Re: why no undelete?
From: Peter T. Breuer (ptb_at_oboe.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 10/15/03
- Next message: Davide Bianchi: "Re: (OT) Turn That PC Into a Supercomputer???"
- Previous message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: bash question"
- In reply to: blmblm_at_myrealbox.com: "Re: why no undelete?"
- Next in thread: blmblm_at_myrealbox.com: "Re: why no undelete?"
- Reply: blmblm_at_myrealbox.com: "Re: why no undelete?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:28:18 +0200
blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <volqq6po0epl9d@corp.supernews.com>,
> Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
> I don't know what point you think I'm making. The point I'm trying to
> make is that whether X is being used is not really relevant to whether
> "deleted" files can be recovered. What is relevant is whether they
> were deleted with an unmodified "rm" or with something that "deletes"
> files by moving them to a trashcan directory.
Hey, you can always set ld.so.preload to load a .o which intercepts the
"unlink" library call!
Peter
- Next message: Davide Bianchi: "Re: (OT) Turn That PC Into a Supercomputer???"
- Previous message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: bash question"
- In reply to: blmblm_at_myrealbox.com: "Re: why no undelete?"
- Next in thread: blmblm_at_myrealbox.com: "Re: why no undelete?"
- Reply: blmblm_at_myrealbox.com: "Re: why no undelete?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|