(emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

(emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[David Combs]

I'm downloading files of names like:


     http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm

Now, when I do this in a browser (I use lynx (shell-account))
the default name to store it under is foo-txt.htm.

Years later, what I'll want to know is exactly where it came from, ie
I'd like the filename to depict the entire url.


Like this, perhaps?

     http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm

Nope, because regardless of what the computer will
make of it, it'll confuse *me* -- not knowing whether
those slashes represent dir-separators within *my* computer,
or in some far-away (maybe long dead) server.


Hmmm.  Maybe "---" for "/"?

What about ":"?  

And what about "~"?

Plus other chars I've not thought of?




Making it even longer, if the *title* of the report in
the file is "10 easy editing tips", and I want that reflected
in the name too.


    Like 10-easy-editing-tips---http<colonSlashSlash>www.aaa.com... (you
     get the idea).


And, whatever we decide on, another question comes up -- how to ENTER
that NAME into the computer -- both in emacs (dired) and in, say, tcsh.

What, iva C-Q for emacs and ^V in unix.

Suggestions?


Thanks!


David


P.S.: Oh, I forgot.  tar shouldn't barf on the name.

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[The Badger]

Hello David,

Just a thought: Trying to encode the path of the remote file into the 
filename after downloading seems weird.  Why not just re-create the 
folder structure?

For example, if you download

http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm

then you would have the following file on your disk:

/home/david/my web downloads/www.aaa.com/~john/foo.txt

Isn't that what pretty much what `wget', or any other web downloader 
tool would do?

David Combs wrote:
> I'm downloading files of names like:
>
>
>      http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm
>
> Now, when I do this in a browser (I use lynx (shell-account))
> the default name to store it under is foo-txt.htm.
>
> Years later, what I'll want to know is exactly where it came from, ie
> I'd like the filename to depict the entire url.
>
>
> Like this, perhaps?
>
>      http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm
>
> Nope, because regardless of what the computer will
> make of it, it'll confuse *me* -- not knowing whether
> those slashes represent dir-separators within *my* computer,
> or in some far-away (maybe long dead) server.
>
>
> Hmmm.  Maybe "---" for "/"?
>
> What about ":"?  
>
> And what about "~"?
>
> Plus other chars I've not thought of?
>
>
>
>
> Making it even longer, if the *title* of the report in
> the file is "10 easy editing tips", and I want that reflected
> in the name too.
>
>
>     Like 10-easy-editing-tips---http<colonSlashSlash>www.aaa.com... (you
>      get the idea).
>
>
> And, whatever we decide on, another question comes up -- how to ENTER
> that NAME into the computer -- both in emacs (dired) and in, say, tcsh.
>
> What, iva C-Q for emacs and ^V in unix.
>
> Suggestions?
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> David
>
>
> P.S.: Oh, I forgot.  tar shouldn't barf on the name.
>
>
>
>   

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[David Combs]

In article <mailman.16876.1218850883.18990.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
The Badger  <badgy@example.com> wrote:
>Hello David,
>
>Just a thought: Trying to encode the path of the remote file into the 
>filename after downloading seems weird.  Why not just re-create the 
>folder structure?
>
>For example, if you download
>
>http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm
>
>then you would have the following file on your disk:
>
>/home/david/my web downloads/www.aaa.com/~john/foo.txt
>
>Isn't that what pretty much what `wget', or any other web downloader 
>tool would do?

Thanks for the suggestion

For some (many?) purposes, yes,  Like for downloading an entire
tree, of course.

But say I'm grabbing files about a given subject.  I google
the subject-name, and find some stuff here, some there,
some of them buried way down in some dir-structure --
and for this kind of thing, I want all of them that
I've checked out to be good stuff to be stuffed into
the same directory, like maybe

     myHistoryDoc/historyOfEmacs/

What then?

Thanks,

David

 

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Combs wrote:
> In article <mailman.16876.1218850883.18990.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
> The Badger  <badgy@example.com> wrote:
>> Hello David,
>>
>> Just a thought: Trying to encode the path of the remote file into the 
>> filename after downloading seems weird.  Why not just re-create the 
>> folder structure?
>>
>> For example, if you download
>>
>> http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm
>>
>> then you would have the following file on your disk:
>>
>> /home/david/my web downloads/www.aaa.com/~john/foo.txt
>>
>> Isn't that what pretty much what `wget', or any other web downloader 
>> tool would do?
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion
> 
> For some (many?) purposes, yes,  Like for downloading an entire
> tree, of course.
> 
> But say I'm grabbing files about a given subject.  I google
> the subject-name, and find some stuff here, some there,
> some of them buried way down in some dir-structure --
> and for this kind of thing, I want all of them that
> I've checked out to be good stuff to be stuffed into
> the same directory, like maybe
> 
>      myHistoryDoc/historyOfEmacs/
> 
> What then?


