Filesystem syntax constraints under Windows

On 23.10.2014 г. 00:09, David Brown wrote:
> ....
>> You should demonstrate at least such basic programming knowledge
>> if you want people to take your posts as something more than standard
>> "always know better" babble by someone who does not really know what
>> he is talking about.
>
> Let me demonstrate my basic programming knowledge by my ability to look
> up CreateFile with google to find the MSDN page:

I suppose these skills will get you a secretary/typist job, at least
you'll make it to the interview.

>
> <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858%28v=vs.85%29.aspx>

Clicking once or twice on links in your discovery one sees how strongly
MS discourage use of any case dependent search capabilities. Like I
explained to you earlier text data can be compared either way given
it is all preserved, how can you have a problem understanding *that*?

>>>>>> The problem remains and will remain, as unix does
>>>>>> not output names but file identifiers (names consist of text,
>>>>>> remember
>>>>>> the alphabet and the character count). The fact that these
>>>>>> identifiers
>>>>>> have been misused as text for decades does not mean much beyond
>>>>>> the expectations of hardcore unix users that the English alphabet
>>>>>> will suddenly begin to have 52 characters.
>>>>>
>>>>> This goes back to your unique idea that files have a sort of
>>>>> colloquial
>>>>> human-friendly nick-name that is a different concept from their
>>>>> "filename" that everyone else uses.
>>>>
>>>> Blimey, so it is my unique idea that file names are meant also for
>>>> human
>>>> consumption/processing.
>>>
>>> No, it is your unique idea that an OS has to treat filenames using human
>>> language rules because they are always for human processing and
>>> consumption -
>>
>> Ah, now you are trying to cheat your way out of the hole. No, I never
>> said that. I said that file names are ALSO for human consumption.
>
> And it has been pointed out that humans use wildly different rules for
> how they write according to their language,  ....

So cheating did not work but why not persist by repeating yet again
something completely irrelevant.

>> Try to spell over the phone a file name like "ThIs Is An eXamPle Of A
>> nAMe foR iDioTs".
>> Then come and repeat your claim that file names - or whatever names
>> which are represented in text - are to be compared case sensitive.
>
> Filenames that are meant to be typed by humans (or read over the phone)
> should be chosen to make sense - but most humans will do that
> automatically.

So when creating a file name the system should know whether it will
be spelt over the phone. Good, good, way to go, Einstein.

Dimiter

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)
>>Note that "DOS" refuses to deal with the ':' and '*' characters and
>>transforms them into '?' (which one would assume it would ALSO refuse
>>to deal with!)
 
> ? and * are filename wildcards in DOS and Windows both ... and DOS
> doesn't know about NTFS streams.

Do you mean actual DOS, or a DOS program run under Windows?
(At least for versions that will run 16 bit programs.)

It is always interesting when you mix things that were designed
separately, such that the differences show up in unobvious places.

-- glen

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:20:57 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> ? and * are filename wildcards in DOS and Windows both ... and DOS
>> doesn't know about NTFS streams.
>
>Do you mean actual DOS, or a DOS program run under Windows?
>(At least for versions that will run 16 bit programs.)

Both actually.  A DOS program running under Windows is still working
through (an emulation of) the int21h file api.  It can't do anything
more than an actual DOS system.

George

Dimiter, I have no idea why you are so obsessed with insulting me and
posting pointless derogatory remarks.  I have a pretty thick skin after
many years of using Usenet, but I can't say I find it pleasant -
especially from someone whose knowledge and experience I respect.

We disagree on whether filenames should be case sensitive or case
insensitive at the filesystem level.  That should be fair enough - it's
a technical disagreement, and there has been an exchange of ideas and
thoughts in this area (by other people as well).

But you have been dragging the disagreement down to a kindergarten
squabble.  I have tried to avoid retaliating, but I have failed - I have
certainly been sarcastic and patronising, and thus encouraged you.

In order to avoid getting completely out of hand, I will therefore have
to stop posting in this thread, and will not reply to your points.  I
hope that next time we "meet" in this newsgroup, we will be back to the
friendly and professional tone that is the standard in comp.arch.embedded.

David

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:20:57 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt

(snip, someone wrote)
>>> ? and * are filename wildcards in DOS and Windows both ... and DOS
>>> doesn't know about NTFS streams.

>>Do you mean actual DOS, or a DOS program run under Windows?
>>(At least for versions that will run 16 bit programs.)
 
> Both actually.  A DOS program running under Windows is still working
> through (an emulation of) the int21h file api.  It can't do anything
> more than an actual DOS system.

But it can read/write to NTFS disks.

