Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Linux/Mac/Windows File Name Friction 638

Posted by Hemos
from the like-doing-it-with-sandpaper dept.
lessthan0 writes "In 1995, Microsoft added long file name support to Windows, allowing more descriptive names than the limited 8.3 DOS format. Mac users scoffed, having had long file names for a decade and because Windows still stored a DOS file name in the background. Linux was born with long file name support four years before it showed up in Windows. Today, long file names are well supported by all three operating systems though key differences remain. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux/Mac/Windows File Name Friction

Comments Filter:
  • by suso (153703) * on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:47AM (#15690668) Homepage Journal
    Long filenames aren't all they are cracked up to be. I got made fun of once for using one. I can remember it so clearly now, we were in music theory class in high school and we had to use Finale on a Mac (OS 7 at the time) for our composition projects. I named one of my projects something like "Suso's Music Theory assignment number 4 for Mr. Becker 1993-9-24.mus" and saved it. A week later I was on the same Mac and noticed a file that wasn't mine called "Making fun of people who use really long filenames for their music theory assignments.mus". Nobody was admit to doing it but I knew who it was. I was devastated and never felt comfortable again in that class.

    Now I'm scarred for life. I should have listened to my parents and gone with 8.3.
    • MacOS was limited to 31 character names, so you're misremembering things.
    • Even though others apparently claim you're joking, I personally am all for gratuitous words in file names. Some times I achieve this by gratitously deep folder heirarchies, but usually I just randomly add keywords to files. I mostly use a GUI, so it doesn't stress me out too much, but makes it much easier to find them two years later.

      (I also like my music files to accurately contain the name of the track, so a song like "Where is everybody?" becomes "(maybe the artists name, album etc. -) 03 - Where is ever
      • I mostly use a GUI, so it doesn't stress me out too much, but makes it much easier to find them two years later.

        Many shells now support the use of the "Tab" key to expand a filename (and list filenames that match what you have typed in so far). Also, if your music player is an iPod then you can format it with HPFS and lose that FAT restrictions - though, I believe the iPod actually just mangles the filename and uses the ID tags.
    • by mausmalone (594185) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:24AM (#15690946) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps that's a bit long of a file name, but it's at least descriptive. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten files titled Agenda 01.doc when they should be more like Tech Committee Agenda 2006-05-01.doc -- it's not excessively long, but with a file name like that I know EXACTLY what's in that file.
  • by stupidfoo (836212) on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:50AM (#15690686)
    Although it was cast as a negative, I always enjoyed being able to use the ~1 (and ~2, ~3, etc) for long names in MSDOS. In my mind Program Files is progra~1 and Microsoft is micros~1.
    • When you use cmd.exe for a command line interpreter, it makes more sense to type

      cd prog*\mic*

      Not only will this work, it will also work on other platforms, and it will also keep working when the silly ~1 convention is abandoned.

      • by stupidfoo (836212) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:09AM (#15690830)
        The problem with that is that it goes to the first one in alphabetical order. So if you had c:\program files\Microsaucer and c:\program files\Microsoft it will go to microsaucer.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Not so. It goes to the first created file. So if you create microsauer, then microsoft, but delete microsauer later, microsoft will stay as Micros~2
        • Ugh, I hate that behaviour. I wish it would use readline's default behaviour. The alternatives ('microsoft' and 'microsaucer') would be listed, and after that the original prompt completed up to 'micro' would appear.

          (Readline is the line input library used by Bash and lots of other GNU/Linux software that presents a command-line interface).
        • Press TAB again (Score:5, Informative)

          by ggeens (53767) <ggeensNO@SPAMiggyland.com> on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:31AM (#15691000) Homepage Journal

          cmd.exe's completion is a bit strange if you're used to bash, but once you get to know it, you can get around quite well.

          Example:

          • cd c:\pr TAB -> cd "c:\Program Files"
          • Another TAB -> cd c:\projects
          • "\foo" + TAB -> cd "c:\projects\foo bar"
          • "\s" + TAB -> cd "c:\projects\foo bar\src"

          Before Windows XP, you had to activate the tab character by changing a registry key. XP has this set by default.

