Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
What's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                             

Uncopyable file

 Not encrypted or anything...
 
(+1, -1) 		  [vote for,
against]

The uncopyable file would be a cross-platform file format that indicates that when the user tries to copy it, it should instead be moved. The file wouldn't be secure -- you could easily write a tool that would clone it. It's just that in a run-of-the-mill copy process the file gets moved rather than copied.

Why?

Partly it's a 'why not?' kind of thing. I'd like a file that would do that.

Does it have a practical use? For me, yes. I carry around lots of files that I call work and use them on different computers. I have a system so that I know which copy is 'live' and which copies are backups. A file that only exists in the latest copy I have made would make that system simpler.

—st3f, Sep 23 2003

[link]






       tap tap tap...
—po, Sep 23 2003
   

       Done. Hope you weren't expecting anything grander.
—st3f, Sep 23 2003
   

       You could always cut and paste.
—RoboBust, Sep 23 2003
   

       Robobust: Ah, but when I copy a whole directory, all the other files would copy except for this one file, which would move, leaving me with identical directories... apart from the the uncopyable file.
—st3f, Sep 23 2003
   

       //'why not?'//

Because if your file became corrupted you wouldn't have a back-up.
—DrBob, Sep 23 2003
   

       If you do all your copy/move operations using the Windows shell, you could bake this. There's an API called ICopyHook that lets shell add-ins get a "peek" at any rename/copy/move operations before they happen.
—krelnik, Sep 23 2003
   

       DOS had a "move" command which handled this nicely.
—waugsqueke, Sep 23 2003
   

       Yes, and so does the Windows shell, and I'm pretty sure [st3f] is aware of that. This idea is about enforcing a particular behavior on a file, as chosen by the user, so mistakes are not made. (We don't really need the "read only" bit do we, for example? Just remember not to delete that file. Easy!).
—krelnik, Sep 23 2003
   

       //Ah, but when I copy a whole directory...// I suggest the inverse as the solution. Mark all other files as "read-only", then cut and paste the directory. Only the ones that aren't marked "read-only" will be erased from the original directory (I think, too lazy to test to see if this happens, or if Windows just yells moronic errors at me).
—Worldgineer, Sep 23 2003
   

       Doesn't the 'My Briefcase' have something of this behavior?
—RayfordSteele, Sep 23 2003
   

       They did. Way back in Windows 95.
—Cedar Park, Sep 23 2003
   

       music sharing might get more difficult with such a system as well.
—Zimmy, Sep 24 2003
   

       Briefcase still exists in Windows, it just doesn't have a desktop icon by default. I think the common use for it is to keep a laptop synchronized with a desktop.
—krelnik, Sep 24 2003
   

       Why doesn't anyone use the "archive" bit any more? It would tell you whether the file had been changed. You could also script an autorun.inf on your drive to call a batch file to XCOPY /D the newer of the two files on each of the machines on which you might be using it (assuming you're using Windows).
—kevinthenerd, Jun 28 2012
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle