Talk:mopy

mopy
I nedd help with formatting. I'm not sure how to set up etymology for the verb form. And the noun is a problem: the noun is actually mopy fish, which should actually have the odd capitalization MOPy fish, but I can see people trying to look up mopy if they saw the term mopy fish somewhere. (Sorry about the mess). RJFJR 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up by others --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 2007–November 2009
I nedd help with formatting. I'm not sure how to set up etymology for the verb form. And the noun is a problem: the noun is actually mopy fish, which should actually have the odd capitalization MOPy fish, but I can see people trying to look up mopy if they saw the term mopy fish somewhere. (Sorry about the mess). RJFJR 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up by others --Volants 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October–November 2019
Ety 3: "To move a file to a target location without caring whether or not the source file is deleted afterwards." I feel as though I would have heard of this. Be careful not to confuse with the document-printing sense (ety 2) which also occurs in computer contexts. Equinox ◑ 11:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether this can be verified, the definition is rather unclear. In Unix-speak, to move a file means to rename it (without making a copy). So then there is only one file (whose name got changed), and it is unclear what is meant by “the source file”. (It does not help reduce the confusion that in computing “source file” usually means a file containing source code, like seen here.) If the meaning of mopy – without paying attention to the concerns of the mopier – is to make a copy of a file to a second location so that there are now two copies, one in the source location and one in the target location, it is unclear what is meant by care. Is the lack of care a sign of carelessness? Or was the whole point of the copying to safeguard the content of the file, knowing that files at the source location may be deleted, for example because it is an area reserved for temporary storage? Why does a simple move not suffice? --Lambiam 12:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any time when someone made a distinction between moving a file between directories and moving a file between filesystems in my time with Linux. The fact that it is internally renamed is an implementation detail. It doesn't seem all that unclear; a mopy would be a rename if possible, and a copy if the user didn't have the right to delete the original or possibly across filesystems.
 * As for verification, there's a couple MS-DOS books that apparently use the word "mopy" but I can't see enough to get a sense of what it means. Otherwise, I can't see anything, even cites from the raw web.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In a Linux command like  the file is “moved” within the same directory. It is quite unlike the   instruction of many assemblers. The occurrences in MS-DOS power user's guide Vol. 1 and DOS 5 simplified are scannos for “Copy”.  --Lambiam 22:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)