15 Dec
2011
15 Dec
'11
6:16 a.m.
On Dec 14, 2011 1:47 AM, "Toby Thain" <toby at telegraphics.com.au>
wrote:
Again, what is *your* definition of Unix? The Unix *kernel* only cares
Easy. You can make the program behave how you like regarding extensions, but it
will still run on Unix.
Well, /strictly/, yes, but since I have never
seen or heard of a single
UNIX or Linux shell that does what I consider to be the sane or right
thing, I think it's fair to say that it's an attribute of the OS as a whole.
On 13/12/11 12:13 AM, Sean Conner wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Toby Thain
once stated:
> >> On 12/12/11 3:53 PM, Sean Conner
wrote:
>> >>> It was
thus said that the Great Toby Thain once stated:
>>> >>>> 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:
Errr... again, these are *programs*, not 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.