Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #67230 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-27 10:21 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-04-29 21:53 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 283 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-27 10:21 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 08:00 -0700
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-29 06:41 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-28 17:49 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-28 18:56 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 12:31 -0700
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-28 20:03 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-29 01:30 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-29 04:13 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-04-29 10:00 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2025-05-03 10:18 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-05-03 14:36 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-05-05 09:23 -0700
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:32 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:09 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-04-29 10:18 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-29 19:32 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 14:18 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 19:46 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:22 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-29 22:25 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-30 10:00 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-04-30 22:02 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-01 04:45 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 05:07 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-01 13:41 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-01 10:07 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 22:07 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-01 22:49 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-02 19:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-01 13:42 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-01 15:05 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-02 08:45 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:27 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:15 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:42 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-02 07:10 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 08:06 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-02 22:29 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 03:10 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-02 17:18 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 08:11 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-02 09:24 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 08:26 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-03 08:58 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 23:47 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-05-03 13:23 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-03 02:08 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 07:50 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-02 23:17 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:44 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-02 00:27 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-02 10:57 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-05 22:30 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-06 09:10 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-07 09:54 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-07 04:54 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-07 06:51 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 11:00 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-07 12:12 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 12:17 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-07 14:21 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-07 21:51 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 23:43 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-05-07 08:14 -0700
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-07 21:49 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 22:41 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-07 21:46 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 23:52 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-08 01:44 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-08 09:06 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-08 01:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-05-08 14:22 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-08 02:42 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-08 08:57 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-08 07:36 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-08 15:05 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-08 18:31 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-08 20:36 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-08 22:32 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-09 00:28 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 02:01 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-09 18:05 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:21 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-09 20:31 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:33 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:52 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-09 23:55 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-10 00:28 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-10 18:14 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-10 20:05 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-10 21:05 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-11 01:04 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-05-11 10:58 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-11 11:42 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-05-11 15:24 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-11 21:17 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 01:28 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:04 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 22:44 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-13 05:49 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:21 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-13 16:20 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-14 05:35 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-13 17:03 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-14 05:34 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-14 19:26 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-14 21:36 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-14 22:25 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:39 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-14 22:27 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-15 00:04 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-14 23:36 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-15 20:22 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-15 05:41 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-15 20:25 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-16 01:08 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-12 05:12 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-13 16:15 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-13 16:13 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-12 01:28 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-12 05:10 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-11 01:03 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-11 00:19 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-10 22:40 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-11 11:40 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-10 03:29 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:50 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-09 23:55 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-10 00:31 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-10 10:33 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-09 00:27 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-09 00:49 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-08 09:50 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-08 14:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-09 08:28 +1000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-09 01:07 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 02:02 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-09 07:06 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-09 01:44 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 07:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-05-09 15:20 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:53 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-09 09:20 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:54 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-08 09:22 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-08 22:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-09 21:54 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-09 21:55 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-11 00:21 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-05-11 11:35 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-05-11 20:00 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-05-10 20:20 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 11:11 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-09 21:30 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-10 07:07 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-06 01:36 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-06 02:00 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-06 08:48 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-06 13:19 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-06 22:30 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-02 14:59 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-02 10:53 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-02 14:54 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-02 20:02 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-02 22:29 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 00:05 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:56 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 03:18 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-03 02:02 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 07:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 11:36 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-02 23:59 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 02:34 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:56 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 21:47 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-03 22:06 