Adding a note to a File Name?

[Mike Barnes]

Perhaps when [MS] introduced "folders" people took them as just another name
for "directories", but the definition of a folder is an object that contains
other object, and it is not necessarily a directory. Some folders are
directories, and behave like directories, but others are not.

I don' think that's a clear explanation. AIUI, an Object is a
programming element that accepts some input(s) and provides some
output(s). From the user's POV, a well tested Object is a chunk of code
that functions like a black box. I can see programming a directory as
an Object, but I don't know whether that's how folders are actually
implemented in Explorer.

In any case, how Explorer implements folders is irrelevant, since
functionally, folders in Explorer are directories: they are lists of
files, including files which are themselves lists of files, aka
subdirectories or sub-folders. And so on, nesting as many levels as
you like to some limit built into the OS.

The fact that "folder" is used for other kinds of objects is IMO A Very
Bad Idea, and not only MS is guilty of this, viz. the "folders" in
Thunderbird. Only if the folder has subfolders is it an actual folder
(directory). The lowest level in any TB folder tree is a dual file, one
containing the messages, and the other an index to those messages.

I suspect that "folder" was originally used because a) it's shorter and
easier to say than "directory"; and b) it reminded the users of file
folders, the actual physical objects they were used to. The metaphor
worked, IOW. But since then, things have gotten messy. Bah!

Another reason things have got messy is the Windows default setting that
hides the extensions of known file types in Explorer. Because of this,
a folder can contain more than one item with (apparently) the same name.
This breaks a Golden Rule of directories.

 

[Steve Hayes]

Other than the library folders, which other folders are equivalent to
directories? Restrict the use of the word folder to the OS only, not
as Thunderbird uses them, or similar, as noted in another message in
this thread.

"Folders" was a bad metaphor in the first place -- Microsoft's equivalent of a
whip-socket on a horseless carriage.

..

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Thanks. I think someone else offered the same guess. We call it Independence
Day, or July 4th, or the 4th of July, as examples, but I've never heard it
called national day.

No, nor have I! I just used that form to avoid spelling it out, to make
the reader think of it: by far the commonest way I've heard Americans
refer to it is the fourth (or 4th) of July. I was just pointing out that
that is in the order 4-7, which is not the way Americans would normally
put it!

Interesting post from Steve Hayes, which sort of suggests I've invented
a new generic term in "national day"; I certainly wasn't intending to be
that serious! Incidentally, St. George's is hardly marked at all in
England: I think most English people wouldn't be able to actually tell
you when it was (I happen to remember as it's my birthday), and you
certainly don't see many English flags out on it. (In fact you rarely
see them at all, except for some reason on church towers; in recent
decades that could be thought to be because of their use by football
[US: soccer] supporters and the sometimes unruly behaviour of same, but
the rarity of the English flag I think predates that matter.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to
be
doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor
(1889-1945)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

I think you, I, and other computer users here expect more from the
average computer user in their desire to know more about how computers
work, and we are constantly disappointed in this regard.

[]
You said a bundle there. (And it applies to life - and, especially,
technology - generally: the lack of interest in how things work is
constantly disappointing to the teacher in me. [And no, I'm not in the
teaching profession.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be
doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor
(1889-1945)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

DUH!

The implied implication in your use of that doesn't help!
Agreed. But that is because you and I misunderstood what they were all
about: we'd been led to believe they were (going to be) pointers. I'm
not sure how we came to be under that misconception, but it's widespread
enough that I don't think it's just our misunderstanding.

I already find them to be useful. With the way that I use them, they would
become much less useful if they worked the way you want them to work.

I think it would be truly useful for we pointer-believers (?) if you
were to give some examples of how you actually do use them. Since they
are _not_ just pointers, then I still haven't grasped what they _are_
for, so some examples could be genuinely useful. (Academically for me:
I'm still on XP, and happy with it.)

If you're truly working only on copies, never on originals, then your work
flow and my work flow have little in common.

I am nearer you than Wolf on that, in that I work on originals more than
is probably wise. After all, how often do you make a copy? Every day?
Hour? Minute? If pretty often, how do you manage all the copies that are
created: or do you always delete all old ones when making a new one?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be
doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor
(1889-1945)

 

[Ken Springer]

In message <[email protected]>, Ken Springer

I think you, I, and other computer users here expect more from the
average computer user in their desire to know more about how computers
work, and we are constantly disappointed in this regard.

[]
You said a bundle there. (And it applies to life - and, especially,
technology - generally: the lack of interest in how things work is
constantly disappointing to the teacher in me. [And no, I'm not in the
teaching profession.])

And when things go wrong, as friends they ask us to fix it, but still
don't care to know how to prevent it from happening again. A cycle that
just repeats itself. :-(


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

No, nor have I! I just used that form to avoid spelling it out, to make
the reader think of it: by far the commonest way I've heard Americans
refer to it is the fourth (or 4th) of July. I was just pointing out that
that is in the order 4-7, which is not the way Americans would normally
put it!