          • Re:Press TAB again (Score:3, Informative)

            by glesga_kiss (596639)
            Before Windows XP, you had to activate the tab character by changing a registry key.

            Forget hacking the Registry, TweakUI can do this. It's an essential tool for Windows that would cause too much damage by lusers so they don't ship it out-the-box. Lot's of useful hacks.

    • Using autocomplete is even faster, and (I find it) more convenient.

      From Run you just select the folder/file name from the list after typing a few letters, from cmd.exe you just hit tab after typing a few letters.

    • Careful with that because if you install -- say -- a software called ProGrabber in c:\, it now becomes Progra~1 and Program Files becomes Progra~2.
    • by kripkenstein (913150) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:07AM (#15690818) Homepage
      Of course - this is a feature, not a bug.

      Henderson_Presentation_2005.doc is HENDER~1.doc,
      Henderson_Presentation_2006.doc is HENDER~2.doc,
      Henderson_Presentation_2006 (unedited).doc is HENDER~3.doc.

      Clearly, we are reaping the benefits of a well-thought-out platform here.
    • Autocomplete via Tab key was only made avilible wint winxo's cmd.exe. Prior to that the tildas were the way to go for command line, for boxes that I didn't just install Freedos command.exe which allowed tab completion.
  • I RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy@t[ ]-co.org ['pno' in gap]> on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:53AM (#15690700) Homepage
    But in this particular case, the summary has as much meat as the story, with the added benefit of saying it in a paragraph instead of several ( and even that's too long ).

    For those of you who haven't read it, here it is: Windows, Linux and Mac OS X all support long file names, albeit differently. Linux is case sensitive, the others are not.

    Tada! Two sentances. I imagine, were I a perl coder, I could have done it in half of one, but there you go.
    • Re:I RTFA (Score:5, Funny)

      by rtyall (960518) on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:58AM (#15690730) Homepage
      I've just heard that all 3 Operating Systems support reading CDRoms? Is this true, can anyone confirm this revelation?
    • Tada! Two sentances. I imagine, were I a perl coder, I could have done it in half of one, but there you go.

      Speaking as a Perl coder, I strongly obj...

    • Linux is case sensitive, the others are not.

      Hopefully you meant, OS X is case sensitive, the others are not?

      • Re:I RTFA (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        err... no.

        linux et,al. == case sensitive
        windows == case insensitive
        OSX == case preserving

        Try to keep up.
      • Re:I RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

        by mrchaotica (681592) *

        OS X is not case sensitive by default. It is case preserving, meaning that "Foo.txt" will still be "Foo.txt" when you move it or whatever (unlike in Windows, where it could turn into "FOO.TXT", but both names are still exactly the same file. Beware of this when copying files from a Linux (or otherwise case sensitive) filesystem to a Mac!

        Now, OS X does have the option to use case sensitive HFS+ (or UFS, for that matter), but last I heard either is likely to cause problems if you try to use it as the root vo

    • Re:I RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by kimvette (919543) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:23AM (#15690940) Homepage Journal
      Actually all three can be case sensitive.

      Linux always is, by default (I don't know if you can make it otherwise without a LOT of hacking).

      Windows: it is case "retentive" by default (it remembers cases as typed) but not case sensitive. It (full case sensitivity) can be enabled through a registry hack or two, or by selecting the "enable case sensitivity" option when installing SFU, at the cost of possibly breaking backwards compatibility with many applications.

      Mac: OS 9 (and earlier) were case retentive only. OS X is case retentive (no sensitive) by default, however, if you install on a UFS filesystem it will become case sensitive, and just as with Windows, possibly breaking backwards compatibility with many applications.
    • Tada! Two sentances. I imagine, were I a perl coder, I could have done it in half of one, but there you go.

      True enough but the drawback of using Perl style syntactic obfuscation to compact this /. story is that people would have to stare at the resulting half a sentence for a lengthy period of time before they managed to figure out what the hell you are trying to say.
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:53AM (#15690704) Journal

    Why are computer file names and conventions and protocols so messed up? It's bizarre -- and Microsoft has been one of the worst offenders with one of the most powerful positions and opportunities to make it a better filename-naming world.