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 02:33 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-03 22:43 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:28 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 12:21 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 12:17 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 20:25 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-05 09:55 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 13:48 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:27 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 13:54 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:56 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:12 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:28 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:27 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 11:33 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:29 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:34 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-04 22:31 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 13:53 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 20:21 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 22:40 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:18 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-05 13:12 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 16:40 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-05 22:49 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-05 23:52 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-06 05:22 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-05-06 18:38 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-05-06 22:16 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-02 17:41 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-05-02 18:34 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 00:01 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 11:35 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 15:59 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:35 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 21:08 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 12:22 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 14:41 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 15:05 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 18:15 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 19:21 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-05-06 22:27 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-07 11:07 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-07 21:44 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 21:22 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-05-02 19:31 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 00:00 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 13:52 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 13:51 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:14 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:13 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-01 07:49 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-02 03:10 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-02 10:14 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-02 10:36 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:31 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 11:51 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-03 11:49 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-03 15:57 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 17:36 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-04 17:13 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-03 11:41 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-03 17:22 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-06-04 06:42 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-04 18:14 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2025-06-02 15:29 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 00:05 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-06-02 23:58 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-06-03 02:00 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2025-06-03 12:57 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 15:19 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-06-03 07:29 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:24 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-03 10:55 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-06-03 11:53 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2025-04-29 20:11 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-29 19:04 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2025-04-30 21:09 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-02 20:14 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 23:59 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-05-03 08:09 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-03 13:52 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 22:54 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-09 21:25 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:53 -0400
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-10 09:38 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-10 09:49 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-10 11:06 +0100
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-05-10 11:20 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2025-05-03 16:48 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-29 02:43 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-29 19:10 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 10:34 +0200
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-29 19:40 +0000
Re: Case Insensitive File Systems -- Torvalds Hates Them "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 21:53 +0200
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kHbRP.19683$U3L2.16365@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #67285 |
On 2025-05-02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Fri, 02 May 2025 07:10:29 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2025-05-02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 02 May 2025 00:15:50 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> We encountered a bug in the sort routine used by Micro Focus >>>> COBOL. By default it created ridiculously small work files, so >>>> when we tried sorting a very large file, the numeric portion of >>>> work file names (of the form "worknnn") ran up to 999, wrapped >>>> around, and carried into the alphanumeric portion - which ran all >>>> the way up the ASCII chart, wrapped around to \0, and worked up >>>> from there. After the inevitable crash, we had 12,000 work files >>>> to get rid of, which had just about any character value in their >>>> names. What a mess. >>> >>> Weren’t they all in a temporary work directory? >> >> Unfortunately, no. > > Ah. But they did all begin with “WORK”, did they not? Didn’t “DELETE > WORK???” or “DELETE WORK*”, ahem, work? It probably wasn't "work", I forget now. All I remember is that it was done in such a way as to make clean-up very ugly. Hopefully Micro Focus cleaned up their act not long afterwards. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-03 03:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7lfq1Fsk04U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #67301 |
On Fri, 02 May 2025 22:29:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > It probably wasn't "work", I forget now. All I remember is that it was > done in such a way as to make clean-up very ugly. Hopefully Micro Focus > cleaned up their act not long afterwards. In our system when an incident was completed it was archived in a DB2 database. If for some reason the server on the DB2 machine couldn't be reached it was stored locally as a file that would be uploaded later. The site was usually configured with a backup machine running in parallel, often on a physically remote site in case the dispatch center was flooded (it happened a couple of times). It usually worked well but one evening the switchover didn't go well. Somehow, it's always after 5 PM when things go to hell. The problem with a backup site is it is out of sight and out of mind. The DB2 server had changed but the configuration on the remote site hadn't. It was doing what it was supposed to do, store a file if it couldn't send it to DB2. For months... The logic was the main controller would check to see if any store files needed to be uploaded during its idle time, basically doing a scandir() to find the oldest. That pretty much stopped the controller in its tracks. When we logged into the site and tried to see what was in the directory with Explorer, that locked up the whole machine. After getting control back we very gingerly deleted the directory without even trying to see what was inside. It may have been the NutCracker implementation on Windows, but using the native Windows API FindFirstFile/FindNextFile was a lot faster than scandir. You need to be careful with using Cygwin or Nutcracker when implementing POSIX functions on Windows. Mostly they work fine but there are pitfalls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 17:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <681471b1@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #67278 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-05-01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 13:42:36 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >>>> But spaces in filenames cause me *far more* headaches. They are the >>>> greater evil. >>> >>> The real evil was the mishmash of DOS and Windows that wound up with >>> 'Program Files' becoming 'progra~1'. >> >> I question the wisdom of Torvalds on this topic since he allowed >> ext filesystems to have an even greater evil than either of those: >> newlines in file names! Imagine if the average joe were exposed >> to that capability - we'd have multi-paragraph file names to deal >> with all over the place. > > But why should newlines not be allowed in file names? For one thing it makes shell scripting complicated, and for another this is just really confusing: $ touch file1 file2$'\n'file3 file4 $ ls -1 file1 file2 file3 file4 > Anything else, where and why would you draw a line? And how would > you avoid reaching the Windows situation where there's a whole > group of convenient glyphs that are not allowed? Actually I do avoid most of the characters forbidden in Windows too, I think. Newlines are the only ASCII characters that I'd take offence at other people using in shared filenames though. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 08:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vv1uo8$lrj7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67284 |
On 2 May 2025 17:18:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> For one thing it makes shell scripting complicated ...
This may be true of a straight POSIX shell, but there are techniques for
coping with arbitrary filenames in Bash, just for example.
> ... and for another this is just really confusing ...