(expand-file-name "www.aaa.com/~john/foo.txt" historyOfEmacsDir)

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 15, 3:38 pm, dkco...@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:
> I'm downloading files of names like:
>
>      http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm
>
> Now, when I do this in a browser (I use lynx (shell-account))
> the default name to store it under is foo-txt.htm.
>
> Years later, what I'll want to know is exactly where it came from, ie
> I'd like the filename to depict the entire url.
>
> Like this, perhaps?
>
>      http://www.aaa.com/~john/foo-txt.htm
>
> Nope, because regardless of what the computer will
> make of it, it'll confuse *me* -- not knowing whether
> those slashes represent dir-separators within *my* computer,
> or in some far-away (maybe long dead) server.
>
> Hmmm.  Maybe "---" for "/"?
>
> What about ":"?
>
> And what about "~"?
>
> Plus other chars I've not thought of?
>
> Making it even longer, if the *title* of the report in
> the file is "10 easy editing tips", and I want that reflected
> in the name too.
>
>     Like 10-easy-editing-tips---http<colonSlashSlash>www.aaa.com... (you
>      get the idea).
>
> And, whatever we decide on, another question comes up -- how to ENTER
> that NAME into the computer -- both in emacs (dired) and in, say, tcsh.
>
> What, iva C-Q for emacs and ^V in unix.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
>
> David
>
> P.S.: Oh, I forgot.  tar shouldn't barf on the name.

what you want to do is pretty hopeless. Chars in url is confusing
enough, with its percent encoding, and when used in html as link,
there's also CDATA. Depending on the browser, or whatever tool you are
using, the url you get may or may not be processed to eliminate a
variety of encodings, and the encoding spec itself is not crystal
clear and in practice lots of actually invalid uri anyway...

chars in file names itself is also confusing. Different file systems
allow different char sets with different special char meanings, and
each generation of file system changes. (e.g. windows has “C:\\” and
“\” and if you are using cygwin you also get “/” ... mac has “:”
mostly in OS9, and “/” in OSX and there's complex char transform magic
underneath. Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
\'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)

the best thing to do is just to create a file like info.txt or
readme.txt or source.txt, then in that file put in the url, date, or
keywords and annotation. That's what i do.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
> alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
> \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)

Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
null character.  Of course most shells require proper quoting of
characters /they/ assign a special meaning to, as do programming
languages.  But that holds true for every OS and doesn't apply to the
GUI at all.


regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
> > alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
> > \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)
>
> Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
> null character.

To say that unix allows much wider chars in file names is like saying
mud is the best medium for sculpture.

Unix file names, for much of its history up to perhaps mid 2000s,
effectively just allows alphanumerics plus hyphen “-” and underscore
“_”. As a contrast for comparison, Mac's file names often contain
punctuations such as “,$#!*()” and space, but also allows non-ascii
such as

euro lang chars çö
printer's symbols †‡°
euro lang puncs «»¡
math ≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞
special symbols ™®©£¢

etc since the early 1990 or before.

ascii punctuations chars and non-ascii chars such as above are also
allowed in filenames in Windows since about Microsoft Windows NT in
late 1990s or earlier. Tools in MacOS (such as AppleScript) and
Windows, support, expect, these chars in file names.

Sure, you can use many non-alphanumeric chars besides hyphen and
underscore in unix, but the system is simply not designed for it.
Majority of unix tools, including file name listing, will chock and
break if your filename contain these chars. The chocking doesn't
actually give you a nice error message, but silently break and often
resulting in unexpected and unpredicable behavior. In short, it's just
not designed for it.

Issues like these often perpetuate the myth that unix is “powerful”,
but in fact it's just raw and no-design.

I wrote a essay describing this situation... here:

The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_phil.html

plain text version follows:

---------------------------
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Xah Lee, 2006-05

In the computing industry, especially among unix community, we often
hear that there's a “Unix Philosophy”. In this essay, i dissect the
nature and characterization of such “unix philosophy”, as have been
described by Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
and Richard P Gabriel et al, and in recent years by Eric Raymond.

