Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18498 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-10-10 00:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-10-23 15:59 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 00:31 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-10 09:06 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-10 13:32 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 07:23 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 07:26 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-10 19:17 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-10 19:12 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-10 20:34 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 11:32 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 10:53 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-10 21:24 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 13:36 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-11 00:18 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 15:28 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-12 20:07 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-12 19:52 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-10 21:15 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-10 23:04 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-11 11:28 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-11 17:13 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-11 17:26 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-11 18:51 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-12 12:04 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-12 15:59 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-12 08:04 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-12 18:47 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-12 09:01 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-12 19:17 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-13 19:26 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-13 22:00 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-14 10:25 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-14 13:28 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-14 14:37 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-14 16:00 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-14 06:19 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-15 19:57 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-16 00:06 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-16 18:16 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-16 20:49 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-14 18:59 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-14 21:39 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-14 23:29 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-15 00:46 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-15 01:38 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-10 17:31 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 10:34 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 06:59 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-10 18:42 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-10 19:00 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-10 13:43 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-11 11:06 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-11 01:35 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-11 17:24 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-11 17:43 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-12 12:07 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-12 23:41 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-13 19:14 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-13 20:18 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2014-10-15 18:43 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-15 21:58 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-15 23:55 -0400
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-21 18:47 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 15:38 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 17:51 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-22 01:35 -0400
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 23:22 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-22 18:39 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-22 22:11 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-23 00:20 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-23 01:36 -0400
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-23 09:08 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-23 14:50 -0400
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-23 21:42 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-22 01:21 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 15:51 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-21 23:27 +0000
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 16:50 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-22 21:00 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-22 22:54 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-22 02:32 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 17:21 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-22 03:52 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-10-21 21:13 -0700
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-22 08:10 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-22 12:00 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-22 13:11 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-22 15:19 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-22 15:21 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-22 17:26 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-22 18:46 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-23 02:37 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-22 23:09 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-23 03:06 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-23 10:18 +0200
