Useless Backup System

[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

[pnedev]

It is becoming rather a philosophical discussion now but the other perspective is how often people will find the behavior of the editor awkward.

For all the time Notepad++ has been out there AFAIK @Resonant-Mind is the first to ask for that backup by default (not trying to be disrespectful here, just stating the facts).
I think what @Alan-Kilborn is kind of worried about is that since the change there are already several (two AFAIK) help requests in this forum asking why the .bak files appear and how to stop that. Those are coming from not power users obviously. And since @Alan-Kilborn and a few other folks here are the guys that are actually spending time and effort answering such queries and trying to help it is normal for them to measure the pros. and cons. of such change from the perspective of “How much confusion it will bring and how much maintenance effort”.

I understand both views and since we have prioritized the security and stability here (.bak ON by default) maybe it is worth creating post in the FAQ section describing how one can stop that default behavior.
@Alan-Kilborn , what do you think?

[Alan Kilborn]

@pnedev said in Useless Backup System:

maybe it is worth creating post in the FAQ section describing how one can stop that default behavior.
@Alan-Kilborn , what do you think?

It hasn’t really become a faq yet, but it could. I’d wait before creating something for it in the FAQ section.

[PeterJones]

@pnedev said in Useless Backup System:

worth creating post in the FAQ section describing how one can stop that default behavior.

It’s in the Periodic Backup vs. AutoSave Plugin FAQ entry, in the “BUILT-IN BACKUP ON SAVE” section.

[pnedev]

@peterjones ,

Thank you for pointing that out!

[xomx]

So I have found here at last, why I have got the *.bak files now by default. Wow.

I am too old for this ‘Nanny’ world. Or better ‘it is not my responsibility, do something’ world.

[UsefulBackup]

@pnedev said in Useless Backup System:

It is becoming rather a philosophical discussion now but the other perspective is how often people will find the behavior of the editor awkward.

For all the time Notepad++ has been out there AFAIK @Resonant-Mind is the first to ask for that backup by default (not trying to be disrespectful here, just stating the facts).
I think what @Alan-Kilborn is kind of worried about is that since the change there are already several (two AFAIK) help requests in this forum asking why the .bak files appear and how to stop that. Those are coming from not power users obviously. And since @Alan-Kilborn and a few other folks here are the guys that are actually spending time and effort answering such queries and trying to help it is normal for them to measure the pros. and cons. of such change from the perspective of “How much confusion it will bring and how much maintenance effort”.

I understand both views and since we have prioritized the security and stability here (.bak ON by default) maybe it is worth creating post in the FAQ section describing how one can stop that default behavior.
@Alan-Kilborn , what do you think?

A couple users coming in to ask how to disable it, is not the same thing as a couple forum Golems b!tching about the change and then proceeding to be bigger cry babies than the person that lost data.

These elitist power users fail to recognize, that a lot of professional paid for / not free software out there have their own .bak system and is enabled by default.

So, welcome to being a professional.