-- glen

On 23.10.2014 г. 11:18, David Brown wrote:
> Dimiter, I have no idea why you are so obsessed with insulting me and
> posting pointless derogatory remarks.  I have a pretty thick skin after
> many years of using Usenet, but I can't say I find it pleasant -
> especially from someone whose knowledge and experience I respect.
>
> We disagree on whether filenames should be case sensitive or case
> insensitive at the filesystem level.  That should be fair enough - it's
> a technical disagreement, and there has been an exchange of ideas and
> thoughts in this area (by other people as well).
>
> But you have been dragging the disagreement down to a kindergarten
> squabble.  I have tried to avoid retaliating, but I have failed - I have
> certainly been sarcastic and patronising, and thus encouraged you.
>
> In order to avoid getting completely out of hand, I will therefore have
> to stop posting in this thread, and will not reply to your points.  I
> hope that next time we "meet" in this newsgroup, we will be back to the
> friendly and professional tone that is the standard in comp.arch.embedded.
>
> David
>

David,
I am really a less patient person than I used to be say 5 years ago,
the less time we have left the more we tend to care about it I
suppose.

I have had no problem when we disagree on something which can
be argued either way; unfortunately the fact that file names are
also for human consumption at the current evolution stage is
no more arguable than the result of adding 1 to 1.
You are clearly unable to accept you have been wrong on
something that basic and ever since you first declared that
file names were not for human but for machine processing you
have been in track repeat flailing mode.
While I know I am not patient at all (have never been), I don't
think I was too impatient.
I am glad you decided to put an end to it.

Dimiter

On 23/10/14 12:56, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 23.10.2014 г. 11:18, David Brown wrote:
>> Dimiter, I have no idea why you are so obsessed with insulting me and
>> posting pointless derogatory remarks.  I have a pretty thick skin after
>> many years of using Usenet, but I can't say I find it pleasant -
>> especially from someone whose knowledge and experience I respect.
>>
>> We disagree on whether filenames should be case sensitive or case
>> insensitive at the filesystem level.  That should be fair enough - it's
>> a technical disagreement, and there has been an exchange of ideas and
>> thoughts in this area (by other people as well).
>>
>> But you have been dragging the disagreement down to a kindergarten
>> squabble.  I have tried to avoid retaliating, but I have failed - I have
>> certainly been sarcastic and patronising, and thus encouraged you.
>>
>> In order to avoid getting completely out of hand, I will therefore have
>> to stop posting in this thread, and will not reply to your points.  I
>> hope that next time we "meet" in this newsgroup, we will be back to the
>> friendly and professional tone that is the standard in
>> comp.arch.embedded.
>>
>> David
>>
> 
> David,
> I am really a less patient person than I used to be say 5 years ago,
> the less time we have left the more we tend to care about it I
> suppose.
> 
> I have had no problem when we disagree on something which can
> be argued either way; unfortunately the fact that file names are
> also for human consumption at the current evolution stage is
> no more arguable than the result of adding 1 to 1.
> You are clearly unable to accept you have been wrong on
> something that basic and ever since you first declared that
> file names were not for human but for machine processing you
> have been in track repeat flailing mode.
> While I know I am not patient at all (have never been), I don't
> think I was too impatient.
> I am glad you decided to put an end to it.
> 
> Dimiter
> 

I suspect that somewhere near the beginning, we have got something mixed
up and misunderstood.  I can't say for sure what it is, and I don't want
to try and dig it up - but I think the result is that we have been
arguing slightly at cross-purposes.  Thus perhaps you have argued that 1
+ 1 = 2, while I have argued that 2 + 2 = 4, and that is why neither of
us will back down!  (Let us not try to find what went wrong, and
certainly not attempt to find out whose fault it might be, as we would
argue about that too.)

I just hope that Don learned whatever he needed to know from this thread :-)

David.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:08:35 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:20:57 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
>
>> A DOS program running under Windows is still working
>> through (an emulation of) the int21h file api.  It can't do anything
>> more than an actual DOS system.
>
>But it can read/write to NTFS disks.

And also network mounts and NTFS junctions via the emulation ... but
that's no different from DOS running over, e.g., a NetBIOS driver.

DOS programs under Windows still are constrained to DOS file naming
rules and DOS supported file access modes.  They are completely
unaware of NTFS long file names, streams, extended attributes, AC
lists, etc., and they can't follow Windows shortcuts.

There's probably some other restrictions that I can't recall just now.
I haven't had to deal with DOS under Windows in a very long time.

>-- glen
George

Am 23.10.2014 um 20:50 schrieb George Neuner:

> DOS programs under Windows still are constrained to DOS file naming
> rules and DOS supported file access modes.  They are completely
> unaware of NTFS long file names, streams, extended attributes, AC
> lists, etc., and they can't follow Windows shortcuts.

Not true at least for the long names.  MS-DOS has supported long 
filenames for about 20 years now (since Win95).  NT was a little late on 
the bus, but they eventually made long names available to DOS in NT4 
SP5, if memory serves.