Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kth!draken!ianf
From: ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Partitioning Software
Message-ID: <1587@draken.nada.kth.se>
Date: 10 Sep 89 01:58:48 GMT
References: <160700059@primerd> <17003@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 23

In article <17003@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c8s-an@franny.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
(Alex Lau) writes:
>
>Some partitioning methods are less dangerous than others;
>SUM is one of the more dangerous, while SilverLining or
>MultiDisk are a couple of the least dangerous...

   What you're talking about are merely pseudo-partitions, ie invisible
certain-number-of-continuous-segments-on-a-hard-drive files that are
faily uncomplicated as far as the MacOS is concerned.  I agree with
you, however, that they are dangerous to tamper with, especially these
that use encryption of the data inside it as the method of protection.
In such cases the chances of recovering data from an otherwise undamaged
partition on a crashed drive are equal=to NIL.  Therefore one should never
use encryption-protected partitions, pseude or not, unless there is some
kind of satisfactory daily/ periodic backup.

   I am no advocate of SUM either but why should the SilverLining's or
the MultiDisk-solution be a less-dangerous one?
 -- 
You just survived another load of gross exaggerations from
   Ian Feldman, the ASCII hacker
      ianf@nada.kth.se / ianf@sekth.bitnet
         ianf%nada.kth.se@uunet.uu.net / uunet!nada.kth.se!ianf