There is no one definite set of priciples that is the so-called “unix
philosophy”, but rather, it consistest of various slogans developed
over the decades by unix programers that purport to describe the way
unix is supposed to have been designed. The characteristics include:
“keep it simple”, “make it fast”, “keep it small”, “make it work on
99% of cases, but generality and correctness are less important”,
“diversity rules”, “User interface is not important, raw power is
good”, “everything should be a file”, “architecture is less important
than immediate workability”. Often, these are expressed by chantible
slogans that exhibits juvenile humor, such as “small is beautiful”,
“KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)”.

Suppose, we take a team of student programers to produce a large
software system. When the software is done, give it to software
critics to analyze and come up with some principles that characterize
its design decisions, without disclosing the nature of the programers.
The characterization of such software, will more or less fit the
descriptions of the “Unix Philosophy” as described in different ways
by various unix celebrities.

For example, it would focus on implementation simplicity as opposed to
interface simplicity. It will not be consistent in user interface, but
exhibits rawness. It would be correct only for most cases, as opposed
to mathematically correct or generic. It would employ simplistic data
structures and formats such as text-files with rows of lines and space
separated columns, as opposed to a structured system or binary format
that requires a spec. It would be speedy, but less on scalability. It
would consists of many small programs, as opposed to one large system
with inter-dependent components. It would be easy to patch and port,
but difficult to upgrade its structure or adapt entirely new
assumptions.

The essence of this theory is that when a software is produced for
real world use, it is necessary that it works in some acceptable way,
otherwise the software will be continuously debugged and refined. A
software system written by a bunch of student or otherwise under-
educated programers, but refined long enough for acceptably practical,
real world use, will necessarily develop characteristics that is known
as the Unix Philosophy.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Xah wrote:

> On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
>> > alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
>> > \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)
>>
>> Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
>> null character.
>
> To say that unix allows much wider chars in file names is like saying
> mud is the best medium for sculpture.
>
> Unix file names, for much of its history up to perhaps mid 2000s,
> effectively just allows alphanumerics plus hyphen “-” and underscore
> “_”. As a contrast for comparison, Mac's file names often contain
> punctuations such as “,$#!*()” and space, but also allows non-ascii
> such as

In the early days of napster (around 2000) I downloaded an Asian pop
song with a beep (^G) in the filename.  That was on GNU/Linux.  Yes,
when I typed `ls' the xterm beeped.

I think at least the Linux kernel never gave a f*** about the characters
as long as it was no '/' or \0.  Though it wasn't that easy to rename
the files in this directory.

David

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[David Kastrup]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> writes:

> On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
>> > alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
>> > \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)
>>
>> Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
>> null character.
>
> To say that unix allows much wider chars in file names is like saying
> mud is the best medium for sculpture.
>
> Unix file names, for much of its history up to perhaps mid 2000s,
> effectively just allows alphanumerics plus hyphen “-” and underscore
> “_”.

You are making this up, period.  The earliest Unix systems, like from
the end of the seventies when a file name could just contain 14
characters, allowed all characters except slash and the null character.

> Sure, you can use many non-alphanumeric chars besides hyphen and
> underscore in unix, but the system is simply not designed for it.

Nonsense.

> Majority of unix tools, including file name listing, will chock and
> break if your filename contain these chars.

Nonsense.  If you use a file listing command without explicitly telling
it to escape control characters (and the file listing commands have
flags for doing so, while the default is for having the output verbatim,
for convenient use in pipelines), files with control characters in them
will mess up the terminal.

But you have not even been talking about control characters, just
printable characters.  And there you are just plainly wrong.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

btw, the eassy is now archived at:

On Unix Filename Characters Problem
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_filename_chars.html

Another related essay, about unix's case sensitivity, is at:

On Unix File System's Case Sensitivity
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/fileCaseSens.html

On Aug 24, 11:12 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Phil Carmody]

David Hansen <david.hansen@gmx.net> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Xah wrote:
>
>> On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>>> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
>>> > alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
>>> > \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)
>>>
>>> Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
>>> null character.
>>
>> To say that unix allows much wider chars in file names is like saying
>> mud is the best medium for sculpture.
>>
>> Unix file names, for much of its history up to perhaps mid 2000s,
>> effectively just allows alphanumerics plus hyphen “-” and underscore
>> “_”. 

I have to burst in here and simply state that I think that's
possibly the single least correct statement I've seen on 
this newsgroup ever.

