Useless Backup System

Alan Kilborn

@Resonant-Mind

Oh, come on now, you were sharing your opinions; at least have the guts to not delete the posting. :-)

PeterJones

Luckily, starting a reply before the post was deleted allows responding to the good parts, even when a post is deleted. I’ll reply to the technical and personal opinion about the software, and just assume you were “taking back” the other portions and not reply to those.

@Resonant-Mind said,

clearly implying that the purpose of such systems is to be fool proof. It shouldn’t require a manual.

The Notepad++ developer seems to think his users aren’t fools. That’s a refreshing change of pace for a developer, but given real world experience, maybe it’s overly optimistic. ;-)

I run Acronis True Image, Macrium Reflect and BackupChain… All significantly more complicated backup programs and protocols… Which I’ve never read the manual and have used for a decade without problem.

Yes, I fully agree that software written to backup files should be foolproof, because that’s its reason for existing. Notepad++ isn’t specifically backup software; and yet it gives you plenty of options for backing what you’re working on. Maybe you don’t like the default setting, but the option to do what you want is there.

However, while most applications I use don’t automatically turn on true backup features (for example, Word and Excel backup the unedited version of the file as you are editing it, but they don’t automatically keep a backup copy once you close the Microsoft application – ie, identical behavior to Notepad++'s default Session+PeriodicBackup), I have seen many text editors (especially in the linux world) which default to saving a blah.txt.bak or blah.txt~ or what have you – which is equivalent to Notepad++'s “Simple Backup” feature. So, while I always go and turn off such features (because then they clutter up my version control software which I use on just about any text document I care about), I can see how that makes a sensible default setting, putting onus on the user to turn it off, rather than turn it on.

@Alan-Kilborn earlier suggested
Maybe, …, Notepad++ could change its default “Backup on save” option to be the “Simple backup” choice.

and @Resonant-Mind responded to that quote with:

Nothing else was needed to be said

Well, there was more that Alan could have said: “anyone can put in a feature request, as described in the FAQ section of this forum, and the Read Before Posting message that’s pinned right next to the New Topic button in the forum that you clicked on. So if you feel strongly that the default setting should be changed, you could politely request that feature.”

But since he didn’t say that, and it seems that you aren’t likely to have read the Read Before Posting or gone looking at the FAQ section on your own: congratulations, I did it for you.

I finally gave in and put in the feature request, despite the fact that it’s a feature that I’ve never wanted. I have put in #10725, which asks that the developers turn on “simple backup” by default. Generally, I don’t put in feature requests, because the developer discounts features requested by the “power users” who hang out frequently in the forum and the issues location. Hopefully, enough people will go upvote that request (hint, hint) and the Developer will see the merit of changing that simple default.

UsefulBackup

the post was deleted because I thought you were both the same person and was going to edit in a reply to both of you, but then the forums time-limiter blocked me. Here’s the post.

@Alan-Kilborn said in [Useless Backup System](/post/70931):
> Hmmmmm, my company offers Notepad++ in its company “I.T. store” for its employees to use.  TBH I don’t know the vetting procedure, but I’d think that by offering it, they are comfortable with any security implications.
> BTW, I just mentioned the “security thing” as a “could be a…”, not that it affects me directly.


@Alan-Kilborn said in Useless Backup System:

Hmmmmm, my company offers Notepad++ in its company “I.T. store” for its employees to use. TBH I don’t know the vetting procedure, but I’d think that by offering it, they are comfortable with any security implications.
BTW, I just mentioned the “security thing” as a “could be a…”, not that it affects me directly.

Well I prefer to stick to what I know instead of coming up with random hypotheticals I know nothing about, but what do I know, you’re the smart one and I’m sure a random open source tech program doing intermittent document backups is a security priority and not the entire infrastructure being mirrored to backups on a server hosting 1000 employees and their emails and login credentials that could be breached.

the only smart, sensible and tolerably annoying part of your post here was
*@Alan-Kilborn said in Useless Backup System:

Notepad++ could change its default “Backup on save” option to be the “Simple backup” choice.
Users would surely notice .bak files being created in the same folder as their real file, and many would balk at that and say to themselves “I’ve got to figure out how to turn this off, or adjust it in some way!”.*

Nothing else was needed to be said, but you can’t just help masturbating yourself. You’re very smart, so much so you weren’t even able comprehend that I literally called myself a fool in the second sentence of this thread clearly implying that the purpose of such systems is to be fool proof. It shouldn’t require a manual. I run Acronis True Image, Macrium Reflect and BackupChain… All significantly more complicated backup programs and protocols… Which I’ve never read the manual and have used for a decade without problem. Do you get my point, smart guy? It’s - actually - not - about - what - I - did - or - didn’t - do. It’s about what the software didn’t do and could have or should have done… This isn’t exactly a new software development philosophy I’m giving you here…

please find a way to not be a twat any time you get a chance.

