Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tomchu · Nov 5, 2007, 12:36 PM

I wrote a fairly detailed article about it on my site (here: tomkarpik.com � Massive Data Loss Bug in Leopard), but the gist of it is basically ...

1. Initiate move operation across volumes
2. Destroy the destination while the move is in operation (ie. disconnect the SMB mount, unplug the USB device, etc.)
3. Finder *deletes* the source anyway, even though the move was not successfully completed

MacosNerd · Nov 5, 2007, 01:35 PM

Interesting bug.

Personally I don't do moves, especially if its a large folder. I do a copy and then delete the source but then I'm paranoid

Chris Grande · Nov 5, 2007, 01:41 PM

I filled a radar bug referencing your article.

Big Mac · Nov 5, 2007, 01:47 PM

Pretty cool. I do moves all the time (only local drives though), and I'd be pissed if this happened to me. I guess it's a really good thing Leopard has Time Machine.

Tomchu · Nov 5, 2007, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Grande

I filled a radar bug referencing your article.

Thanks!

frdmfghtr · Nov 5, 2007, 07:27 PM

You made Slashdot too...

Slashdot | Data Loss Bug In OS X 10.5 Leopard

I have to admit that I'm quite surprised by this...I would think that a move would make sure stuff was moved before deleting the source. Maybe this is why when you drag and drop between volumes, the default action is a "copy" and not "move."

C.A.T.S. CEO · Nov 5, 2007, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr

You made Slashdot too...

Slashdot | Data Loss Bug In OS X 10.5 Leopard

I have to admit that I'm quite surprised by this...I would think that a move would make sure stuff was moved before deleting the source. Maybe this is why when you drag and drop between volumes, the default action is a "copy" and not "move."

Digg too

Tomchu · Nov 5, 2007, 08:19 PM

Yeah, I submitted my story to Digg, but I didn't expect Slashdot to pick it up. Cool.

Brass · Nov 5, 2007, 08:30 PM

This is a feature, not a bug. It is a means for Apple to promote the use of Time Machine.

~bash $ · Nov 5, 2007, 08:45 PM

Good to know, hope you didn't lose anything that wasn't backed up.

Peter · 07:39 AM

can we keep bug discussions in one thread?
Thanks.

Edit: you know, second thoughts - I think this is a critical enough bug for it to be separate from the "general niggles with Leopard"

ninjit · Nov 6, 2007, 03:13 PM

Can anyone check if this is true with other move methods as well?
I.e. Tom showed this problem with drag-n-drop,
what about cut-paste?
or mv from the terminal?
Using the same/similar scenario: e.g. Moving a large folder to a USB stick and pulling it out mid-transfer.

edit:
nm about the mv command, I just checked the man page, and it specifically states the copy-check-delete step as the process by which mv works

C.A.T.S. CEO · Nov 6, 2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ninjit

Can anyone check if this is true with other move methods as well?
I.e. Tom showed this problem with drag-n-drop,
what about cut-paste?
or mv from the terminal?
Using the same/similar scenario: e.g. Moving a large folder to a USB stick and pulling it out mid-transfer.

edit:
nm about the mv command, I just checked the man page, and it specifically states the copy-check-delete step as the process by which mv works

There is no cut and pasting of files in Leopard, or Mac OS X for that matter...

Tomchu · Nov 6, 2007, 03:30 PM

Since the bug is really in the Finder's handling of a move op, the "mv" program (Terminal) is not affected. It does its own logic, as you just discovered. :-P

ninjit · Nov 6, 2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

There is no cut and pasting of files in Leopard, or Mac OS X for that matter...

I could have sworn there was one

, but apparently not since 10.0 has cut-paste been allowed in the Finder....

Peter · Nov 7, 2007, 04:34 AM

cut and paste is a terrible idea for file management.
What if you cut a file, then copy a piece of text - where have your files gone?

Tomchu · Nov 7, 2007, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Peter

cut and paste is a terrible idea for file management.
What if you cut a file, then copy a piece of text - where have your files gone?

This is the #1 mis-conception about cutting/pasting of files. Let's clear it up:

a) When files are "cut", they aren't read or moved anywhere. References to these files are simply stored in memory (the clipboard). When you then perform a "paste" operation, the OS goes back and moves these files, because it has a list of names.

b) If one were to put something new in the clipboard while some files are in a "cut" state, the references to the files are simply overwritten with your new data. The files go back to a normal state.

c) Anyone who's ever used Windows knows that when you "cut" files, their icons become semi-transparent, but the files themselves go nowhere.

d) It would be completely retarded to read every file that's been "cut" into memory and then delete the file off the hard drive. Not only does this risk your data the moment you do another CTRL+C, but it would also take huge amounts of time and memory.

Windows' cut and paste mechanism for files is sound, and a pleasure to use.

Person Man · Nov 7, 2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Windows' cut and paste mechanism for files is sound, and a pleasure to use.

And terribly confusing to new users.

It might make more sense to call it something other than "cut and paste" when dealing with files.

Maybe "pick up and drop?" "Pick up and move?" Something else?

Tomchu · Nov 7, 2007, 01:13 PM

Perhaps.

Though I've never met any new users who weren't able to apply the "cut and paste" concept to files after learning about its use on text.

PaperNotes · Nov 7, 2007, 01:29 PM

I finally installed Leopard after holding back for a couple of weeks to read everyone's experiences. I must be fortunate because I haven't encountered a single problem so far (except that Stacks is crap) and all my apps work. My workflow is untouched.

analogue SPRINKLES · Nov 7, 2007, 02:14 PM

Apple should really have addressed this by now.