>>As a contrast for comparison, Mac's file names often contain
>> punctuations such as “,$#!*()” and space, but also allows non-ascii
>> such as
>
> In the early days of napster (around 2000) I downloaded an Asian pop
> song with a beep (^G) in the filename.  That was on GNU/Linux.  Yes,
> when I typed `ls' the xterm beeped.

Most linux setups I've seen have had ls sanitise its output 
and filter out control characters. To examine what was filtered,
you could use ls -b to have them escaped instead.

> I think at least the Linux kernel never gave a f*** about the characters
> as long as it was no '/' or \0.  Though it wasn't that easy to rename
> the files in this directory.

You think right. Xah perhaps doesn't know the difference
between an OS and a shell?

If in doubt, simply prefix filenames with './'. That declaws
practically everything.

Phil
-- 
The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the 
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. 
The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Preface to Androcles and the Lion

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
>> > alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
>> > \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)
>>
>> Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
>> null character.
>
> To say that unix allows much wider chars in file names is like saying
> mud is the best medium for sculpture.

No, actually its not like that at all.  That would be an opinion, while
I stated a (verifiable/refutable) fact.

> Unix file names, for much of its history up to perhaps mid 2000s,
> effectively just allows alphanumerics plus hyphen “-” and underscore
> “_”.

According to Wikipedia, EXT2 (1993) supports all characters.  Older data
is harder to find.

What do you mean by the vague term "effectively"?

> Sure, you can use many non-alphanumeric chars besides hyphen and
> underscore in unix, but the system is simply not designed for it.

Please explain where the design falls short.

> Majority of unix tools, including file name listing, will chock and
> break if your filename contain these chars. The chocking doesn't
> actually give you a nice error message, but silently break and often
> resulting in unexpected and unpredicable behavior. In short, it's just
> not designed for it.

$ touch "=;\\'\"~&-“,$#\!*()” ™®©£¢≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞«»¡†‡°çö"
$ ls
=;\'"~&-“,0\!*()” ™®©£¢≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞«»¡†‡°çö
$ rm "=;\\'\"~&-“,$#\!*()” ™®©£¢≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞«»¡†‡°çö"

No problem there.



regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 25, 1:13 pm, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, EXT2 (1993) supports all characters.  Older data
> is harder to find.

unix uses UFS.

if i recall correctly, the ext2 didn't become popular until mid 2000.

don't want to argue... you can read more about unix issues on my
site...

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Nikolaj Schumacher wrote:
> Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> >> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Unix is the worst, they pretty much just allow
> >> > alphanumerics and not even space. If you have anything like “,=();
> >> > \'"~&-” etc, you can expect most shell tools to erase you disk)
> >>
> >> Actually unix systems allow pretty much every character except / and the
> >> null character.
> >
> > To say that unix allows much wider chars in file names is like saying
> > mud is the best medium for sculpture.
>
> No, actually its not like that at all.  That would be an opinion, while
> I stated a (verifiable/refutable) fact.
>
> > Unix file names, for much of its history up to perhaps mid 2000s,
> > effectively just allows alphanumerics plus hyphen “-” and underscore
> > “_”.
>
> According to Wikipedia, EXT2 (1993) supports all characters.  Older data
> is harder to find.
>
> What do you mean by the vague term "effectively"?
>
> > Sure, you can use many non-alphanumeric chars besides hyphen and
> > underscore in unix, but the system is simply not designed for it.
>
> Please explain where the design falls short.
>
> > Majority of unix tools, including file name listing, will chock and
> > break if your filename contain these chars. The chocking doesn't
> > actually give you a nice error message, but silently break and often
> > resulting in unexpected and unpredicable behavior. In short, it's just
> > not designed for it.
>
> $ touch "=;\\'\"~&-“,$#\!*()” ™®©£¢≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞«»¡†‡°çö"
> $ ls
> =;\'"~&-“,0\!*()” ™®©£¢≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞«»¡†‡°çö
> $ rm "=;\\'\"~&-“,$#\!*()” ™®©£¢≈∫µ∂ƒπ≠≤≥∞«»¡†‡°çö"
>
> No problem there.
>
>
>
> regards,
> Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 25, 1:13 pm, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>> According to Wikipedia, EXT2 (1993) supports all characters.  Older data
>> is harder to find.
>
> unix uses UFS.

You should be more clear if you're talking about UNIX or unix.  Neither
is limited to a single file system, though.