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2014-10-23 13:56 +0300
Re: Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-23 15:59 +0200
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-11 17:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m1bi69$s11$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18538 |
On 11/10/14 16:13, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 11.10.2014 г. 12:28, Stefan Reuther wrote: >> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>> As a side note, "the right way" to treat file names is to preserve >>> the case information and to ignore it during file search (i.e. >>> aaa and AAA locate the same file). >> >> This will not work. > > Well it has worked for quite some time already. It has "worked" in the sense that people live with it despite the inadequacies, inconsistencies and complications such as massive amounts of locale-dependent code. > >> Do "i" and "I" name the same file? (In Turkish, the upper-case version >> of "i" is "İ"; the lower-case version of "I" is "ı".) > > Yes, I and i name the same file. No, I with two dots above it and I with > one dot do not, these are different characters. Did you fail to read what Stefan wrote? In Turkish, I and i are not the same letter. I with two dots is a different case altogether - in some languages, a glyph like "ï" is considered a letter completely distinct from "i" or "ı", while in other languages it might be considered an accented form of a normal "i". > >> Do "MASSE" and "Maße" name the same file? > > No, they do not. Why should they not, when "MASSE" is the capitalised version of "Maße" and you want capitalised versions to refer to the same file? To a German speaker, it is exactly the same as "Readme" and "README" being the same. > >> And what about "MASZE"? (In >> German, > > Naming is not language specific, it is alphabet specific only. That is completely and utterly incorrect, and is perhaps the basis for your misunderstandings here. Different languages can use the same alphabet in different ways, and it is not uncommon for them to have variations (such as accents or additional letters) that are treated in wildly different ways from others who use the same accents or letters. There are many languages and alphabets where the glyphs used for particular letters vary according to their position in a word or sentence - the appearance is different and yet they are the same "letter". > Various languages may have various alphabets. I would of course > prefer if we all just used the Latin alphabet plain, as it is used > in English, but there is no problem at all with the capitalization > for its variations. So there is no problem storing the file case > information the right way. Then if you want to store some caseless > hieroglyphs you can do it by just leaving the case information > blank (e.g. in DPS you have up to 255 bytes for text and as many > bits for the corresponding case data). There are only two possible ways to handle naming consistently and rationally in an operating system. You can restrict everything to the plain ANSI character set, in which case you can choose to make names case independent if you want. Or you can make it completely transparent and provide no interpretation beyond a minimum number of "special" characters such as "/". That way you leave it up to applications or libraries to decide how to deal with capitalisation, sorting, etc. - it is not part of the basic OS or filesystem. > > Language processing is something else and has nothing to do with names. Naming is highly language-dependent. > Similar to the way we deal with a persons name, we do not translate > it but we do spell it correctly whenever the alphabet we use would > allow it. People translate their names all the time. Usually they are translated into something roughly similar but which can be pronounced and written in the other language - occasionally people choose to translate more significantly. Different languages handle names in different ways - in some languages names are declined according to how they are used, leading to even more variety. > > >> The "I" ambiguity leads to a number of interesting bugs, such as this >> one: <https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=35050> > > There is no ambiguity at all in using the Latin alphabet. If one chooses > to introduce one he has to live with it. Your example is not related to > how we store and process case information. So people who choose to be born in Turkey, and choose to be given names containing an "i" or an "ı", have only themselves to blame - and have to live with the consequences? > >> >> I wouldn't want complex, environment-dependant code like that in any >> system I have to depend on, such as a kernel or file system. > > > Like it or not file systems deal with files and files are named and the > names are for human consumption to a great part. So the way the names > are stored and searched for belongs there, together with the alphabet > rules which apply to reading/writing these names. > > Dimiter > For someone with a clearly Russian/Eastern European name and background, yet with a perfect grasp of English, you are remarkably provincial and demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge and understanding about language, alphabets, and names in an international context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-11 18:51 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1bjlt$1br$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18541 |