Just tried it:
ldo@theon:try> touch file1 file2$'\n'file3 file4
ldo@theon:try> ls -1
file1
'file2'$'\n''file3'
file4
ldo@theon:try> ls -1 --quoting-style=literal
file1
file2?file3
file4
ldo@theon:try> rm file*
ldo@theon:try> cd ..
ldo@theon:hack> rmdir try
Wasn’t so bad, was it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vv1vf2$mnun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67286 |
On 2025-05-02, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On 2 May 2025 17:18:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> For one thing it makes shell scripting complicated ... > > This may be true of a straight POSIX shell, but there are techniques for > coping with arbitrary filenames in Bash, just for example. > >> ... and for another this is just really confusing ... > > Just tried it: > > ldo@theon:try> touch file1 file2$'\n'file3 file4 > ldo@theon:try> ls -1 > file1 > 'file2'$'\n''file3' > file4 > ldo@theon:try> ls -1 --quoting-style=literal > file1 > file2?file3 > file4 > ldo@theon:try> rm file* > ldo@theon:try> cd .. > ldo@theon:hack> rmdir try > > Wasn’t so bad, was it? That (at least defaulting to that escaped/quoted output) was a recent change in GNU ls, wasn't it? -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vv1vjl$n9ij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67287 |
On Fri, 02 May 2025 09:24:02 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > That (at least defaulting to that escaped/quoted output) was a recent > change in GNU ls, wasn't it? Happened a few months ago, as I recall. Or maybe it was just a change in default settings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-03 08:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <68154e05@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #67286 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On 2 May 2025 17:18:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> For one thing it makes shell scripting complicated ... > > This may be true of a straight POSIX shell, but there are techniques for > coping with arbitrary filenames in Bash, just for example. > >> ... and for another this is just really confusing ... > > Just tried it: > > ldo@theon:try> touch file1 file2$'\n'file3 file4 > ldo@theon:try> ls -1 > file1 > 'file2'$'\n''file3' > file4 Ah yes, I forgot I'm using an older version of Busybox "ls" here. That does seem to work OK in new GNU Coreutils "ls". > ldo@theon:try> ls -1 --quoting-style=literal > file1 > file2?file3 > file4 That (also recent Busybox "ls") allows for two apparantly identical files in the same directory: $ touch 'good?file' good$'\n'file $ ls -1 --quoting-style=literal good?file good?file And more, with other non-printing characters in the same position also replaced by '?'. It's also how recent GNU Find handles them: $ find . ./good?file ./good?file Busybox Find outputs them litterally: $ busybox find . ./good?file ./good file > Wasn't so bad, was it? Well now it's gone from the bad situation of confusing filename output to the worse situation of completely different output from different common command-line programs, often also confusing. Even more reason why newlines should never be in file names in the first place. Things only work OK because people rarely actually use them, probably because command-line users know better and graphical programs mercifully don't tend to support creating them. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vv3lis$273hn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67302 |
On 3 May 2025 08:58:14 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Well now it's gone from the bad situation of confusing filename output > to the worse situation of completely different output from different > common command-line programs ... No, you just get different output options available in the same program, namely GNU ls. (I’m ignoring BusyBox because it’s strictly for embedded use.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-03 13:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <68158c22@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #67303 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On 3 May 2025 08:58:14 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> Well now it's gone from the bad situation of confusing filename output >> to the worse situation of completely different output from different >> common command-line programs ... > > No, you just get different output options available in the same program, > namely GNU ls. And completely unstandardised between programs, even the defaults of the GNU versions of ls and find. So you never know how newlines in filenames will appear in any one program's output. The only good solution is if they're never there in the first place, but unfortunately they are allowed to be. I see this in GNU Find's documentation: "-print True; print the entire file name on the standard output, followed by a newline. If there is the faintest possibility that one of the files for which you are searching might contain a newline, you should use '-print0' instead." http://www.gnu.org/software/findutils/manual/html_node/find_html/Print-File-Name.html Seems that disables converting newlines to '?' and ends results with null instead. $ touch 'good?file' good$'\n'file $ find -print | cat -A .$ ./good?file$ ./good$ file$ $ find -print0 | cat -A .^@./good?file^@./good$ This describes how that's not always a solution. Which points out how awkward the whole issue of handling newlines in filenames is: http://www.gnu.org/software/findutils/manual/html_node/find_html/Newline-Handling.html -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-03 02:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <HnadncBHQb5mL4j1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #67314 |