The oldest UNIX file system listed in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems was the
Version 6 FS, which allows "any byte except NUL and /" with a limit of
14 bytes in 1972.

UFS supports "any byte except NUL" with 255 bytes and (also according to
Wikipedia) was introduced in BSD 4.2 in 1983.

> if i recall correctly, the ext2 didn't become popular until mid 2000.

You're mistaken.  But that's not relevant.  The question is whether unix
is, by design, capable of handling characters outside the alphanumerical
range.

> don't want to argue...

Neither do I.  I just wanted to correct your mistake, so people don't
get a wrong image of unix.



regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 26, 8:02 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 1:13 pm, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> >> According to Wikipedia, EXT2 (1993) supports all characters.  Older data
> >> is harder to find.
>
> > unix uses UFS.
>
> You should be more clear if you're talking about UNIX or unix.  Neither
> is limited to a single file system, though.

if you are familiar with unixes, you should know that ufs is perhaps
the predominant file system used in unixes in the 90s, and not quote
some ext2 out of the blue.

> The question is whether unix is, by design, capable of handling
> characters outside the alphanumerical range.

a piss pot can technically hold any liquid other than piss, but it
does not mean it is suitable as a, say, coffee mug.

one way to see this is to check exactly how many people uses piss bots
for coffee mug.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The question is whether unix is, by design, capable of handling
>> characters outside the alphanumerical range.
>
> a piss pot can technically hold any liquid other than piss, but it
> does not mean it is suitable as a, say, coffee mug.
>
> one way to see this is to check exactly how many people uses piss bots
> for coffee mug.

You keep answering with metaphors.

What is broken or unpractical about "special" characters in unix file
names that works in other operating systems?



regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 26, 1:40 pm, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The question is whether unix is, by design, capable of handling
> >> characters outside the alphanumerical range.
>
> > a piss pot can technically hold any liquid other than piss, but it
> > does not mean it is suitable as a, say, coffee mug.
>
> > one way to see this is to check exactly how many people uses piss bots
> > for coffee mug.
>
> You keep answering with metaphors.
>
> What is broken or unpractical about "special" characters in unix file
> names that works in other operating systems?

The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.

I hope you agree the above is a good description of what we may be
debating. The issue is not, for example: “whether you can use char x
in a file name under a unix file system y”.

So, what does “support” mean here? Support doesn't mean whether a file
system allow certain chars in question. Support means users of that
system can use these chars in file name easily, as easy as any
alphanumeric chars. (Any brainless file system will support every
sequence of binary code as file name. Only if thought are put into it,
then it will actually reject certain chars as disallowed. The more
brainless, the less chars it'll reject, as in most unix's file
systems)

My argument is that, unix for much of its history up to perhaps mid
2000s when linux desktop becomes popular, does not support it. One
practical way to see why it doesn't support it is because people
simply don't use it. In fact, if i recall correctly, it is pretty
common, to see advices and FAQs in unix forums or books, that
recommend users to stick with alphanumerics plus “_” and “.” for file
names and almost nothing else. (i'll have to spend a few hours to dig
up the actual unix book titles, or find many posts, decades old unix
FAQs, that give these recommendations.)

Why unix doesn't support these chars? There are many factors. For one
thing, unix shell tools is one bag of inconsistency that their quoting
mechanism differs. In practicace, people use these mismash of tools to
work in unix, and if your file name contain odd chars, these tools
will break and break in bad ways. Basically, if your file names
contain odd chars, it make your life hell.

Also, unix is typically used over telnet/ssh. Telnet doesn't not
support non-ascii chars thru much of its history... and
implementations vary wildly in quality... the bottom line is that if
your file names contain odd chars, you'll have problem using telnet to
work with them.

It will take days to quote you the exact man page, or old man page
used in 1990s, on all these issues, on what tool support what escape
mechanism... or what tools will simply chock regardless what you
escape or quote the file name etc. If you have experience in unix in
say 1990s, you know as a fact that unix just don't support “odd”
chars. (odd here means basically anyting other than [A-z0-9], “.”,
“_”, “-”, “ ”)

then, as someone else mention, there's non-printable ascii issues.
Unix allows a bell ring in file names! so thoughtful. Doing a file
listing wing “bing” and “bong”! and if you inadventaly have ohter
control chars in file name, expect your screen to be filled with
majibake.

this is quickly written... i hope it convinces you.

btw, who are you? what's your background anyway?

