21–30 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything, it's the opposite of a dark pattern: you get to see if it'll provide any value for you without paying a dime. It's a far better proposition than paying up only to find out that it won't free up any space for you. The linked site is very clear about how the pricing works.
This would only be true if it didn't take your time before asking you to pay to not waste the time that it took.
Are you deleting the others and creating a symlink to the original? How does this work exactly? I didn't get it from the FAQ section. Does this mean that if the original is gone, all the file links will not be found?
No, this uses a feature of the macOS file system. From the FAQ: > Q: Are clone files the same thing as symbolic links or hard links? > A: No. Symbolic links (“symlinks”) and hard links are ways to make two entries in the file system that share the same data. This might sound like the same thing as the space-saving clones used by Hyperspace, but there’s one important difference. With symlinks and hard links, a change…
Seems useful for s3 buckets. I suppose a script that watches for new objects, calculates its sha256 and stores that in a DB, then checks for duplicate hashes would be a fairly trivial task. Though s3 doesn’t support symbolic links so accounting would need to be handled by server side code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this uses a feature of the macOS file system. From the FAQ: > Q: Are clone files the same thing as symbolic links or hard links? > A: No. Symbolic links (“symlinks”) and hard links are ways to make two entries in the file system that share the same data. This might sound like the same thing as the space-saving clones used by Hyperspace, but there’s one important difference. With symlinks and hard links, a change…
It's a CoW (copy-on-write) file, it sounds like.
Pretty handy when your flight sim game takes 1.2 terabytes with most of that being sparse terrain mesh data and uncompressed textures. Compressing the whole directory would take over a day according to Microsoft and their infamous progress bar; Compactor gets it done in fifteen minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would only be true if it didn't take your time before asking you to pay to not waste the time that it took.
You are complaining that it can’t instantaneously perform a complete scan of your disk, and then attributing malicious intent to this lack of magic instant scanning technology. What are we even doing here. The knee-jerk conspiratorial foolishness on this site is completely off the deep end.
We both know it does so intentionally, and we also know exactly what the intent is.
It's quite the dark-pattern to allow you to download it and scan for free, without any clear indication that it's a paid product, and then ambush you with a purchase dangling the space savings in front of your face.
It's amazing that this is a product. In an earlier job we used to ask how to do this (discovery phase of deduplication) in the first interview screening. Once you have that list, it's straightforward to make a few syscalls that make it happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are complaining that it can’t instantaneously perform a complete scan of your disk, and then attributing malicious intent to this lack of magic instant scanning technology. What are we even doing here. The knee-jerk conspiratorial foolishness on this site is completely off the deep end.
No, I'm complaining that it doesn't ask me to pay before it takes my time to perform a complete scan of my disk (ideally before it even gives me a download of the app). We both know it does so intentionally, and we also know exactly what the intent is.