On 11.10.2014 г. 18:26, David Brown wrote: > On 11/10/14 16:13, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 11.10.2014 г. 12:28, Stefan Reuther wrote: >>> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>>> As a side note, "the right way" to treat file names is to preserve >>>> the case information and to ignore it during file search (i.e. >>>> aaa and AAA locate the same file). >>> >>> This will not work. >> >> Well it has worked for quite some time already. > > It has "worked" in the sense that people live with it despite the > inadequacies, inconsistencies and complications such as massive amounts > of locale-dependent code. It has worked for a few milennia, whether you like it or not. Just because a few programmers do not want to be bothered (or are incapable of) handling the naming conventions we have is no good reason to ask for a change. The above applies to the rest of your post, I really have no time explaining the alphabet. People learn it in primary school, I am sure you have been taught that. Just recall it. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 12:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m1dqoe.1q0.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> |
| In reply to | #18543 |
Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 11.10.2014 г. 18:26, David Brown wrote: >> On 11/10/14 16:13, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>> On 11.10.2014 г. 12:28, Stefan Reuther wrote: >>>> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>>>> As a side note, "the right way" to treat file names is to preserve >>>>> the case information and to ignore it during file search (i.e. >>>>> aaa and AAA locate the same file). >>>> >>>> This will not work. >>> >>> Well it has worked for quite some time already. >> >> It has "worked" in the sense that people live with it despite the >> inadequacies, inconsistencies and complications such as massive amounts >> of locale-dependent code. > > It has worked for a few milennia, whether you like it or not. Just > because a few programmers do not want to be bothered (or are incapable > of) handling the naming conventions we have is no good reason to ask > for a change. In previous millenia, people did not try to build systems that work internationally. Even in the beginning of this century, systems that work just in one region were common. Of course, if you use just Codepage-437 or ISO-8859-1, which do not have the Turkish "ı" letter, you can agree on a unique case mapping. But then your system won't be usable in Turkey. > The above applies to the rest of your post, I really have no time > explaining the alphabet. People learn it in primary school, I am sure > you have been taught that. Just recall it. Your misconception is that you assume there is a thing such as "the alphabet". There is not "the alphabet". There are hundreds of alphabets, many of which contain common characters, and some of which interpret characters differently than others. And then we have not even started talking about languages that don't use alphabets at all, such as Chinese. Neither have we started to talk about things like sorting, which isn't even uniquely-defined for a language (German has "phonebook" and "dictionary" order), and totally nontrivial for multiple languages (does a Cyrillic "А" go before or after a Greek "Α", and where do they go in relation to a Latin "A"?). Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 15:59 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1dtv8$7rj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18554 |
On 12.10.2014 г. 13:04, Stefan Reuther wrote: > Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> ..... >> >> It has worked for a few milennia, whether you like it or not. Just >> because a few programmers do not want to be bothered (or are incapable >> of) handling the naming conventions we have is no good reason to ask >> for a change. > > In previous millenia, people did not try to build systems that work > internationally. Yeah. And because they do now all the whining unix followers would have the millennia old grammar reinvented just to suit the fact they have been led by their leader into the wrong corner. The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally broken filesystem. > Your misconception is that you assume there is a thing such as "the > alphabet". I am fluent in only 4 languages, English and German among them (OK, fluent might be overstated for my Russian), what do I know about alphabets. And I have written only one OS with only two filesystems, what do I know about these things. Unix or whatever followers are bound to know better. Really. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m1e5ia$80v$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18555 |
Hi Dimiter, On 10/12/2014 5:59 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following > any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally > broken filesystem. To be clear, what are you considering "broken" about the filesystem? (and, *which* -- FFSv1/UFS, FFSv2, CODA, AFS, PORTAL, UNION, ZFS, Reiser, NFS, etc.) Are your objections to the features offered? Or, the implementation details? Performance? Or, solely to the "naming conventions" of it's content? Or, to the interfaces made available to it? Or, conventions imposed on those interfaces (e.g., I am annoyed that Windows doesn't adhere to L-R alpha sorts. "Gee, let's alphabetize the keys on the keyboard to make it easier for folks to find the key in which they are interested?") [Recall, I have *no* filesystem in my design as the entities managed are rarely "files" in the traditional sense. Rather, just a "namespace". The only "persistent store" resides on a "smart", composite block device (I'm still sorting out the implementation details, there)] [Feel free to reply offline, if prefered]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 18:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1e7r0$99h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18557 |
