It makes more sense when you realize that "dot files" is too general.
There are file named ".DS_Store", which you may delete with impunity assuming that your definition of "impunity" means "I don't mind losing Finder meta-info like view settings and comments." You can avoid creating them in the first place (sometimes) using the magic default mentioned earlier.
Aha! So for the purposes I'm using the flash drive for, DS Store isn't too useful and it can be happily removed (or not created in the first place).
Then there are files named "._something", where "something" is the name of a normal file in the same directory. These are trickier. They *may* contain only meta-info -- type and creator codes, for instance -- but depending on the application and file format, they may contain real information. (Some applications may rely on the meta-info as well.)
Now, that's interesting. Now I think about it, I've only seen these when something has gone wrong with the Mac while I was using the flash drive (I have a vague idea that when I got the same-name-as-a-real-file 1k long that seemed to prevent me from actually copying a real file onto the flash drive, I'd been using Applescript to copy files, got a timeout or lost the connection or something and something went wrong). As for the "clanking revenant" comment (nice word choice, by the way, even if I disagree with it),
:-)
"... maybe, just maybe, UNIX didn't invent every clever idea out there. Maybe, just maybe, resource forks are actually a good idea. And maybe we shouldn't just say "Oh, UNIX already has directories, we don't need no steenking resource forks".
Hey, nice quote. I don't really know anything about this historical subject, but when I knew people who used the room-full-of-Macs at college (possibly System 6.0 or 7.0), quite a few of them seemed to spend a lot of time swearing at things with forks. Am willing to believe they have s Seekrit Benefit I don't know about |
