28 Aug
2006
28 Aug
'06
4:18 p.m.
On 8/28/2006 at 4:08 PM Don wrote:
I've still not heard any comment on *why*
(hysterically)
this scheme was (apparently) replaced by one in which
names convey file type information (e.g. foo.sea.hqx).
Is it simply a "lowest common denominator" -- i.e. every
file system (on "every" OS) supports the concept of a file
NAME so that's where it *has* to go? Yet, why does it
*have* to go there at all? (i.e. why does file type
*need* to be part of the name -- is it just something
that users have grown accustomed to?)
If I understand you...
Unix was the first system that I'd ever seen where the file name implied a
type.
There are very old systems that differentiate between 'data" and
"executable" files outside of the file name; it can be via attribute or
"type" not part of the file. Unix is one such system--you can have a
"Can't read or write, only execute" file.
Cheers,
Chuck