@PeterJones said in Useless Backup System:

The Notepad++ developer seems to think his users aren’t fools. That’s a refreshing change of pace for a developer, but given real world experience, maybe it’s overly optimistic. ;-)

Definitely overly optimistic.

typically, the work people do in Excel and Word, aren’t hundreds of pages of cluttered code being run by other programs, in which the programs running them can themselves alter the code outside of the users hands, cause system/software crashes, etc.

I have limited reading time, and software should be designed to account for that. Not every user is in the same situation with the same life, with the same agenda, experience, time, profession, need of use, etc. Hence me coming to take the time to share my personal user experience. Most the software I use has time interval backups turned on by default, and it’s not something to depend on, but it certainly doesnt hurt to have between the users manual saves and backups when sometimes the user is doing a series of quick but important changes and a fluke happens.

As I took the time to contribute my experience, thank you for taking the time to contribute yours by registering a formal request… you’re definitely less of a twat than the other two :)

gstavi

@Resonant-Mind, let summarize your experience:

Assuming there is a backup without validating and/or understanding how it works. Your fault.
Using an application that overwrite its inputs. The developer’s (you?) fault.
Not distinguishing “move file” from “copy file”, basic Windows usage paradigm for the last 30 years. Your fault. Using drag and drop instead of ctrl-c, ctrl-v. Your fault.
Not using one of the many source control management software packages. Your fault.
Working for 10 hours without stopping to make sure there is some kind of backup. Your fault.

You are not in a position to criticize anyone ever for “not doing their job”.

Alan Kilborn

@gstavi said in Useless Backup System:

Your fault.

But it doesn’t matter in the OP’s mind.
Notepad++ failed to save him from his own numerous shortcomings.
Epic fail for N++.

But…from one tw*t to another: Good analysis.

UsefulBackup

@gstavi Let’s summarize your experience:

You’re a twat. Your fault

@gstavi said in Useless Backup System:

Working for 10 hours without stopping to make sure there is some kind of backup. Your fault.

Actually I had more than 10 backups during that time. twat

@gstavi said in Useless Backup System:

Assuming there is a backup without validating and/or understanding how it works. Your fault.

I assumed it might not be reliable thus created my own backups and I was right. twat.

@gstavi said in Useless Backup System:

Not distinguishing “move file” from “copy file”, basic Windows usage paradigm for the last 30 years. Your fault. Using drag and drop instead of ctrl-c, ctrl-v. Your fault.

Actually I distinguished for 12 hours over a hundred times and was using ctrl-c/v. Windows dragdrop defaults to copy between different drive roots, and defaults to move if same drive. That’s what I didn’t distinguish between. twat

@gstavi said in Useless Backup System:

You are not in a position to criticize anyone ever for “not doing their job”.

And you are, right. You get to probably live in your perfect coding/internet fantasy land and avoid the real world where I don’t know, NASA rockets explode with people on board, Boeing planes crash full of people, people get blood clots vaccines, buildings collapse from planes crashing into them. twat

guy038

@resonant-mind and All,

Can you meditate, for a moment, on this French proverb:

A bad worker always has bad tools !

BR

guy038

UsefulBackup

@guy038 said in Useless Backup System:

@resonant-mind and All,
Can you meditate, for a moment, on this French proverb:
A bad worker always has bad tools !
BR
guy038

Which is it that has been the driving force for improved tool development - the bad worker, or the bad tool?

PeterJones

I said,

[hopefully] the Developer will see the merit of changing that simple default.

The developer thinks it will just trade one set of complaints for another (which wouldn’t surprise me), but it has been implemented and committed, so the next version of Notepad++ will have simple backup (.bak files) turned on by default.

