13 Dec
2011
13 Dec
'11
5:35 p.m.
On 13/12/11 12:13 AM, Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Toby Thain once
stated:
Easy. You can make the program behave how you like regarding extensions,
but it will still run on Unix.
It's not necessary to change the operating system to fix this. But
perhaps Liam misspoke in the heat of the moment, and meant "*shell*
handles file extensions very poorly". I haven't seen a correction in
this vein yet, so this is only a theory.
On 12/12/11 3:53 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
Again, what is *your* definition of Unix? The Unix *kernel* only cares It was thus said that the Great Toby Thain once
stated:
Errr... again, these are *programs*, not Unix... The representation that Unix uses is effective
for these use cases. Can
you give an actual example of where Unix handles extensions "very
poorly"? (Your faux-DOS command doesn't seem to qualify, as it is
neither about Unix (rather, shell), nor a valid use of mv.)
Well, it depends upon your definition of "Unix". There are certain
commands I've come across that handles extentions poorly. Like gunzip:
And GCC also has trouble with extentions:
that a filename does not contain '/' or a NUL
byte (given that a NUL byte
terminates the filename) be less than N bytes in size (N varies, but is at
least 14).
The *rest* of the system, what the user interacts with, may care a bit
more about filenames and may make it a pain to use certain characters
(shells make it difficult to use spaces and some punctuation, certain
programs like gcc and gunzip care about extentions).
Yes. That's my point.
--Toby
So I take it from your reply that you are talking about the *kernel* and
not the rest of the system.
-spc (Sure, I could restrict myself to using just a Unix kernel, but I
won't be very productive ... )