Adding a note to a File Name?

[Steve Hayes]

Well, *can* you help them?

Not without altering the windows default on their computer to see which files
have a .com or .exe extension for a start.

OK, I'm just going along with the gag. I agree with you about that sort
of thing. And of course, it also happens in some newsgroups ;-)

Hiding the file extensions is like working blindfold. You could delete
something important and never realise that you had done so.

I know Unix allows you to have executable files without extensions, but it
won't allow you to have two files with the same name in the same directory.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Not without altering the windows default on their computer to see which files
have a .com or .exe extension for a start.


Hiding the file extensions is like working blindfold. You could delete
something important and never realise that you had done so.

I know Unix allows you to have executable files without extensions, but it
won't allow you to have two files with the same name in the same directory.

I feel liking I'm going round in circles here, but I feel compelled to
point out: Windows won't allow you to have two files with the same name
in the same directory either. In discussions like this, it's important
to distinguish between Windows Explorer's "folders" and the underlying
structures such as directories.

 

[Steve Hayes]

I feel liking I'm going round in circles here, but I feel compelled to
point out: Windows won't allow you to have two files with the same name
in the same directory either. In discussions like this, it's important
to distinguish between Windows Explorer's "folders" and the underlying
structures such as directories.

Aye, but with its default settings Windows lets you *think* you have two files
with the same name in the same directory, so that you can delete the wrong one
by mistake. I thought that had been established, in this thread even.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Aye, but with its default settings Windows lets you *think* you have two files
with the same name in the same directory, so that you can delete the wrong one
by mistake. I thought that had been established, in this thread even.

Yes, that has been mentioned, which is exactly why I said I felt like I
was going round in circles.

But you seemed to suggest that you thought that Windows, unlike Unix,
allowed you to have two files with the same name in the same directory.
What I'm saying is, it doesn't. If you carefully distinguish between a
folder and a directory, you won't even think it does. It is true that if
you want to confuse the two, Windows won't stop you.

 

[Ed Cryer]

Yes, that has been mentioned, which is exactly why I said I felt like I
was going round in circles.

But you seemed to suggest that you thought that Windows, unlike Unix,
allowed you to have two files with the same name in the same directory.
What I'm saying is, it doesn't. If you carefully distinguish between a
folder and a directory, you won't even think it does. It is true that if
you want to confuse the two, Windows won't stop you.

I thought the two were synonymous. "Directory" is the old terminology;
"folder" the one that came in with graphical interfaces.

Surely at ground level they are identical; both referencing the same
parts of the index on a disc.

Ed

 

[Mike Barnes]

I thought the two were synonymous. "Directory" is the old terminology;
"folder" the one that came in with graphical interfaces.

Both names are still current (see below).

Surely at ground level they are identical; both referencing the same
parts of the index on a disc.

[Distrust any sentence beginning with the word "Surely".]

A folder does not necessarily correspond to a directory. The first
examples that come to mind on this PC are the Computer and Network
folders.

Even when a folder does correspond to a directory, they are noticeably
different. The directory has items that the folder doesn't (. and ..),
and (if, for instance extensions are being hidden) the name of an item
in the folder can be different from the name of the file in the
directory.

 

[Steve Hayes]

Yes, that has been mentioned, which is exactly why I said I felt like I
was going round in circles.

But you seemed to suggest that you thought that Windows, unlike Unix,
allowed you to have two files with the same name in the same directory.
What I'm saying is, it doesn't. If you carefully distinguish between a
folder and a directory, you won't even think it does. It is true that if
you want to confuse the two, Windows won't stop you.

I think one or both of us is getting whooshed.

 

[Steve Hayes]

I thought the two were synonymous. "Directory" is the old terminology;
"folder" the one that came in with graphical interfaces.

Surely at ground level they are identical; both referencing the same
parts of the index on a disc.

A Windows "Library" may be a folder, but is it a directory?

 

[Ed Cryer]

I thought the two were synonymous. "Directory" is the old terminology;
"folder" the one that came in with graphical interfaces.

Both names are still current (see below).

Surely at ground level they are identical; both referencing the same
parts of the index on a disc.

[Distrust any sentence beginning with the word "Surely".]

A folder does not necessarily correspond to a directory. The first
examples that come to mind on this PC are the Computer and Network
folders.

Even when a folder does correspond to a directory, they are noticeably
different. The directory has items that the folder doesn't (. and ..),
and (if, for instance extensions are being hidden) the name of an item
in the folder can be different from the name of the file in the
directory.

Point taken, yes.
Windows has imposed its own "folder" structure; tailored, at times, to
fit with its requirements.
The "library" folders are a good point in hand. They belong to a
substructure of Windows itself; a half-hearted attempt to implement a
database system.

If we brought in other OS's such as Linux, then that would just
complicate the issue even more; because a Linux "folder" wouldn't have a
dovetail fit with a Windows one.

