 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-1-2011 13:45, Invisible wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 11:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Or put differently: a path on a machine can be turned into a URL.
>>
>> In all honesty, I have a hard time understanding why in the world you'd
>> put the name of a file local to your machine onto a printed form in the
>> first place.
>
> Which part of the word "server" did you miss?
I think the operative word in the question is 'printed'. There are ways
to sign forms electronically that are more secure than a printed
hardcopy. I guess you have a problem with conservative legislation.
>
> I have to periodically perform a file restore from tape to prove that
> the backup system actually works. As part of this, I have to note down
> which file I restored. The nearest convenient file is quite deeply buried.
Why not create one at a more convenient place and/or define a device or
shared directory at the spot of the directory you want?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Which part of the word "server" did you miss?
>
> I think the operative word in the question is 'printed'.
Well, yes. Quite why our procedures require this stuff to happen on
paper in the first place is beyond me. Alternatively, they could just
print the box slightly bigger so I could write the address in by hand.
>> I have to periodically perform a file restore from tape to prove that
>> the backup system actually works. As part of this, I have to note down
>> which file I restored. The nearest convenient file is quite deeply
>> buried.
>
> Why not create one at a more convenient place and/or define a device or
> shared directory at the spot of the directory you want?
Setting something up specially would require getting authorisation and
filling out forms and it's basically quite a lot of work for something I
only have to do once every 6 months.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On 14/01/2011 11:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Or put differently: a path on a machine can be turned into a URL.
>>
>> In all honesty, I have a hard time understanding why in the world you'd
>> put the name of a file local to your machine onto a printed form in the
>> first place.
>
> Which part of the word "server" did you miss?
Which part of my second paragraph did you not read?
> I have to periodically perform a file restore from tape to prove that
> the backup system actually works. As part of this, I have to note down
> which file I restored. The nearest convenient file is quite deeply buried.
Right. It's the name of a file on your local machine with which you have
done something, which is exactly what I said in my second paragraph.
(Note that when talking about tinyurl.com, your server is a local machine, yes?)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 05:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Right. It's the name of a file on your local machine with which you have
> done something, which is exactly what I said in my second paragraph.
>
> (Note that when talking about tinyurl.com, your server is a local
> machine, yes?)
It's unusual to refer to a file on a remote file server as a "local
file", that's all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It's unusual to refer to a file on a remote file server as a "local
> file", that's all.
If it's in the same room as you, it's a local file. :-) If you're accessing
it via the URL, it's a remote file.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's unusual to refer to a file on a remote file server as a "local
>> file", that's all.
>
> If it's in the same room as you, it's a local file. :-) If you're
> accessing it via the URL, it's a remote file.
Sure. I was just pointing out that while needing to refer to a file on a
desktop machine would be slightly strange, needing to refer to a file on
a file server is quite common.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> needing to refer to a file on a file server is quite common.
But ... not on a paper form.
Indeed, I'd suggest that URLs are more commonly written on paper than the
names of files served by non-URI means.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/01/2011 05:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> needing to refer to a file on a file server is quite common.
>
> But ... not on a paper form.
>
> Indeed, I'd suggest that URLs are more commonly written on paper than
> the names of files served by non-URI means.
More common, yes. But still, I explained why I need to refer to it.
Fortunately I only have to do this fairly infrequently.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