    I had worked in the DOS world long ago, and I'd always been frustrated with not only the restriction of the 8.3 naming convention, but the added imposition of:

    1. the requirement the ".3" portion be satisfied, i.e., if you didn't give a ".3" extension, it wasn't valid.
    2. the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF?
    3. the implied (don't remember if it was canonical) semantic that no ".3" extension meant the file was a directory
    4. the case insensitive nature of file names
    5. etc. (or should I say, .etc)

    Many years later, I had opportunity to consult in the Windows/DOS world after having worked in the Unix world for over a decade -- figured Microsoft had had enough time and money to work out the kinks in what had obviously been an early-technology constraint for the brain dead old DOS naming restrictions. Not. Sigh.

    And then the transition was a nightmare, whoever conjured up the VFAT naming format and the "tilde" mapping backwards compatibility to FAT names should have been shot. A golden opportunity lost.

    And then everything swings completely the other direction where anything goes. This may curry favor with users, but wreaks havoc on billions of lines of code which all of a sudden choke on what had been simple parsing routines -- fixable, but at great expense. I still think this was a paradigm shift that somehow could have accommodated the user space/community but still allowed some sanity in the machine world.

    But layered on, or dovetailed into that quagmire is the Microsoft insistence they "know better than thou"... and the condescending insistence of dragging the ".3" extension nightmare into the new rules for file naming. Would have been okay to "allow" ".3" naming, but to impose the bizarre rules and behaviors Microsoft has? (How many of you have files named picture.jpg.jpg.jpg out there?)

    Options to show extension, defaults to hide extensions, and continued reliance and semantics applied to extensions continue to make the filenaming world a landmine field.

    And, Microsoft dares to allow mixed case naming, but does case insensitive handling of file names... don't even get me started about some of the bizarre results and buggy behavior I've traced to that. I only wish I'd had a chargeback code for all of the time I've spent fixing and debugging systems that all come back to the file naming. Sigh, again.

    All of this isn't to let Unix and Unix style file naming skate. I've had problems, though fewer, there. But, at least it's seemingly (to me) more consistent and predictable, though there has been what I call "Windows" creep in that there have appeared some apps that somehow think managing and imposing "transparently" the extension to "file type" mapping is a good thing (it's not).

    (One of the funniest Unix debacles I experienced was debugging a groups application -- they were moving files around and losing all but one each processing cycle... turned out they were remote copying from one Unix that had 14 (or more, can't remember) char limit on file names to an old SunOS system that allowed only 11. The remote copy that moved files from one system to the other for subsequent processing did so without complaint, the receiving side silently truncated the incoming files -- which were identical in name through 11 chars... essentially copying the incoming files over and over again on top of the same file... Sigh and sheesh!)

    • by Chris Graham (942108) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:00AM (#15690751) Homepage
      You have some good points, but I really can't agree with two of your complaints... "the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF" It seems far better to me than mime-types or magic strings. Mime-types fail due to not being actually encoded on-filesystem, and magic strings require users to use a hex editor to try and identify an alien file type. "the case insensitive nature of file names" Case sensitivity is a big usability issue for people, so burdening the few (the programmers) so that the majority (the users) don't get confused, is a fair trade of IMHO.
      • by vadim_t (324782) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:12AM (#15690852) Homepage
        I refer you to the file(1) command:
        vadim@gadget ~/src/ac/src/viewer $ file *
        Makefile.am: ASCII make commands text
        image_list.c: ASCII C program text
        image_list.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
        images.c: ASCII English text
        images.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
        mapview.c: ASCII English text
        mapview.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
        serverconn.c: ASCII C program text
        serverconn.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
        viewer.c: ASCII English text
        viewer.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
        As for case sensitivity, it's a seriously thorny issue due to some languages that have lossy upper/lower case conversion.
        • And there's the problem:

          images.c: ASCII English text

          Great. It's "English text". Well, actually no it's not. It's C source code. I notice that you still have ".c" on the end of your filenames - surely that's redundant? Or maybe not.