We’ll just have to wait and see if I live to regret that feature request. ;-)

UsefulBackup

@PeterJones said in Useless Backup System:

I said,

[hopefully] the Developer will see the merit of changing that simple default.

The developer thinks it will just trade one set of complaints for another (which wouldn’t surprise me), but it has been implemented and committed, so the next version of Notepad++ will have simple backup (.bak files) turned on by default.
We’ll just have to wait and see if I live to regret that feature request. ;-)

I bet you no other person has got so many downvotes and a feature implemented that quickly in the history of npp.

It might just save the world one day.

Logic vs Social Popularity - logic wins, and so does humanity.

Thanks for getting it implemented, you’re appreciated. but no one else in this thread is, just to be clear.

UsefulBackup

@PeterJones Looking at the discussion in github, I’d also point out that pretty much ever professional Digital Audio Workstation as well as Video Editors that I can remember, have internal dedicated backup system on by default and typically it is of the verbose type (multiple) with a setting in preferences the user can set to determine how many are created before the oldest is automatically deleted. And in these editors, this is actually usually an auto-save backup system, not a save duplicated back up.

This is typically because with audio or video, the amount of real-time processing pushes systems to their limits, a lot of simultaneous full memory, full CPU, and full GPU usage going on for many hours of the day, and then developers of those softwares are also often adding new complicated features… Can make for a very volatile system environment where crashes happen. The internal backups are an extra precaution because sometimes crashes happen between saves, or between backups and external version software may not pick that up.

Many of those people are also doing their own code and scripts for plugins or modifications to the software and would be in the mind site/are accustomed to software doing backups for them. I know lots of people in this field who use notepad++.

So I think overall, it’s a good software ethic and protocol whether it’s for a text editor or video editor or a video game or whatever. It’s not like disk space is really an issue these days…

Graham Norris

@PeterJones Well, you can have one complaint right here! I really don’t expect text editors to default to saving .bak files, so finding that Notepadd++ does so would be very irritating. As an existing user, that will only bother me when I install Notepad++ on another PC, but I can guarantee I will forget until I discover .bak files splattered around the place. I’m greatly hoping that changing the default to “on” does NOT occur if Notepad++ is updated.

UsefulBackup

@Graham-Norris said in Useless Backup System:

@PeterJones Well, you can have one complaint right here! I really don’t expect text editors to default to saving .bak files, so finding that Notepadd++ does so would be very irritating. As an existing user, that will only bother me when I install Notepad++ on another PC, but I can guarantee I will forget until I discover .bak files splattered around the place. I’m greatly hoping that changing the default to “on” does NOT occur if Notepad++ is updated.

The change has already occurred and is really, imo modern software design protocol. Just because others don’t, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. What exactly is the problem with having default backup on, where the .baks appear in the directory of which the project/session is saved and named the same as the root project? It’s not like drive space is really a problem these days, if we were using floppy discs, it might be a cause for concern. Is it just a matter of OCD or?

And really, if you can’t remember to turn off .bak after install, you may have bigger problems no offence. Also, as someone stated in the github, you can keep a config.xml on hand with the settings you want stored, then just copy-overwrite the fresh install settings.

Perhaps, the dev can in the future, make it a selectable preference in the installer itself @PeterJones

Terry R

@Resonant-Mind said in Useless Backup System:

Also, as someone stated in the github, you can keep a config.xml on hand with the settings you want stored, then just copy-overwrite the fresh install settings.

I think it’s worth asking the question here:
Does an installation with settings already configured (or even left as the “old” defaults) get those settings overwritten when a “new default” setting is established?

So in this instance I would think that just changing a default backup setting (for a new installation) will NOT alter the current installation if it is upgrading that.

Can someone confirm that, as it would appear from this thread that most posters believe the new default setting will change an existing installation? I can understand that if a new feature which used additional configuration settings stored in one of the many XML files was used to upgrade a current installation it WOULD write the new default settings (hopefully ONLY for that new feature) to the existing installation. But to change an existing configuration setting would not in my mind be a good move, it would alter what someone had already set and without prior knowledge it would then alienate those users. That just adds to the misery already suffered by the OP.

Note this is for the “installed” version, not the portable version which I believe just overwrites everything.