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Bernardo Bacic]

> 
> The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
> support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.
this is off topic, i'm sure there are other lists that may appreciate such a 
discussion

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
> support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.
>
> I hope you agree the above is a good description of what we may be
> debating. The issue is not, for example: “whether you can use char x
> in a file name under a unix file system y”.

Yes.
Specifically we're also looking at your claim that unix is worse at this
than Macs and Windows.  And we're looking at design issues, not
individual bugs.

> So, what does “support” mean here? Support doesn't mean whether a file
> system allow certain chars in question. Support means users of that
> system can use these chars in file name easily, as easy as any
> alphanumeric chars.

Fair enough.

> My argument is that, unix for much of its history up to perhaps mid
> 2000s when linux desktop becomes popular, does not support it.

If the desktops resolved the issue, so did a lot of other tools like mc
or Emacs+dired.  Are your doubts are based entirely on the command line
environment?  If so, the argument might as well end here, because I
don't consider an OS broken if one of its tools doesn't provide
convenient access to all its features.  Especially since that same tool
has the same issues in other environments.

> One practical way to see why it doesn't support it is because people
> simply don't use it.

Sorry, but that's a flawed argument.  If it wasn't supported, people
wouldn't be using it.  That doesn't make the converse true.

> Why unix doesn't support these chars? There are many factors. For one
> thing, unix shell tools is one bag of inconsistency that their quoting
> mechanism differs.

I don't understand what you are saying. Tools generally don't have
quoting mechanisms, only the shell does.  Most unix shells are
compatible with the Bourne shell and use the same (straightforward)
quoting mechanism.  Most people don't use more than one shell.

> Also, unix is typically used over telnet/ssh. Telnet doesn't not
> support non-ascii chars thru much of its history... and
> implementations vary wildly in quality... the bottom line is that if
> your file names contain odd chars, you'll have problem using telnet to
> work with them.

That's an excellent example on why those HOWTOs suggest not to use those
characters.  However, telnet is an internet protocol.  It is operating
system independent.  You can't single out unix, because it is
"typically" used with it.  This isn't an unix issue at all.

Additionally, if implementations suck, that's a bug.

> If you have experience in unix in say 1990s, you know as a fact that
> unix just don't support “odd” chars. (odd here means basically anyting
> other than [A-z0-9], “.”, “_”, “-”, “ ”)

That's what we call a Totschlagargument here.
You're essentially saying:  If you'd been there, you'd know I'm right.

I'm surprised you've added space to the list, though.  Yesterday that was
on the other side.

> then, as someone else mention, there's non-printable ascii issues.
> Unix allows a bell ring in file names! so thoughtful. Doing a file
> listing wing “bing” and “bong”! and if you inadventaly have ohter
> control chars in file name, expect your screen to be filled with
> majibake.

Yes, that's silly.  It's generally silly to have a bell character these
days.  But that is (was) a shell problem.  Emacs can handle those files,
for instance.

> this is quickly written... i hope it convinces you.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.  That unix
design is flawed in this regard, or that implementations in the 1990s
mere broken.  I don't see how unixes are handling characters differently
than other operating systems, because you can't even give me one
example.  Additionally you stated that Macs don't have these problems.
However Macs are unix (even UNIX) machines.  So how would this alleged
design flaw not affect them?  Just because they are "typically" used
from a GUI?

> btw, who are you? what's your background anyway?

Is that supposed to affect my credibility?



regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 27, 4:58 am, Bernardo Bacic <bernardo.ba...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
> > support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.
>
> this is off topic, i'm sure there are other lists that may appreciate such a
> discussion

tell it to one Nikolaj Schumacher. She insisted this argument.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

Dear Nikolaj Schumacher,

you might be interested in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

For more about unix, you might be interested in my writings and
experiences about it.

★ The Unix Pestilence
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html

For some practical unix tips, see:

★ Unix Command Line Tools Tips
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/unix_tips.html

★ Mac OS X Command Line Tools Tips
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/macosx.html

★ Image Processing command line tips
http://xahlee.org/img/imagemagic.html

Also, i have a unix and emacs tip, here:

★ Emacs and Unix Tips
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_unix.html