          Until file(1) can tell the difference between C code and Java code and a letter to my grandmother it's not so useful.
      • Mime types could be encoded on-filesystem if FS designers chose to (Freedesktop.org has a specification for doing so in a cross-desktop fashion [freedesktop.org] if you're using a UNIX with extended attributes). In any case, mapping files to file types by extension has issues to do with user training and multiple extensions (in particular, if I send you Important.jpg.vbs, which extension are you doing to pick on for the filetype, and which one is the system going to use? The wrong answer results in unexpected behaviour, whic
      • by Tom (822) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:49AM (#15691130) Homepage Journal
        It seems far better to me than mime-types or magic strings.

        Seems, yes. Is? No way in hell.

        The problem is that extensions are part of the filename, i.e. they are arbitrary. Mapping arbitrary data to meta information is stupid at best, dangerous usually and in combination with hidden extensions and automatic execution it is a blatant disregard of even the most basic security procedures.

        aka "lookhereiamcertainlynotavirus.jpg.exe"
    • by 1u3hr (530656) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:05AM (#15690804)
      the requirement the ".3" portion be satisfied, i.e., if you didn't give a ".3" extension, it wasn't valid.
      the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF? the implied (don't remember if it was canonical) semantic that no ".3" extension meant the file was a directory
      Not true. I used names with no extension for my Wordstar files back in DOS days. Since that's what most of my files were, I made that the simplest. Directories usually had no extension, but you could have if you wanted (some programs did that for their private data).

      Winows 9x and above though do enforce rules on extensions; but worst of all, hide some, or all, of them by default. Thus Anna-Kournikova.jpg.exe. The old Mac OS had it right, the filetype flags were not user-created or normally visible, though you could get tools to hack them if you wanted.

      • The old Mac OS had it right, the filetype flags were not user-created or normally visible, though you could get tools to hack them if you wanted.

        Not quite. I still remember the pain of trying to use standard formats like JPEG across multiple applications back in the system 6/7 days.

        • Not quite. I still remember the pain of trying to use standard formats like JPEG across multiple applications back in the system 6/7 days.

          Mac OS had a separate file type, and file creator, code. So apps could share filetypes, but have distinct creators. But egomaniacal programmers often made their apps change the codes. That's when you needed things like FileTyper.

    • unix also has "anything goes", but a strong sense of "not everything is wise".

      Under ext3, Linux, all of the following are valid filenames:

      • "foo bar"
      • "-rf"
      • "*"
      • "\ ?"
      • " "
      • "foo\bar.*"

      Don't get me started on the havoc newbies manage to make when trying to deal with suchlike. In general, people know this will blow up the first time someone tries a naive script, and tend to avoid all of it. The only thing borderline common is filenames with spaces in them, even this breaks some scripts, but arguabl

    • 1. the requirement the ".3" portion be satisfied, i.e., if you didn't give a ".3" extension, it wasn't valid.

      As far as I know that was never true in DOS/Windows, though some applications may have done that.

      2. the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF?

      That bothered me at first, but it's a pretty nice convention to follow, so why not build it into the shell?

      3. the implied (don't remember if it was canonical) semantic that no ".3" extension meant the file was a directory

      That was only a c
    • by Xtifr (1323) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:39AM (#15691044) Homepage
      > the requirement the ".3" portion be satisfied, i.e., if you didn't give a ".3" extension, it wasn't valid.

      Your memory is faulty here--that is not true; not even slightly.

      > the semantic mapping of the extension to filetype, WTF?

      Long predated MS. Found even in UNIX before MS existed. And still widely used even on UNIX/Linux/BSD. The big flaw that DOS had here (IMO) was making the extension determine whether a file was executable. Having an executable flag is a much better solution. But the approach that DOS took was widely used in other OSes at the time.

      > the case insensitive nature of file names

      There are plenty of arguments on both sides of this one. I'm more used to/more comfortable with/prefer case-sensitive filenames, but I can't bring myself to claim that one option is better than the other.

      I thought VFAT was actually a fairly clever solution to the problem of providing backwards compatibility with the horrors of 8.3, and MS really had no choice but to provide backwards compatibility. I have a lot of complaints with the things MS has done over the years, but I actually kind of admire VFAT.

      > defaults to hide extensions

      This, on the other hand, is one of the biggest mistakes that MS ever made! Someone should have lost their job over this idiocy!

