19 Dec
2011
19 Dec
'11
11:14 a.m.
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:52:03 +0100
From: Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de>
MikeS wrote:
---- Original message:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:13:38 +0100
From: Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de>
>Files should have an header wich describes
what type of data the file
>represents.
Why?
> What is so terribly wrong with using the file's _name_ to describe the
> type
> of data a file represents, so that those "humans" that you seem to
> disdain
> elsewhere can also know and work with its type, not just the computer? You ask me what's wrong? Never heard of a file
called "your_win.jpg.exe"
for example and was most Windoze users are doning with such a file and how
its name is displayed on most windoze machines?
I'm not a UNIX expert so I must have misunderstood; you mean UNIX cares
about file extensions after all and I can't name a UNIX executable
"your_win.jpg" ?
At least the modern DOS equivalent (which is what we're talking about,
remember?) *does* show the all-important .EXE in the file name, as will
Windows if you've enabled it. How does UNIX warn me at a quick glance?
...
<Half a dozen paragraphs of the traditional redundant and totally irrelevant
Microsoft-bashing drivel removed for readability>
...
BTW, I think
this quote from Ritchie himself sums it up perfectly:
"Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
> m Hmm, wasn't it "Unix IS user friendly, but it
is a little restrictive what
his friends are.."
Look it up! I think you'll find dozens of references, as well as to your
quote, e.g.
http://inagist.com/CodeWisdom/146592721312817153/
or
http://quotes.prolix.nu/Technology/Computers/
PS:
Sorry for my broken english, never learned it in a shool or so, it's
entirely from using unixoid OS's and communicateing with people like you
over the net.
Proably it's still better as your german :-)
I doubt it; born and raised in Hamburg my German's actually pretty good.
m