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

On Aug 27, 7:05 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
> > support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.
>
> > I hope you agree the above is a good description of what we may be
> > debating. The issue is not, for example: “whether you can use char x
> > in a file name under a unix file system y”.
>
> Yes.
> Specifically we're also looking at your claim that unix is worse at this
> than Macs and Windows.  And we're looking at design issues, not
> individual bugs.
>
> > So, what does “support” mean here? Support doesn't mean whether a file
> > system allow certain chars in question. Support means users of that
> > system can use these chars in file name easily, as easy as any
> > alphanumeric chars.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > My argument is that, unix for much of its history up to perhaps mid
> > 2000s when linux desktop becomes popular, does not support it.
>
> If the desktops resolved the issue, so did a lot of other tools like mc
> or Emacs+dired.  Are your doubts are based entirely on the command line
> environment?  If so, the argument might as well end here, because I
> don't consider an OS broken if one of its tools doesn't provide
> convenient access to all its features.  Especially since that same tool
> has the same issues in other environments.
>
> > One practical way to see why it doesn't support it is because people
> > simply don't use it.
>
> Sorry, but that's a flawed argument.  If it wasn't supported, people
> wouldn't be using it.  That doesn't make the converse true.
>
> > Why unix doesn't support these chars? There are many factors. For one
> > thing, unix shell tools is one bag of inconsistency that their quoting
> > mechanism differs.
>
> I don't understand what you are saying. Tools generally don't have
> quoting mechanisms, only the shell does.  Most unix shells are
> compatible with the Bourne shell and use the same (straightforward)
> quoting mechanism.  Most people don't use more than one shell.
>
> > Also, unix is typically used over telnet/ssh. Telnet doesn't not
> > support non-ascii chars thru much of its history... and
> > implementations vary wildly in quality... the bottom line is that if
> > your file names contain odd chars, you'll have problem using telnet to
> > work with them.
>
> That's an excellent example on why those HOWTOs suggest not to use those
> characters.  However, telnet is an internet protocol.  It is operating
> system independent.  You can't single out unix, because it is
> "typically" used with it.  This isn't an unix issue at all.
>
> Additionally, if implementations suck, that's a bug.
>
> > If you have experience in unix in say 1990s, you know as a fact that
> > unix just don't support “odd” chars. (odd here means basically anyting
> > other than [A-z0-9], “.”, “_”, “-”, “ ”)
>
> That's what we call a Totschlagargument here.
> You're essentially saying:  If you'd been there, you'd know I'm right.
>
> I'm surprised you've added space to the list, though.  Yesterday that was
> on the other side.
>
> > then, as someone else mention, there's non-printable ascii issues.
> > Unix allows a bell ring in file names! so thoughtful. Doing a file
> > listing wing “bing” and “bong”! and if you inadventaly have ohter
> > control chars in file name, expect your screen to be filled with
> > majibake.
>
> Yes, that's silly.  It's generally silly to have a bell character these
> days.  But that is (was) a shell problem.  Emacs can handle those files,
> for instance.
>
> > this is quickly written... i hope it convinces you.
>
> Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.  That unix
> design is flawed in this regard, or that implementations in the 1990s
> mere broken.  I don't see how unixes are handling characters differently
> than other operating systems, because you can't even give me one
> example.  Additionally you stated that Macs don't have these problems.
> However Macs are unix (even UNIX) machines.  So how would this alleged
> design flaw not affect them?  Just because they are "typically" used
> from a GUI?
>
> > btw, who are you? what's your background anyway?
>
> Is that supposed to affect my credibility?
>
> regards,
> Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Cor Gest]

Why don't you just plagiarise 'The Unix-Haters Handbook" in some
shitload of essays and be done with the whole mess.

Cor
-- 
	Mijn Tools zijn zo modern dat ze allemaal eindigen op 'saurus'
        (defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
	     SPAM DELENDA EST       http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
              1st Law of surviving armed conflict : Have a gun ! 

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 27, 4:58 am, Bernardo Bacic <bernardo.ba...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
>> > support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.
>>
>> this is off topic, i'm sure there are other lists that may appreciate such a
>> discussion
>
> tell it to one Nikolaj Schumacher. She insisted this argument.

I didn't insist on an argument.  I corrected your mistake, so that
others wouldn't get their facts wrong.  Also I'm not a she.

> you might be interested in this article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

I find that very offensive.  I have talked about nothing but facts
and have intentionally left my personal opinions on unix out of it.

You are free to attack any of my conclusions or arguments on-list or
off-list, but to broadly question my common sense without naming any
flaw is something I can only see as an insult.

