@skwire

File Punter is useful, good thing it does not overwrite existing files. Now I'd like to ask if something is already possible or if that turns out to be a feature request.

Explanation of what I am doing:
I have files whose names include $x and $y that are supposed to be part of a folder structure. They are moved or copied from to
A regular expression (don't know too much about them) looks for $x and $y, brackets like the following () group $x and $y. The destination in File Punter looks like this File Punter does what I want it to do, in the first place. It moves a file named to That works, that is cool.

What I would like and why I would like it:
The folders are supposed to exist already. Meaning they are present before the copying or moving process even begins. It is cool that File Punter is able to create folders that are not present, however in my scenario there was something wrong if the folder did not exist and had to be created by File Punter. Like the folder present is but the files say File Punter does its job and creates a folder, which is not its fault, but my misfortune.

Is there a way, for example by modifying my destination to achieve that File Punter ignores the files. So that if folders with are not present are not created?

If that is not possible, I'd like to suggest two new methods and Alternatively some other way of telling file punter to not create folders.


Other stuff I wondered while I was writing this:
When I move the files (my use case), remaining files indicate that something went wrong. E.g. the pattern did not catch all files or the destination file is already present. I don't have that "feedback" when I would copy the files. Could there be some kind of log, either where every operation goes into, or one just listing the skipped files, maybe with a reason?

I'm aware that File Punter is not a (re)naming tool, but I realized that I move to which makes it a bit redundant. Is there a way to use File Punter to strip from the files during the process?

Thank you for the program and thank you for anything you can say about my problems.

Hacker and cracker get mixed together.

While a hacker once was one that could break into system and maybe did, but not for profit, just to prove something and a cracker referred to someone that abused it's knowledge and power to get himself an advantage or just to destroy things. A hacker was someone with ethics.

For instance one breaking into this forum and posting a message about the finding from mouser to admin and via versa. That would be a hacker to me.
One that breaks into this forum sells the datasets he can obtain and wipes the database. That would be a cracker.

The modern hacker might be Penetration Tester as he serves a "good" purpose.

Every script-kiddy gets called hacker, calls himself a hacker, maybe even wants to be a hacker.

- Who can be a hacker?
Anyone that is willing to learn how certain things work and how to use and abuse those functions. Might be limited by some sort of knowledge and how easy one can learn new things. Languages (German, Spanish, but programming languages as well, I don't understand any) maybe math.

- What should one know to be a hacker?
That it takes time, patience and of course luck.
Most of the time it happens by trying.
Unless you are asked to do it it can be considered illegal. (Depends on what ones is doing)

- What are the programs used?
Probably depends on what the hacker want to achieve.

- What are the languages a hacker should know?
Depends on the target I think. "Pascal" for instance should not be needed unless it's something the target is written in.