On 12.10.2014 г. 18:04, Don Y wrote: > Hi Dimiter, > > On 10/12/2014 5:59 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > >> The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following >> any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally >> broken filesystem. > > To be clear, what are you considering "broken" about the filesystem? The fact that in order to have say "index.htm" in a way usable for humans you need to have also INDEX.HTM, Index.htm, and another few to cover the common cases (to cover all cases you need 256 entries). Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m1e8t9$fq5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18558 |
On 10/12/2014 8:47 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 12.10.2014 г. 18:04, Don Y wrote: >> Hi Dimiter, >> >> On 10/12/2014 5:59 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> >>> The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following >>> any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally >>> broken filesystem. >> >> To be clear, what are you considering "broken" about the filesystem? > > The fact that in order to have say "index.htm" in a way usable for > humans you need to have also INDEX.HTM, Index.htm, and another few > to cover the common cases (to cover all cases you need 256 entries). But that's something that you can address in the user interface. It doesn't really impact the filesystem, per se. [My question hoped to elicit some comments re: the implementation...] (e.g., add a layer that maps all incoming filenames to uppercase in CREATION, SEARCH and DELETION and the filesystem can still be designed to preserve and recognize case -- it just happens that all entries in the filesystem have this uncanny consistency of always being in uppercase *in* the filesystem's name tables) I'm sure MS effectively implements a locale-specific "strncmpi()" when it goes hunting for a match. [Actually, knowing MS's history with buffer overrun issues, I suspect they would use a strcmpi() instead! :-/ ] I still have to test how the NFS client/server here handle these... In my case (namespaces), as the names for most objects have been created by the developers -- or, code that they crafted -- it seems an invitation to sloppiness (i.e., bugginess) to allow the developer to refer to "foo" as "Foo", elsewhere in his codebase AND EXPECT THEM TO REFERENCE THE SAME OBJECT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 09:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m1e955$gnv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18559 |
On 10/12/2014 9:01 AM, Don Y wrote: > On 10/12/2014 8:47 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> The fact that in order to have say "index.htm" in a way usable for >> humans you need to have also INDEX.HTM, Index.htm, and another few >> to cover the common cases (to cover all cases you need 256 entries). > > But that's something that you can address in the user interface. > It doesn't really impact the filesystem, per se. > (e.g., add a layer that maps all incoming filenames to uppercase > in CREATION, SEARCH and DELETION and the filesystem can still be > designed to preserve and recognize case -- it just happens that > all entries in the filesystem have this uncanny consistency of always > being in uppercase *in* the filesystem's name tables) For example, all of the rules in my speech synthesizers are expressed in uppercase. Yet, obviously, text fed *to* the synthesizer can be in ANY case -- including mixed. So, my pattern matching algorithms ignore the case of the input text (but KNOW that the case of the templates will be strictly UPPERcase). [This allows me to use lowercase in the templates for "special purposes" without fear of "accidentally" matching something in the input text]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-12 19:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1e9i2$fj6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18559 |
On 12.10.2014 г. 19:01, Don Y wrote: > On 10/12/2014 8:47 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 12.10.2014 г. 18:04, Don Y wrote: >>> Hi Dimiter, >>> >>> On 10/12/2014 5:59 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>> >>>> The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following >>>> any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally >>>> broken filesystem. >>> >>> To be clear, what are you considering "broken" about the filesystem? >> >> The fact that in order to have say "index.htm" in a way usable for >> humans you need to have also INDEX.HTM, Index.htm, and another few >> to cover the common cases (to cover all cases you need 256 entries). > > But that's something that you can address in the user interface. Of course you can. Every problem has its solution. The problem in the above case is the fundamental design of the filesystem. Either you store bytes and do not expose the user to them - but to some text representing these - or you store text and allow the user to consume it. In the unix filesystem they store bytes and feed them for user consumption which has been, is and will be a problem as long as they do not bite the bullet and fix it. Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-13 19:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m1h90f.ak.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> |
| In reply to | #18555 |
Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 12.10.2014 г. 13:04, Stefan Reuther wrote: >> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>> It has worked for a few milennia, whether you like it or not. Just >>> because a few programmers do not want to be bothered (or are incapable >>> of) handling the naming conventions we have is no good reason to ask >>> for a change. >> >> In previous millenia, people did not try to build systems that work >> internationally. > > Yeah. And because they do now all the whining unix followers would > have the millennia old grammar reinvented just to suit the fact they > have been led by their leader into the wrong corner. > The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following > any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally > broken filesystem. Last time I looked, Unix software worked fine. As we have learned, defining semantics for "just ignore case" is hard (if you're in Russia, what reason do you have to prefer the I<>i case pair over the I<>ı case pair?). In a mission-critical piece of software like a kernel or a file system, I don't want code with vaguely-defined or complex semantics. Thus, "here's a byte string, give me the file which has the same byte string as its name" sounds like a pretty good plan. If you want to be case insensitive, do that in the application. Or in a foundation library for applications to use. The application knows when it wants to be case insensitive and when not. And, the application knows what locale it is in, and whether it should access "index.html" or "ındex.html" when the user wants "INDEX.HTML". As a bonus advantags, building a case-insensitive file system on top of a case-sensitive one is easy. The other way round is hard. >> Your misconception is that you assume there is a thing such as "the >> alphabet". > > I am fluent in only 4 languages, English and German among them (OK, > fluent might be overstated for my Russian), what do I know about > alphabets. > And I have written only one OS with only two filesystems, what do I > know about these things. I think we are in comp.arch.embedded, not alt.dick.size.wars, but if you replace one-and-a-half language with a few unicode algorithms and some more filesystems, you end up at my stats. Last project (incomplete): customer wants "hey, let's display an alphabet next to the word list ... what, there are different alphabets? Different sort orders depending on the language? Oh." Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-13 22:00 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1h7gh$984$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18596 |
On 13.10.2014 г. 20:26, Stefan Reuther wrote: > Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 12.10.2014 г. 13:04, Stefan Reuther wrote: >>> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>>> It has worked for a few milennia, whether you like it or not. Just >>>> because a few programmers do not want to be bothered (or are incapable >>>> of) handling the naming conventions we have is no good reason to ask >>>> for a change. >>> >>> In previous millenia, people did not try to build systems that work >>> internationally. >> >> Yeah. And because they do now all the whining unix followers would >> have the millennia old grammar reinvented just to suit the fact they >> have been led by their leader into the wrong corner. >> The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following >> any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally >> broken filesystem. > > Last time I looked, Unix software worked fine. Not really, the relevant part has never worked and still does not work. See my example in a previous post how may versions of say "index.htm" Index.htm INDEX.HTM you need. > As we have learned, defining semantics for "just ignore case" is hard > (if you're in Russia, what reason do you have to prefer the I<>i case > pair over the I<>ı case pair?). How you treat cases when you record a string (be it a filename or not) is up to the application writing the name - or just the user typing it in. Once it is recorded along with the case information you no longer need to know in which language it is or which alphabet this is, for that. Just the character set - which may cover a lot of alphabets and their variations (check upthread my way of doing it in dps, I explained it). So your above example is completely irrelevant to what we talk about. Filenames which are for human processing consist of characters, not of bytes. In unix names are stored as bytes and the human is given to process bytes, not characters. >>>Your misconception is that you assume there is a thing such as "the >>>alphabet". There is not "the alphabet". There are hundreds of >>> alphabets, ... >>> ...... >> I am fluent in only 4 languages, English and German among them (OK, >> fluent might be overstated for my Russian), what do I know about >> alphabets. >> And I have written only one OS with only two filesystems, what do I >> know about these things. > > I think we are in comp.arch.embedded, not alt.dick.size.wars, but if you > replace one-and-a-half language with a few unicode algorithms and some > more filesystems, you end up at my stats. You should be more specific if you want me to bother to understand that. I gave you part of my stats for a good reason you gave me in your post, you did not get it, fine, I'll live. What I see is that you do not want to accept obvious facts, like what is a byte and what is a character, what is a character string and what is a sentence with meaning.(I assume you do know these?) I can imagine it can be hard to even think you may have spent years and years building on a broken basis. Don't get me wrong, not all is bad about unix of course, but the file naming in it clearly is just someones quick hack which has survived for decades. Not that I expect the devotees to be able to swallow such a fact, not after seeing the reactions to me just stating the obvious. Dimiter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-14 10:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m1imlt$aro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18599 |
