🚀 go-pugleaf

Robin Faichney <robin@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I run SuSE 6.2 and Win98 on this box, and I just trashed /opt!  I was
<snip>

OK, I guess I deserved that lack of response, for panicking and crying
for help before doing much research of my own.  I'm sure you'll all
be *greatly* relieved to hear that things are now more-or-less back
to normal.  :-)

-- 
Robin Faichney

In article <vc39f8.kc.ln@faichney.demon.co.uk>, Robin Faichney
<robin@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>I run SuSE 6.2 and Win98 on this box, and I just trashed /opt!  I was
>mucking about (obviously), and formatted the wrong drive in Windows.
>In my efforts to recover the situation, the partition has since
>been abortively type changed from FAT to ext2, deleted, recreated as
>unformatted by Partition Magic 3 and deleted again.  (That sequence
>may not be accurate -- I probably lost track.)  Eventually I managed to
>boot normally after commenting out the appropriate line in /etc/fstab,
>but of course I've lost loads of stuff -- eg I'm currently using fvwm2
>instead of kwm -- and until I get tape backup arranged, I backup only
>home directories and /etc.  Is there any way the data could be recovered?
>If not, any suggestions as to the easiest way to get back to square 1?
>Of course, I never bothered to save the installed packages configuration
>in yast.  :-(

Unfortunately, I don't think so :(

Windoze format is not the most destructive tool M$ have supplied (I
believe that honour goes to "setup.exe" on the win95 CD), I have
recovered from an accidental "format c:" more than once by resetting the
computer.  However, if the format actually completed there is a good
chance that the data is gone for good.

IIRC SuSE uses the RPM format invented by Red Hat so it shouldn't be too
hard to get the relevant packages back into the computer, if it reckons
it's already installed, read the man page and tell it to "force"
installation which just goes blind and copies the files anyway.

TB               Busby the Cat 1984 - 22.9.1999

In article <Zs1PASAZRuG5EwsB@btinternet.com>,
Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Windoze format is not the most destructive tool M$ have supplied (I
>believe that honour goes to "setup.exe" on the win95 CD), I have

I think that "recover.exe" in MS-DOS 3 till 6 has a pretty good claim :)

Nick

On 12 May 2000 02:42:02 GMT, Nick Leverton
<nick@leverton.org> wrote:
>In article <Zs1PASAZRuG5EwsB@btinternet.com>,
>Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Windoze format is not the most destructive tool M$ have supplied (I
>>believe that honour goes to "setup.exe" on the win95 CD), I have
>
>I think that "recover.exe" in MS-DOS 3 till 6 has a pretty good claim :)

<shudder> I'd forgotten all about that. Thanks for reminding
me. Err, not.

-- 
Mike Pellatt

In article <slrn8hobjg.bn9.newsfrom@lurch.pellatt.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
<newsfrom@news.pellatt.co.uk> writes
>On 12 May 2000 02:42:02 GMT, Nick Leverton
><nick@leverton.org> wrote:
>>In article <Zs1PASAZRuG5EwsB@btinternet.com>,
>>Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Windoze format is not the most destructive tool M$ have supplied (I
>>>believe that honour goes to "setup.exe" on the win95 CD), I have
>>
>>I think that "recover.exe" in MS-DOS 3 till 6 has a pretty good claim :)
>
><shudder> I'd forgotten all about that. Thanks for reminding
>me. Err, not.

That's the one that splits a directory into little files isn't it?

TB               Busby the Cat 1984 - 22.9.1999

In article <Gmg6BBAeVFH5EwX6@btinternet.com>,
Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8hobjg.bn9.newsfrom@lurch.pellatt.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
><newsfrom@news.pellatt.co.uk> writes
>>On 12 May 2000 02:42:02 GMT, Nick Leverton
>><nick@leverton.org> wrote:
>>>In article <Zs1PASAZRuG5EwsB@btinternet.com>,
>>>Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Windoze format is not the most destructive tool M$ have supplied (I
>>>>believe that honour goes to "setup.exe" on the win95 CD), I have
>>>
>>>I think that "recover.exe" in MS-DOS 3 till 6 has a pretty good claim :)
>>
>><shudder> I'd forgotten all about that. Thanks for reminding
>>me. Err, not.
>
>That's the one that splits a directory into little files isn't it?

Not quite : it renames every single file and directory on the disk as
something like FILE0001, FILE0002, et cetera.  They're all still there,
just not very retrievably named ...

Nick

Tom Bird <hamster@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

> In article <slrn8hobjg.bn9.newsfrom@lurch.pellatt.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
> <newsfrom@news.pellatt.co.uk> writes
> >On 12 May 2000 02:42:02 GMT, Nick Leverton
> ><nick@leverton.org> wrote:
> >>I think that "recover.exe" in MS-DOS 3 till 6 has a pretty good claim :)
> >
> ><shudder> I'd forgotten all about that. Thanks for reminding
> >me. Err, not.
> 
> That's the one that splits a directory into little files isn't it?

If you run it without parameters, it without prompting turns the entire
disk into a bunch of poorly-named files in the root directory, one per
file *or directory*. It stops when the root fills up, when you are
supposed to deal with that load of files and {run CHKDSK|run RECOVER
again|restore from backups|panic}.

-- 
Root beer --- the drink of the BOFH.

In article <8fi2r2$g0h$1@warren.leverton.org>, Nick Leverton
<nick@leverton.org> writes
>In article <Gmg6BBAeVFH5EwX6@btinternet.com>,
>Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
[recover.exe]
>>That's the one that splits a directory into little files isn't it?
>
>Not quite : it renames every single file and directory on the disk as
>something like FILE0001, FILE0002, et cetera.  They're all still there,
>just not very retrievably named ...

Sounds completely useless.

TB               Busby the Cat 1984 - 22.9.1999

Tom Bird <hamster@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8fi2r2$g0h$1@warren.leverton.org>, Nick Leverton
><nick@leverton.org> writes
>>In article <Gmg6BBAeVFH5EwX6@btinternet.com>,
>>Tom Bird  <tombird@btinternet.com> wrote:
>[recover.exe]
>>>That's the one that splits a directory into little files isn't it?
>>
>>Not quite : it renames every single file and directory on the disk as
>>something like FILE0001, FILE0002, et cetera.  They're all still there,
>>just not very retrievably named ...

>Sounds completely useless.

Not if you have under say 20 files on a disk.

On disks with a few thousand files, it's more or less useless.

-- 
http://inquisitor.i.am/    |  mailto:inquisitor@i.am |             Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If you've been pounding nails with your forehead for years, it may feel strange
the first time somebody hands you a hammer. 
But that doesn't mean that you should strap the hammer to a headband just to
give your skull that old familiar jolt.  -- Wayne Throop, during the `TCL Wars'