Good day, sir.



regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

On Aug 28, 2:42 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> Xah <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 4:58 am, Bernardo Bacic <bernardo.ba...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > The issue in this thread we are currently debating is whether unix
> >> > support file names with non-alphanumeric chars and non-ascii chars.
>
> >> this is off topic, i'm sure there are other lists that may appreciate such a
> >> discussion
>
> > tell it to one Nikolaj Schumacher. She insisted this argument.
>
> I didn't insist on an argument.  I corrected your mistake, so that
> others wouldn't get their facts wrong.  Also I'm not a she.

You are not a she? could u be a she-male then?

> > you might be interested in this article:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
>
> I find that very offensive.  I have talked about nothing but facts
> and have intentionally left my personal opinions on unix out of it.

Very true. But i find your critical thinking abilities, as exposed in
your writings, comparatively low. Therefore, i find it a good gesture
to give you honest advice.

Please let me know if any point in that Wikipedia article on critical
thinking you already know well, so that we can discuss facts well and
have a proper argumentation.

> You are free to attack any of my conclusions or arguments on-list or
> off-list, but to broadly question my common sense without naming any
> flaw is something I can only see as an insult.

No, it's not a attack or insult. Usually i do a 1 min research on
google group to see past exchanges between me and the tech geekers who
vie to argue with me. With a glimpse of me and joe's past exachanges,
i can get some idea of their nature, from their writing skill to
expertise area to thinking skill. With that knowledge, i can give a
more proper and fitting response.

Like you emphatically expressed, i also try to correct others so that
the young don't get corrupted by bad info.

Please don't feel bad if i tried to correct your correction. When you
tried to correct my correction of your correction and is corrected by
me again, i would advice not to insist on correcting it back, because
it is not fruitful. But if you insist on the virtues of facts and
corrections, i'm happy to follow your lead.

> Good day, sir.

Good morn actually, it's 3:13 am here. I'm off to bed.

Happy hacking,

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

> But i find your critical thinking abilities, as exposed in
> your writings, comparatively low. Therefore, i find it a good gesture
> to give you honest advice.

There is of course a chance that you have misunderstood something.

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Nikolaj Schumacher]

Xah <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 28, 2:42 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>
>> > you might be interested in this article:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
>>
>> I find that very offensive.  I have talked about nothing but facts
>> and have intentionally left my personal opinions on unix out of it.
>
> Very true. But i find your critical thinking abilities, as exposed in
> your writings, comparatively low. Therefore, i find it a good gesture
> to give you honest advice.

The last time I remember someone giving you advice, you answered:
"Can you keep to topic instead giving me extraneous advice?"

If you have any facts to add, I'll listen.  I'm not interested in taking
this discussion to a different level.


regards,
Nikolaj Schumacher

Re: (emacs+unix): How to have a file-name containing slashes, angle-brackets, etc?

[Xah]

2008-08-28

On Aug 28, 6:29 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
> Xah<xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2:42 am, Nikolaj Schumacher <m...@nschum.de> wrote:
>
> >> > you might be interested in this article:
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
>
> >> I find that very offensive.  I have talked about nothing but facts
> >> and have intentionally left my personal opinions on unix out of it.
>
> > Very true. But i find your critical thinking abilities, as exposed in
> > your writings, comparatively low. Therefore, i find it a good gesture
> > to give you honest advice.
>
> The last time I remember someone giving you advice, you answered:
> "Can you keep to topic instead giving me extraneous advice?"
>
> If you have any facts to add, I'll listen.  I'm not interested in taking
> this discussion to a different level.

There's the problem of knowledge gap among arguers in newsgroups.

suppose you are a unix historian or have 10 years of unix experience
in the industry. You made a opinion, then some kiddie who just hopped
onto the linux bandwagon thinks he knows about unix better, and
repeated and insistently to “correct your mistake, so that others
wouldn't get their facts wrong”.

What u gonna do?

Are you gonna, spend several hours, to supply “facts” and reasons as
the kiddie demands, so that the linux kiddie can possibly be satisfied
that you are right?

So, what would a good society solve the knowledge gap problem in
online forums? Should we demand that each poster, when in argument,
supply credentials, and we take measures to verify it? So, what would
a good society solve this?

I tell you, in general, this problem solved is in well educated
society, by the general good learning of respect and modesty. In Asian
cultures, this is taken to a higher level such that the youngsters
shouldn't even open their mouths.

If u have a opinion and think other's incorrect, state your opinion
and supply facts as much as you can, and leave it at that. Don't take
the haughty tone of “i'm here to correct your errors for posterity”.
The readers, can judge for themselves on what's correct.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