      As a side note, I have to agree with everyone who says that the original article is terrible. The list of characters to avoid for portability is missing several, and the article completely overlooks one of the biggest and most headache-inducing issues--i18n and character encodings. This is one area where UNIX/Linux's ultra-flexibility actually gets it in trouble, since you can have file names with different encodings in the same directory. I actually had a mix of latin1 and utf8 filenames in my home directory for a while, and NOTHING would display them all correctly. And I bet it's even worse if you mix-and-match various CJK encodings. Windows, I'm told, forces everything to utf16, which would not have been my first choice, but at least it's consistent.
  • File servers! (Score:5, Informative)

    by WPIDalamar (122110) on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:57AM (#15690728) Homepage
    Too bad the article didn't mention what happens when you copy long filenames over the network. All kinds of crazy things happen in all kinds of client/server combinations.

    Try copying a 40 character file from a windows server to a OSX client. What happens? Well... it depends if you used appletalk or SMB to connect with.

    What about OSX server -> a windows client... depends on the version of windows AND OSX of course.

    I've had nightmares.

    Wanna be safe most of the time:
    1) No spaces
    2) Under 32 character filenames
    3) Alphanumeric, underscore, period, or hyphen ONLY
    4) Only a single period allowed.
    • Try copying a 40 character file from a windows server to a OSX client. What happens? Well... it depends if you used appletalk or SMB to connect with.

      Which is always the issue. Windows is the weakest link. Services for Macintosh (now deprecated) is the thing that changes the names to be "mac safe" even though the idea of "mac safe" has long since changed since SfM was created. "Luckily" SfM is gone in Vista.
  • Windows file names can be up to 255 characters, but that includes the full path.

    Holy shit is this true? That seems like a brain-dead limitation to have in the year 2006.

    Oh and Mac users didn't really have support for long file names until OS X. HFS has always supported 255-character file names, but in OS 9 and earlier, the Finder would only recognize up to 31 characters for a file name, so it was basically impossible to have a file name greater than 31 characters even though the file system allowed it.

    • Re:NTFS WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

      NTFS paths can be up to 32767 characters. Or so i read [wikipedia.org] - I'm too lazy to try it myself.
    • Holy shit is this true?

      No.

    • Re:NTFS WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Quantam (870027)
      Yes and no. That was a limitation of Windows 9x (a holdover from DOS and Unix), and still exists in the ANSI versions of the NT APIs. However, the native NT Unicode APIs support 32k characters for the path. I don't know if there's a 255 char limit on individual names for NT, off the top of my head. Though it's possible that the number of programs still using the ANSI APIs (since the Unicode version only works on NT, but the ANSI version works on 9x as well) may impose an artificial limit of 255 char paths o
  • I think the biggest problem I had one day was when I was trying to remove a file in Linux who's first character was -

    rm and mv kept complaining that the character after the switch wasn't valid and eventually I had to navigate to the file in X and delete its icon which did the trick.

    Not a particularly exciting story, but an interesting one none the less.
  • by esnible (36716) on Monday July 10, 2006 @09:59AM (#15690739)
    I've got a CD-ROM that is unreadable under Windows XP because a Mac user put the files in a directory containing a '>' character.

    If I can turn off Joliet comprehension I'll have access to the files in their original ISO9660 8.3 glory.

    It's unfortunate that Microsoft's Joliet driver doesn't realize it's presenting names the OS can't tolerate. Otherwise it could replace the forbidden characters with % escapes before returning them to the OS. Or, alternately, handing the ISO9660 name to the OS if the Joliet name was forbidden by Windows' rules.
  • by Rauser (631244) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:02AM (#15690769)
    So, your OS supports long filenames, huh? Then why doesn't the vendor use them for all the cryptically named shared libraries, scripts, etc. that clutter up any modern os system directory?

    They way I look at it, the day I look at something like "d3d8.dll" or whatever drek is fermenting in \WINDOWS32\ and it is actually named with a descriptive filename, then that OS will truly support long filenames.