Terry

PeterJones

@Terry-R said in Useless Backup System:

Does an installation with settings already configured (or even left as the “old” defaults) get those settings overwritten when a “new default” setting is established?
Can someone confirm that, as it would appear from this thread that most posters believe the new default setting will change an existing installation?

With the current installer, upgrading to a new version does not overwrite your settings (unless you delete your old settings first), so people who already have Notepad++ with the settings the way they like will not see a change.

I can understand that if a new feature which used additional configuration settings stored in one of the many XML files was used to upgrade a current installation it WOULD write the new default settings (hopefully ONLY for that new feature) to the existing installation.

Yes and no. For new features, if Notepad++ doesn’t see the setting in the appropriate configuration file, it will use an internally-set default value. But I don’t think it bothers writing that setting into the appropriate configuration file until such time as you change it from the default value.

But to change an existing configuration setting would not in my mind be a good move, it would alter what someone had already set and without prior knowledge it would then alienate those users. That just adds to the misery already suffered by the OP.

Indeed. The change as made will only affect new installations (or if someone deletes their config.xml and Notepad++ re-creates it from default settings).

Note this is for the “installed” version, not the portable version which I believe just overwrites everything.

If you run the “Update Notepad++” from the portable version, it will try to make an installed version. If you unzip a portable on top of an existing portable, all settings are returned to default. If you do what many of us portable-users do and use the Compare plugin (or some other “diff”-like tool) to compare the updated XML to our customized XML, and just bring over settings that are new, then it’s a manual process. (And if I ever find all the right Round Tuits™, there may eventually be a tool to help with “merging” settings from a recent copy into your installed or portable copy; I’ve started on it, but it’s still got a long way to go.)

Graham Norris

@resonant-mind said in Useless Backup System:

What exactly is the problem with having default backup on, where the .baks appear in the directory of which the project/session is saved and named the same as the root project?

Maybe you only edit in one directory, but I don’t. I also have much better ways to backup what I am working on. And use them.

Is it just a matter of OCD or?

I don’t think there’s a need to be offensive.

And really, if you can’t remember to turn off .bak after install, you may have bigger problems no offence.

Except you know that you are.

Alan Kilborn

The “fallout” from the change begins:

https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/issues/10788

UsefulBackup

@alan-kilborn said in Useless Backup System:

The “fallout” from the change begins:

https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/issues/10788

Such severe fallout, better get to the bunker, nuclear winter on the way.

Alan Kilborn

@resonant-mind said in Useless Backup System:

Such severe fallout, better get to the bunker, nuclear winter on the way.

There’s another thread discussing this where you are referred to as “the crybaby”. LOL, but apt.

IMO and in retrospect, I think enabling the option to create .bak files by default was not such a great idea.

Lycan Thrope

@alan-kilborn
Fan the flames. :-)
In that thread, I also agreed with Resonant Mind, that except for a few vocal super users, the vast majority of users are not forum dwellers here. After reading the request section, I agree with the request logic for the points made and as an aside, learned about the NUL issue which I had no knowedge of prior to following that discussion.

As I pointed out, the editor in MY evironment, automatically makes .bak files of rapidly changing files in the IDE because, well let’s face it, ever since I used DOS, MS’s OS are not bulletproof, nor is the code that other development evironments build to run on it. Better safe than sorry is the better mantra on this aspect.

It seems that being called stupid and lazy, by supposedly superior intellects, is the best way to alienate the majority of users from using the product, which seems to be the goal of them. It was the same when we were ramping up the general use of the internet in the AOL days of yore. The intellectuals who thought they owned the internet were aghast and insultive of the coming horde. I may have agreed with them, that some people probably shouldn’t have access they don’t know how to control…but look how that turned out. :) Yes, the net is a mess of hyperbolic, childish gibberish…but it was coming whether we wanted it or not because the entities that have power beyond us saw dollar signs in their future. So be it.

Making the product safe for new users, while keeping control for power users is what makes a good product attractive. Unlike Windows, which keeps trying to hide the customizations away from users in archaic registries and hiding the actual mechanics behind a dumb UI so the wow factor is all the hapless users see. Sorry…waxing philosphical again…but maybe you get the point. If it helps saves dumb users from themselves, so they can advance to super users…it’s a small price to pay…as long as the end control is theirs. To fight and demean only makes a mob mad…and that you don’t need. :(

Lee