On 13/10/14 21:00, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 13.10.2014 г. 20:26, Stefan Reuther wrote: >> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>> On 12.10.2014 г. 13:04, Stefan Reuther wrote: >>>> Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>>>> It has worked for a few milennia, whether you like it or not. Just >>>>> because a few programmers do not want to be bothered (or are incapable >>>>> of) handling the naming conventions we have is no good reason to ask >>>>> for a change. >>>> >>>> In previous millenia, people did not try to build systems that work >>>> internationally. >>> >>> Yeah. And because they do now all the whining unix followers would >>> have the millennia old grammar reinvented just to suit the fact they >>> have been led by their leader into the wrong corner. >>> The fact is they got what they deserved (as does anybody following >>> any leader). Tons of defunct software because of a fundamentally >>> broken filesystem. >> >> Last time I looked, Unix software worked fine. > > Not really, the relevant part has never worked and still does not work. > See my example in a previous post how may versions of say > "index.htm" Index.htm INDEX.HTM you need. The file in question is usually called "index.html", except on systems based on outdated and limited MSDOS filesytems. The file's name is "index.html". Not "Index.html", nor "INDEX.HTML", nor any other mixups. The name uses small letters. There is no confusion, and people don't have any trouble with it. Most names in the real world are case-sensitive. My name is written "David" - not "david" or "DAVID". > >> As we have learned, defining semantics for "just ignore case" is hard >> (if you're in Russia, what reason do you have to prefer the I<>i case >> pair over the I<>ı case pair?). > > How you treat cases when you record a string (be it a filename or not) > is up to the application writing the name - or just the user typing it > in. > Once it is recorded along with the case information you no longer need > to know in which language it is or which alphabet this is, for that. > Just the character set - which may cover a lot of alphabets and their > variations (check upthread my way of doing it in dps, I explained it). > > So your above example is completely irrelevant to what we talk about. > > Filenames which are for human processing consist of characters, not of > bytes. Filenames are mainly for programs to process, not humans - and software is perfectly capable of getting the case correct and consistent. So are most humans that I know, except perhaps when names are particularly inconvenient (such as having double spaces, or unicode glyphs that look like other glyphs).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-14 13:28 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1itse$rhl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18618 |
On 14.10.2014 г. 11:25, David Brown wrote: > ..... > The file's name is "index.html". Not "Index.html", nor "INDEX.HTML", > nor any other mixups. The name uses small letters. There is no > confusion, and people don't have any trouble with it. > ... > > Filenames are mainly for programs to process, not humans - .... > ... Sorry David, I don't do religion. When you are able to grasp what nonsense you have written (see the above)we may have what to talk about again. Dimiter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-14 14:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m1j5f3$iqs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18621 |
On 14/10/14 12:28, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 14.10.2014 г. 11:25, David Brown wrote: >> ..... >> The file's name is "index.html". Not "Index.html", nor "INDEX.HTML", >> nor any other mixups. The name uses small letters. There is no >> confusion, and people don't have any trouble with it. >> ... >> >> Filenames are mainly for programs to process, not humans - .... >> ... > > Sorry David, I don't do religion. When you are able to grasp what > nonsense you have written (see the above)we may have what to talk > about again. > I realise you have a wildly different opinion about this case, which you hold very strongly. I just don't understand it at all. You have been shown clear linguistic reasons why case independence is not universal (even when languages share an alphabet) and therefore should not be part of an OS or filesystem. You have been shown clear practical reasons why it is better for an OS or filesystem to work directly with the bytes of the filename rather than imposing an interpretation on them. You have been shown how real names in (both in the software world and in the "real" world) can often be case-sensitive. And you have been shown many examples of systems that have case-sensitive filesystems which work perfectly well. I don't think there is anything more that can be done here. You have a solid fixed opinion that is different from most other people's, and it does not look like you are going to change that soon - nor does it look like you can explain it in a way others can understand. I'm sure you have good reasons for your thoughts here, even if I can't appreciate them - so we must just agree to disagree here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-14 16:00 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1j6pc$p6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18622 |
On 14.10.2014 г. 15:37, David Brown wrote: > On 14/10/14 12:28, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 14.10.2014 г. 11:25, David Brown wrote: >>> ..... >>> The file's name is "index.html". Not "Index.html", nor "INDEX.HTML", >>> nor any other mixups. The name uses small letters. There is no >>> confusion, and people don't have any trouble with it. >>> ... >>> >>> Filenames are mainly for programs to process, not humans - .... >>> ... >> >> Sorry David, I don't do religion. When you are able to grasp what >> nonsense you have written (see the above)we may have what to talk >> about again. >> > > I realise you have a wildly different opinion about this case, which you > hold very strongly. I just don't understand it at all. > > You have been shown clear linguistic reasons why case independence is > not universal (even when languages share an alphabet) Yes, thanks for teaching me the alphabet. If you can suggest a more moronic sort of effort to explain the obvious than that you are welcome to share it. >... and therefore > should not be part of an OS or filesystem. Now that has not only not been shown but I showed in clear, irrefutable terms that it is not the case at all, quite the opposite. The fact that you have religious views on it speaks only about your ability to understand issues at this level. You may want to stop trying, posts like your last two only make you look not as bright as you would want to be. Dimiter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-14 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m1j85k$lr6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18622 |