    Not sure where the Linux crown compares, but OS X is getting better with each revision. Classic Mac OS had this one down (mostly) cold.
  • by 3gm (718785) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:02AM (#15690777)
    Why not simply follow the POSIX standard*? You can avoid a lot of hassles that way. Isn't that why we have standards?? I know, it doesn't resolve the conflict with Windows case "insensitivity", but ... it does provide interoperability between POSIX-compliant OSes. * upper/lower case alphabetic characters, numeric digits, underscore, dash, and period.
  • by joshv (13017) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:03AM (#15690780)
    From the wikipedia entry on NTFS:

    "Though the file system supports paths up to ca. 32,000 Unicode characters with each path component (directory or filename) up to 255 characters long, certain names are unusable, since NTFS stores its metadata in regular (albeit hidden and for the most part inaccessible) files; accordingly, user files cannot use these names."

    The article incorrectly states "Windows file names can be up to 255 characters, but that includes the full path. A lot characters are wasted if the default storage location is used: "C:\Documents and Settings\USER\My Documents\"." I will grant that this may have been a limitation in the past, but XP has had NTFS from the start, and NTFS is by far the most common windows FS today.
    • by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Monday July 10, 2006 @01:11PM (#15692187) Homepage Journal
      The actual maximum length depends on your definition of "maximum", unfortuneately.

      PATH_MAX is supposed to be defined as the length of any single path segment. NT "the OS", and NTFS "the filesystem", support completely qualified path concatenations that are like 32k or so long.

      You can, using CMD.EXE, create a directory 250ish chars long. Then you can go into that directory, and create child dirs with a similar length, and so on, for quite a while.

      Now, what happens when you try and access that file you made?

      It depends entirely on the appplication.

      In XP and earlier, explorer.exe got pretty confused around 4096 chars. When you were viewing a DFS redirected share, explorer got confused even earlier.

      in CLR 1.0, if you have relative directory traversal, you can access paths which are longer than 255 chars, but any of the "open by path" routines cap it at 255 chars (including filename!). I filed a bug on this that the CLR guys said "won't fix - we just do what Win32 does". (gosh guys, i thought .NET was going to free us all from Win32. Guess not.)

      So, the NT native APIs support enormous paths, NTFS supports them, but depending on which libraries your application uses, you probably can't do much better than 250 chars total - path _and_ filename.

      Alot of what makes Microsoft "good" is its commitment to backwards compatibility. And a lot of what makes Microsoft so lousy is it's commitment to backwards compatability :/

  • Amiga (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:07AM (#15690823) Homepage Journal
    Amiga has had long filename support since it was first released in 1985.

    Dan East
  • by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:09AM (#15690834)
    The ad that Apple ran, back when Windows 95 launched:

    C:ONGRTLNS.W95

  • I was doing tech support for Win95 way back when it came out, I think it was in 1995 (duh), I had a customer who wanted larger fonts on the desktop. I explained how to change the size of the fonts for desktop icons. As soon as we did, "Network Neighborhood" turned into "Network Neighborho...". Of course, the guys on the phone got a kick out of that and it was knows as "Net Ho" for at least a week after that.

    Just thought I'd share.
  • Where's the !? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rurik (113882) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:23AM (#15690929)
    They have a whole block on "Avoid using these characaters for maximum portability".

    But, where's the exclamation mark? TONS of Windows people (including me) use exclamation points as the first character to put files/directories to the top of the list. Linux constantly chokes on these characters. But, no mention of it at all in this article.
    • Re:Where's the !? (Score:3, Informative)

      by vadim_t (324782)
      You just escape it with a \, like this:
      vadim@gadget ~/tmp $ touch \!hi
      vadim@gadget ~/tmp $ ls
      !hi
      vadim@gadget ~/tmp $ rm \!hi
    • Re:Where's the !? (Score:3, Informative)

      by mrsbrisby (60242)
      But, where's the exclamation mark? TONS of Windows people (including me) use exclamation points as the first character to put files/directories to the top of the list. Linux constantly chokes on these characters. But, no mention of it at all in this article.

      No it doesn't. Linux (like most UNIXes) have no problem with exclamation marks. In fact, the only characters specifically disallowed are NUL (for C compatability) and /

      Your shell however, assigns a special meaning to the "!" character, and that special m
  • Windows here suck the most. NTFS is good, but all the backward compatibility cruft just drags the FS down.

    Once under Windows, I have spent about half an hour with Explorer refusing to copy one one. Explorer was insisting that "File No Found". Text file was there and perfectly editable by notepad. I needed about 30 minutes to observe that Explorer was giving error on only on file of whole directory and that file have had the longest name. ZOMG!!! They still have cap 255 bytes on path(!) length!!!