On 5/2/25 11:23 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> On 3 May 2025 08:58:14 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >>> Well now it's gone from the bad situation of confusing filename output >>> to the worse situation of completely different output from different >>> common command-line programs ... >> >> No, you just get different output options available in the same program, >> namely GNU ls. > > And completely unstandardised between programs, even the defaults of > the GNU versions of ls and find. So you never know how newlines in > filenames will appear in any one program's output. The only good > solution is if they're never there in the first place, but > unfortunately they are allowed to be. Look ... INATTENTON let this stuff all get OUT OF HAND. File names/searching needs to have much more strict, simple, rules. Linus and friends didn't pay attention ... now it's a sort of horror-show. HOW fucked does this get before Winders starts to look GOOD ???? Yea - the -IX script NAZIs always have some hyper-complex work-around ... mostly to advertise their own egos. Joe User ... fuck him ! NOPE. Don't go for it !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-03 07:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vv4hrf$32fp9$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67314 |
On 3 May 2025 13:23:14 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Seems [-print0] disables converting newlines to '?' and ends results > with null instead. Which is the best way of dealing with file/directory names with arbitrary characters in them. > This describes how that's not always a solution. Bash has facilities to parse out null-terminated pathnames returned from find -print0, so yes, that is the most general solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 23:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <e-adnY4VjspOF4j1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #67286 |
On 5/2/25 4:11 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On 2 May 2025 17:18:10 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> For one thing it makes shell scripting complicated ... > > This may be true of a straight POSIX shell, but there are techniques for > coping with arbitrary filenames in Bash, just for example. > >> ... and for another this is just really confusing ... > > Just tried it: > > ldo@theon:try> touch file1 file2$'\n'file3 file4 > ldo@theon:try> ls -1 > file1 > 'file2'$'\n''file3' > file4 > ldo@theon:try> ls -1 --quoting-style=literal > file1 > file2?file3 > file4 > ldo@theon:try> rm file* > ldo@theon:try> cd .. > ldo@theon:hack> rmdir try > > Wasn’t so bad, was it? Ummmmmm ... WAY more complicated than we'd all like :-) I can go hard-core scripts IF needed, but I don't LIKE it. Much too hard for basic searching here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 00:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vv14h4$3rgrd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67276 |
On 2 May 2025 08:45:44 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > I question the wisdom of Torvalds on this topic since he allowed ext > filesystems to have an even greater evil than either of those: > newlines in file names! He was just following a *nix tradition. I think it’s probably specified in POSIX: any byte value is allowed in a file/directory name, except “/” and NUL. “/” is the separator between pathname components, and NUL is of course the string terminator. But with Unicode, I can still have filenames with “∕” in them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oCSdnRUrqtRU1In1nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #67276 |
On 5/1/25 6:45 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 1 May 2025 13:42:36 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >>> But spaces in filenames cause me *far more* headaches. They are the >>> greater evil. >> >> The real evil was the mishmash of DOS and Windows that wound up with >> 'Program Files' becoming 'progra~1'. > > I question the wisdom of Torvalds on this topic since he allowed > ext filesystems to have an even greater evil than either of those: > newlines in file names! Imagine if the average joe were exposed > to that capability - we'd have multi-paragraph file names to deal > with all over the place. I agree that SOME sane degree of rigor SHOULD be applied to file names. They're too basic, meaning too many ways for it to all go wrong. However generally WE don't get to write the kernel and driver code here - someone else, who thinks paragraph-length names sound SO COOL, are who writes it. Frankly, it was allowing spaces in file names that pissed me off. Made searching ALL weird. TOO many "ALMOST The Same" possibilities. Use hyphens or underscores or even dots IMHO ........ SO ... petition Linus. Make a case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-02 10:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vv24td$rjdd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67282 |
On 02/05/2025 05:27, c186282 wrote:
> I agree that SOME sane degree of rigor SHOULD be
> applied to file names. They're too basic, meaning
> too many ways for it to all go wrong. However
> generally WE don't get to write the kernel and driver
> code here - someone else, who thinks paragraph-length
> names sound SO COOL, are who writes it.