Ed

 

[pyotr filipivich]

I find it impossible to work like that, and have always changed it. I'd be
terrified of deleting an important executable file.

I have a checklist on the thumb drive, of things to "change" from
the default, when I log into a computer at the school. Starting with
associating rtf files (document.rtf) with Wordpad and not Word,
showing the extensions, and opening "the tree".
I've also figured out how to back up the relevant application
data, so I don't have to reset the options to "how they are suppose to
be."
Putting
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -P
in a batch file is also a help. That way I can transfer and use
the same profile (and bookmarks) "everywhere".

 

[pyotr filipivich]

Not without altering the windows default on their computer to see which files
have a .com or .exe extension for a start.


Hiding the file extensions is like working blindfold. You could delete
something important and never realise that you had done so.

I know Unix allows you to have executable files without extensions, but it
won't allow you to have two files with the same name in the same directory.

UNIX expects you to know what you are doing, and doesn't care if
you don't.

Unix is"user friendly" - it is just very particular about who
qualifies as "friend".

 

[Tim Slattery]

Extensions aren't really a Unix thing. They are there, of course, but
they are for human use. The OS does not use the extension to figure
out what to do with the file as DOS and Windows do.

As for file names - the Unix file system is very case sensitive. So
you can have files named myFile.txt, Myfile.txt, and myfile.txt in the
same directory. They are three different files and the OS won't mix
them up. NTFS preserves case in file names but searches for file names
are case insensitive, so NTFS could not make sense of those three
files in the same directory.

I don't think there's any OS/file system that will let you have
multiple files with exactly the same name in a directory - how would
you tell it which one to use>

UNIX expects you to know what you are doing, and doesn't care if
you don't.

It originated as a command line system, there wasn't anything else at
that time. And nearly all users communicated with the machine at
speeds we now consider incredible slow, some like 300bpm. That's why
the commands and arguments are so terse. Nowadays there are several
different GUIs and windowing environments, I don't think your
statement applies to Unix any more or less than it does to Windows.

 

[Ken Springer]

Hi, Mike,

Sorry for the late reply, work got in the way.

I think you misunderstand, so I'll explain more carefully.

When Microsoft provided the (default) option to hide extensions in
folders, they broke the link between folders and directories. A
directory cannot contain more than one item with the same name. But a
folder in which extensions are hidden can, and often does, contain more
than one item with the same name. By "name" I mean what appears in the
column headed "Name", which is no longer same as the file name.

So, by providing us with duplicate-name-possible folders instead of
directories, they replaced clarity with muddle.

I don't think I misunderstood, I think we see the same information on
the screen, but interpret it differently.

You see the hiding of the extensions as a name change, I do not. I see
it as an abbreviated version, a contraction, of the name. Just like
First Street and First St. are the same, I see the lack of the extension
as being in the same vein. It's just a shortened display of the full name.

So I believe, and allowing Windows to hide extensions was to my mind
part of the "people say they like Macs so we'll make Windows look more
like a Mac" movement.

That could very well be. I remember hearing all the talk about Win95
being a Mac for Windows type of comments back then.

I do the same with Windows. I find it disheartening that hiding
extensions is the default setting with Windows.

And if it was the other way, there would be someone that was
disheartened about that. One of the first things I do is go through the
Folder Options, set the display of that folder to what I want, and then
set all the others to match. And get on with things.

Of course. So if extensions are hidden in a folder, duplicate names in
the folder (not the directory) are either allowed or not allowed
according to a criterion that's been concealed from you. This can get
very confusing where you find pic1.png, pic1.jpg, and pic1.jpeg in the
same directory. That's the sort of "muddle" I mentioned above.

The lack of the extension you consider a name change, where I do not. I
consider it an abbreviation, as I mentioned above. Extending this a bit
further, if the column width for the file name is too narrow for the
full name, with or without the extension, is that also a name change to
you? Just curious.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Ken Springer]

Same here. But sometimes I use others' PCs where showing extensions has
not been enabled. When I try to explain to them why that's not a good
idea, they usually have no clue what I'm talking about. These are not
the kind of people I would trust with Windows Explorer in the first
place.

I do the same. But I think the problem is, those users have so little
knowledge of any OS, they're clueless. :-(

Which is why I tell computer users to learn the operating system first,
then any programs they have. The end result is they will spend less
total time learning. But the user is usually in such a hurry to get
something done, they ignore the learning process.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Mike Barnes]

Hi, Mike,

Sorry for the late reply, work got in the way.



I don't think I misunderstood, I think we see the same information on
the screen, but interpret it differently.

You see the hiding of the extensions as a name change, I do not.

I see that it changes what's displayed in the "Name" column. If it looks
like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably
is a duck.

 

[Ken Springer]

I thought the two were synonymous. "Directory" is the old terminology;
"folder" the one that came in with graphical interfaces.

Both names are still current (see below).

Surely at ground level they are identical; both referencing the same
parts of the index on a disc.