    Welcome to 3
  • rsync (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gatzke (2977) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:50AM (#15691134) Homepage Journal

    I just hit the file name issue trying to sync some stuff between unix / Windows XP using rsync.

    The case insensitivity was annoying and the limited char set on XP was no good.

    Again, you would think they would have fixed this on XP.

  • Why name stfuff? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NotInTheBox (235496) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:58AM (#15691197) Homepage
    I want documents not files. Sometimes multiple files make up one document (webpage + stylesheet + media), sometimes there are multiple documents in one file (zip).

    When will anyone come up with a persistant storage system which allows me to make random tags to documents and groups of documents. Drop the folders and give me 'search queries' on content and tags. Automatically save all data and don't bother me with giving it a name... When it's important I will give it the proper tags until then just remember it for me.

    Do I have to name the paper before printing?
    • Think about it... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ratboy666 (104074)
      The purpose of the "OS" (its actually not the OS here, but lets use that term to make the following discussion clear) is to provide the set of tools needed to implement your "paradigm" (again, not true, but it will do).

      Your way of thinking.

      As it turns out, having multiple "files" composing a "document" is easily mapped in a hierarchical layout. As a simple idea, put all the files into a node and call that node the name of the document.

      The "OS" should not impose upon the applications, but should provide read
  • by pikine (771084) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:29AM (#15691428) Journal
    OS X supports up to 255 characters and can use the same characters as Linux, except for a colon (:).

    In Terminal.app, you can create file names with colon, but such character is mapped to a forward slash when seen in Finder. On the other hand, you can use forward slash in Finder, and it is mapped to a colon in the command line.

    Historically, Mac OSes use colon to separate folder names in a path.

    There is a subtle restriction in HFS+. All files in HFS+ have their names in normalized unicode [unicode.org], and in order to normalize in the first place, file names must be in valid UTF-8 encoding. You cannot use random character string for file names.

    There is no such restriction for UFS on Mac OS X. I think UFS supports roughly the same characters as in BSD and Linux and any other Unices. If you're transferring files from Linux with names in a legacy encoding, you can create a UFS disk image and convert file names to UTF-8 before copying them to HFS+.

  • by b1t r0t (216468) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:34AM (#15691465)

    There's a whole new dimension of fun when your file names include non-Roman characters, such as Japanese.

    First of all, there is the matter of which encoding the file names are in. Lots of Japanese Windows installs and their utilities still use Shift-JIS for file names. OS X, on the other hand, uses Unicode, and typically expects UTF-8 for file names from programs. In fact, it not only expects it, it enforces it, returning an error when attempting to use a file name which is invalid UTF-8.

    Many command utilities that deal with archive files utterly fail on OS X when given archives using Shift-JIS file names, and many others improperly translate it as 8-bit ISO Latin I. A few (such as the command line RAR archiver) are actually smart enough to make a system call to translate the file name from Shift-JIS to UTF-8.

    And then there is the issue of Shift-JIS MP3 tags. If you open those with iTunes, not only do they get interpreted as ISO Latin I, but irreversably so if you do something that writes them back to the .mp3 file. (They get written back as a UTF-8 representation of the ISO Latin.) I've had luck in the past using a hex editor and SimpleText in Classic to convert them with much work, but I'm not sure what I'll do with the new Intel Macs that don't support Classic.

  • NTFS Streams (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Meneguzzi (935620) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:41AM (#15691515) Homepage Journal
    I know this might sound a bit offtopic, but since the post mentioned windows filesystems, I felt it might be a good place to throw this question...
    Not many people know or have even used this, but NTFS has support for multiple streams of data in a single file, which is something that borrows concepts from object-oriented filesystems. This is scarcely, if at all, included in the regular windows documentation (it is documented in the MS knowledge base http://support.microsoft.com/kb/105763/ [microsoft.com]). I thought it to be a nice idea for, say, media files, to store the audio in one stream the the video in another, or adding subtitles or metainformation in different streams in a very standard way. But for some reason nobody used that, not even Microsoft who designed the feature.
    Does anybody have a clue as to why this has not been used?

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...