On 10/14/2014 5:37 AM, David Brown wrote: > I don't think there is anything more that can be done here. You have a > solid fixed opinion that is different from most other people's, and it > does not look like you are going to change that soon - nor does it look > like you can explain it in a way others can understand. I'm sure you > have good reasons for your thoughts here, even if I can't appreciate > them - so we must just agree to disagree here. I think the difference lies in your expectations of the user's role in dealing with "names". E.g., I find it particularly annoying that Windows doesn't use a strict LR alpha sort. So, I am always looking for "90" to follow "9" -- not "89" And, "folder" to follow "ezzz" -- instead of appearing up at the top of the list among the other folders. This happens in other things, too. E.g., calculator keypad vs telephone keypad. In *my* case (as the OP), *names* are primarily (almost exclusively) used by pieces of code. Getting the identifier EXACTLY correct is a small price to INSIST UPON in robust software. And, now I'm late... <frown>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-15 19:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ca7qrcFb4rmU1@mid.dfncis.de> |
| In reply to | #18621 |
Am 14.10.2014 um 12:28 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: > Sorry David, I don't do religion. I have to call BS on that. The way you've reacted to people voicing any different opinion on this issue is a textbook-grade example case of exactly what happens when people have their religious dogmas challenged. So: not only do you do religion quite heavily. This issue evidently _is_ your religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-16 00:06 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1mnji$82e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18655 |
On 15.10.2014 г. 20:57, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > Am 14.10.2014 um 12:28 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: > >> Sorry David, I don't do religion. > > I have to call BS on that. The way you've reacted to people voicing any > different opinion on this issue is a textbook-grade example case of > exactly what happens when people have their religious dogmas challenged. > > So: not only do you do religion quite heavily. This issue evidently > _is_ your religion. Whatever you say. Call again when you can point us to an example where I was wrong or doing dogma. I understand you badly want it to be this way, unfortunately for you it is not - and you know it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-16 18:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m1p212.2k8.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> |
| In reply to | #18665 |
Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > On 15.10.2014 г. 20:57, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >> Am 14.10.2014 um 12:28 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: >>> Sorry David, I don't do religion. >> >> I have to call BS on that. The way you've reacted to people voicing any >> different opinion on this issue is a textbook-grade example case of >> exactly what happens when people have their religious dogmas challenged. >> >> So: not only do you do religion quite heavily. This issue evidently >> _is_ your religion. > > Whatever you say. Call again when you can point us to an example where > I was wrong or doing dogma. You have carefully ignored examples given, and stressed that things "have never worked and still don't work", without outlining what you would consider "working" and why. That's closer to religion than to technical debate for me. "Earth was never round, and still isn't." Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-16 20:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m1p0fd$24d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18686 |
On 16.10.2014 г. 19:16, Stefan Reuther wrote: > Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 15.10.2014 г. 20:57, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >>> Am 14.10.2014 um 12:28 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff: >>>> Sorry David, I don't do religion. >>> >>> I have to call BS on that. The way you've reacted to people voicing any >>> different opinion on this issue is a textbook-grade example case of >>> exactly what happens when people have their religious dogmas challenged. >>> >>> So: not only do you do religion quite heavily. This issue evidently >>> _is_ your religion. >> >> Whatever you say. Call again when you can point us to an example where >> I was wrong or doing dogma. > > You have carefully ignored examples given, and stressed that things > "have never worked and still don't work", without outlining what you > would consider "working" and why. That's closer to religion than to > technical debate for me. "Earth was never round, and still isn't." > > > Stefan > Your best argument so far is "file names are not for humans but for programs". It does not get a lot more laughable than that, you may want to stop trying to prove the Earth is flat indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web