[Distrust any sentence beginning with the word "Surely".]

A folder does not necessarily correspond to a directory. The first
examples that come to mind on this PC are the Computer and Network
folders.

I was working with a windows interface before MS even had their first
iteration. And the correlation between folders and directories is/was
straight forward.

I was just checking a Win 7 and XP install here, and the icons for the
computer and network are not a graphic that looks like a folder.
Although, there may be a problem with the XP display, as something I did
while drilling down in the network area of Windows Explorer caused all
the icons to change to a folder. But, I've not been able to duplicate that.

I think it's wrong to blame MS for something that Mozilla does with the
definition of folder, though. They have no control over that.

Even when a folder does correspond to a directory, they are noticeably
different. The directory has items that the folder doesn't (. and ..),
and (if, for instance extensions are being hidden) the name of an item
in the folder can be different from the name of the file in the
directory.

IIRC, the "." and ".." were simply change directory options to go up one
directory, or go to the root directory. Which you can do in any folder
or Windows Explorer window, although it can be cumbersome. So while the
"." and ".." are not displayed in the window, the function is still there.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Mike Barnes]

IIRC, the "." and ".." were simply change directory options to go up
one directory, or go to the root directory.

I think you don't recall quite correctly; they actually point to the
containing directory and to its immediate parent. They were functional
32-byte directory entries with the same format as other entries, not
just "options". They exist in the directory, but not in the folder. Some
programs (not AFAIK Windows Explorer) display the ".." line.

 

[Ken Springer]

I think you don't recall quite correctly; they actually point to the
containing directory and to its immediate parent. They were functional
32-byte directory entries with the same format as other entries, not
just "options". They exist in the directory, but not in the folder. Some
programs (not AFAIK Windows Explorer) display the ".." line.

You may be right, it's been a very, very long time since I used a
command line interface, with the exception of fewer and fewer to almost
nonexistent use of a command window.

Still, to me, just because those entries aren't shown, doesn't mean the
folder isn't showing contents of a directory. After all, if you have
hidden files, they aren't normally shown in a directory or folder. How
does that factor in for you?

I'm not picking a fight or similar, truly curious. I just don't see the
difference you do.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Ken Springer]

If you've ever used Windows Explorer, or Windows File Manager that came
before it, then you already know *EXACTLY* how files are treated within
Library views in Windows Explorer. There is no difference WRT files; none
whatsoever. Add, rename, move, copy, whatever. All the same.

I think the point you may be missing is what the first time, average
user expects. That person expects/thinks (s)he is working with a copy
of a file when working in the library. They don't realize they are
working with the original file. Thus, when they do something to a file
they see, they screw up the original, and not the copy they think they
are working with.

And it's what the average user does that Wolf posted about. And why he
considers Libraries dangerous. As I do, for the average user who does
not know the difference.

I also doubt the average user that Wolf and I are talking about frequent
this newsgroup. They probably don't know what a newsgroup is. :-(

Regarding folders, there is a small difference that shouldn't take more than
a few seconds to figure out, and to figure out how (or if) it's going to
work for you. Add, rename, and move (for example) all work as before.
"Deleting" a folder removes it from the Library. That about sums up the
totality of the differences.

Once you understand the difference is for a library vs. the standard
folder, you're correct. But as I said, the average user doesn't
understand this when first exposed to Libraries, and that user often
tosses something (s)he doesn't want tossed.

I found the Windows Help Files to not be particularly clear as to how
the Libraries function.

The whole discussion about pointers, lists, xml files, etc., is completely
irrelevant to me and of no interest.

That's OK, you know how things work. Others don't, but many are
interested in how Libraries do their job, not just that the job is done.

Personally, I found Libraries, as used and explained to be a
disappointment. They don't do what I expected and want. But, I found a
workaround, and can make them do what I want. ;-) If I could only do
the same thing with this Mac...

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Mike Barnes]

You may be right, it's been a very, very long time since I used a
command line interface, with the exception of fewer and fewer to almost
nonexistent use of a command window.

The ".." isn't just an old CLI thing. That notation is widely used in
modern programming, including HTML, for "parent directory". Similarly,
but less commonly, "." for "this directory". However today's programs in
general do not, I imagine, actually reference the dotted directory
entries.

Still, to me, just because those entries aren't shown, doesn't mean the
folder isn't showing contents of a directory.

Fair enough, but I didn't say that the folder wasn't showing the
contents of the directory. I was arguing against the notion (which might
or might not have come from you, but has been snipped) that the folder
and the directory were the same thing. I hope we can agree that they
aren't.

After all, if you have hidden files, they aren't normally shown in a
directory or folder. How does that factor in for you?

Although directories and folders are different, there are common
features, and that's one of them.

I'm not picking a fight or similar, truly curious. I just don't see
the difference you do.

Understood, no problem. If you wanted to pick a fight with me you'd have
to try an awful lot harder than that.