>}In article <3566 at zorba.Tynan.COM> uunet!esegue.segue.boston.ma.us!johnl (John R. Levine) writes:
>}}... undeleting files under Unix is handled completely
>}}differently that it was under DOS, for example.  ...

>}My understanding is file undeletion is impractical for Unix because the
>}design of the file system puts newly released blocks next in line for use.
>}How can you get around that? (If the answer doesn't violate trade
>}secrets).

>This would appear to be a variation of the don't really delete it for a
>while type of programs. 

>Just move the file somewhere else where a daemon can get rid of it later at
>a reasonable interval. 

>What they have done is to also replace the disk size (df) program to
>subtract out the not quite deleted stuff so you know what you will have when
>the deletions are done.

Nope.  We replaced the functions that programs like df call and return
statistics with the not-quite-deleted stuff subtracted out.  We didn't 
replace any of the unix utilities (like df, rm, etc.) with our own
versions.  All of the interactions are intercepted at the file system switch
so that any programs you write yourself can benefit from erase protection
too.  Neat huh?

Brian Yoder

-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-