In article <tomstiller-632F3D.18551027072008@news.verizon.net>, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <270720081709030959%leave@me.alone>, > Curmudgeon <leave@me.alone> wrote: > > > In article <jollyroger-CDF140.10375325072008@news.individual.net>, > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1iknzpi.pbudqouth9icN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, > > > dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > > > > > > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <uce-F79936.07363025072008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > > > > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote: > > > > [much discussion of how tools and man pages are updated deleted...] > > > > OP here. I have been following this thread hoping that it would shed > > some light on whether my issue with visible etc, tmp, and var aliases > > (or links as they might more accurately be described) can be rendered > > invisible again. It appears that they cannot, and I will simply have > > to live with their annoying persistence. It's hard for me to believe > > that's really true, but nobody has yet suggested a remedy that works. > > > > By the way, my thanks to whomever suggested Cocktail, but all it does > > is toggle the visibility of otherwise invisible files. It hasn't any > > impact on the three "folders" I'm trying to invisibilize. The system > > won't allow me to rename them .etc, .tmp, and .var so I seem to SOL. > > > > Any other ideas? Voodoo, maybe? There's got to be a way to do this! > > > > What does the command: > ls -lO / > produce?
Confession: Despite fifteen years at Bell Labs, I am not at all UNIX conversant, so the above doesn't mean as much to me as it might. I'll be very happy to accept any guidance you can provide. Thanks.
Cheers!
Mudge
-- Life is change: How it differs from the rocks! I've seen their ways too often for my liking. New worlds to gain:ÊMy life is to survive . . . . . . and be alive for you.