$ touch "-r *"
$ rm -r *
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"
- John K Galbraith
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-05 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vvbe5q$1em7m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67276 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 1 May 2025 13:42:36 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >>> But spaces in filenames cause me *far more* headaches. They are the >>> greater evil. >> >> The real evil was the mishmash of DOS and Windows that wound up with >> 'Program Files' becoming 'progra~1'. > > I question the wisdom of Torvalds on this topic since he allowed > ext filesystems to have an even greater evil than either of those: > newlines in file names! Imagine if the average joe were exposed > to that capability - we'd have multi-paragraph file names to deal > with all over the place. Torvalds did not "allow newlines". Unix filesystems, long before Linux ever existed, have only disallowed two characters in filenames: ASCII null (because C strings are ASCII null terminated) The forward slash (/) (because forward slash is used as the directory separator). Torvalds was simply following standard Unix protocol (in order to be compatible with Unix standards) for what was "allowed" to be in a filename.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-06 09:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <68194581@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #67385 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> I question the wisdom of Torvalds on this topic since he allowed >> ext filesystems to have an even greater evil than either of those: >> newlines in file names! Imagine if the average joe were exposed >> to that capability - we'd have multi-paragraph file names to deal >> with all over the place. > > Torvalds did not "allow newlines". Unix filesystems, long before Linux > ever existed, have only disallowed two characters in filenames: > > ASCII null (because C strings are ASCII null terminated) > > The forward slash (/) (because forward slash is used as the directory > separator). > > Torvalds was simply following standard Unix protocol (in order to be > compatible with Unix standards) for what was "allowed" to be in a > filename. Perhaps, but since he wasn't using existing UNIX filesystems and using a custom one instead, it seems to me like he had a choice. After all you can still use FAT or NTFS on Linux even though they have more disallowed filename characters. It could have been the same with ext* forbidding newlines (also tmpfs etc.). Then you'd only have to worry about handling newlines in the rare case of reading from some non-Linux filesystems like UFS. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-06 01:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vvbook$1oubc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67386 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>> I question the wisdom of Torvalds on this topic since he allowed >>> ext filesystems to have an even greater evil than either of those: >>> newlines in file names! Imagine if the average joe were exposed >>> to that capability - we'd have multi-paragraph file names to deal >>> with all over the place. >> >> Torvalds did not "allow newlines". Unix filesystems, long before Linux >> ever existed, have only disallowed two characters in filenames: >> >> ASCII null (because C strings are ASCII null terminated) >> >> The forward slash (/) (because forward slash is used as the directory >> separator). >> >> Torvalds was simply following standard Unix protocol (in order to be >> compatible with Unix standards) for what was "allowed" to be in a >> filename. > > Perhaps, but since he wasn't using existing UNIX filesystems and > using a custom one instead, it seems to me like he had a choice. And since all existing Unix filesystems were case sensitive, then building his new Unix filesystem the same way as all the others would have made perfect sense. Note that the case sensitivity in Unix filesystems was not, per se., a designed in decision, it comes about because the kernel treats filenames as simply a raw C null terminated string (i.e., as an array of length N of 8-bit bytes), and "filename comparison" is done via a function that performs what memcmp() from libc performs, raw byte comparisons. When you perform string comparisons by comparing the raw bytes, "case sensitivity" is the user visible outcome. > After all you can still use FAT or NTFS on Linux even though they > have more disallowed filename characters. No, you can access FAT or NTFS, but you can not use them as Linux filesystems. Try using FAT or NTFS as the root FS or as the /home FS and things won't work out well (if at all). Neither has the required attributes (primarily the permissions) that are expected for use as a Unix filesystem. > It could have been the same with ext* forbidding newlines (also tmpfs > etc.). Then you'd only have to worry about handling newlines in the > rare case of reading from some non-Linux filesystems like UFS. Could ext* have forbade newlines? Yes. But that would have gone against years of Unix tradition at the time had it done so. Since Linux began as a "clone of Unix" it was only natural for it to inherit Unix traditions as to filenames (any byte value other than ASCII NULL and ASCII forward slash being allowed).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 09:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <681aa121@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #67387 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >> It could have been the same with ext* forbidding newlines (also tmpfs >> etc.). Then you'd only have to worry about handling newlines in the >> rare case of reading from some non-Linux filesystems like UFS. > > Could ext* have forbade newlines? Yes. But that would have gone > against years of Unix tradition at the time had it done so. Since > Linux began as a "clone of Unix" it was only natural for it to inherit > Unix traditions as to filenames (any byte value other than ASCII NULL > and ASCII forward slash being allowed). Well the original quote from Torvalds was about case insensitive filesystems, which also already have a tradition, but he doesn't like them, with good reasons. I feel there are valid reasons to dislike newlines in filenames too. Maybe that would have been too radical for a UNIX-based OS filesystem, but in practice I can't see how it would have caused much trouble, and it would have avoided needing lots of special handling for newlines in software. Really it's too late for either argument to win now though. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 04:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vvep1h$ls3p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #67398 |
On 7 May 2025 09:54:09 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > ... and it would have avoided needing lots of special handling for > newlines in software. It’s really only command languages that might have trouble, not proper programming languages. And even a command language like bash has facilities that can take this in its stride.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web