In my experience Americans - or at least some - freely alternate between
saying the 24th of August and August 24th.

I don't mean equally; I don't know whether it's 50-50, 10-90, or 90-10.

Interesting post from Steve Hayes, which sort of suggests I've invented
a new generic term in "national day"; I certainly wasn't intending to be
that serious!

From the beginning, I never thought there was anything wrong or obscure
with your use of the term. To me, it's a standard generic often used for
such holidays.

There's a radio announcer who has his Daily Almanac in which he gives
various bits of info such as sun- and moonrise, some famous birthdays,
notification of Pi Day or Banana Cream Pie Day, and remarks like "today
is Porphyria Day, the national day of Rouvalia". Sometimes he'll say
"national holiday".

 

[Ken Springer]

Perhaps when [MS] introduced "folders" people took them as just another name
for "directories", but the definition of a folder is an object that contains
other object, and it is not necessarily a directory. Some folders are
directories, and behave like directories, but others are not.

I don' think that's a clear explanation. AIUI, an Object is a
programming element that accepts some input(s) and provides some
output(s). From the user's POV, a well tested Object is a chunk of code
that functions like a black box. I can see programming a directory as
an Object, but I don't know whether that's how folders are actually
implemented in Explorer.

In any case, how Explorer implements folders is irrelevant, since
functionally, folders in Explorer are directories: they are lists of
files, including files which are themselves lists of files, aka
subdirectories or sub-folders. And so on, nesting as many levels as
you like to some limit built into the OS.

The fact that "folder" is used for other kinds of objects is IMO A Very
Bad Idea, and not only MS is guilty of this, viz. the "folders" in
Thunderbird. Only if the folder has subfolders is it an actual folder
(directory). The lowest level in any TB folder tree is a dual file, one
containing the messages, and the other an index to those messages.

I suspect that "folder" was originally used because a) it's shorter and
easier to say than "directory"; and b) it reminded the users of file
folders, the actual physical objects they were used to. The metaphor
worked, IOW. But since then, things have gotten messy. Bah!

Another reason things have got messy is the Windows default setting that
hides the extensions of known file types in Explorer. Because of this,
a folder can contain more than one item with (apparently) the same name.
This breaks a Golden Rule of directories.

No, it actually doesn't break the rule. What the user sees looks like
it breaks the rule, but it doesn't since the user just isn't seeing the
full filename. Macs have done this for years, AFAIK. When using a Mac,
I always show the extensions so I know what type of file I'm dealing with.

The system works with the full filename, AFAIK, not just what the user sees.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Ken Springer]

"Folders" was a bad metaphor in the first place -- Microsoft's equivalent of a
whip-socket on a horseless carriage.

I think it's a good metaphor, the problem arises when software like
Thunderbird uses the word "folders" but the software doesn't follow what
one would logically think.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Ken Springer]

The implied implication in your use of that doesn't help!

Agreed. But that is because you and I misunderstood what they were all
about: we'd been led to believe they were (going to be) pointers. I'm
not sure how we came to be under that misconception, but it's widespread
enough that I don't think it's just our misunderstanding.

I think it would be truly useful for we pointer-believers (?) if you
were to give some examples of how you actually do use them. Since they
are _not_ just pointers, then I still haven't grasped what they _are_
for, so some examples could be genuinely useful. (Academically for me:
I'm still on XP, and happy with it.)

I'm hoping Char responds to my post about what (s)he thinks are in a
library file, before I post anything else.

I am nearer you than Wolf on that, in that I work on originals more than
is probably wise. After all, how often do you make a copy? Every day?
Hour? Minute? If pretty often, how do you manage all the copies that are
created: or do you always delete all old ones when making a new one?

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Paul]

On 2013-08-22 3:16 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Perhaps when [MS] introduced "folders" people took them as just
another name
for "directories", but the definition of a folder is an object that
contains
other object, and it is not necessarily a directory. Some folders are
directories, and behave like directories, but others are not.

I don' think that's a clear explanation. AIUI, an Object is a
programming element that accepts some input(s) and provides some
output(s). From the user's POV, a well tested Object is a chunk of code
that functions like a black box. I can see programming a directory as
an Object, but I don't know whether that's how folders are actually
implemented in Explorer.

In any case, how Explorer implements folders is irrelevant, since
functionally, folders in Explorer are directories: they are lists of
files, including files which are themselves lists of files, aka
subdirectories or sub-folders. And so on, nesting as many levels as
you like to some limit built into the OS.

The fact that "folder" is used for other kinds of objects is IMO A Very
Bad Idea, and not only MS is guilty of this, viz. the "folders" in
Thunderbird. Only if the folder has subfolders is it an actual folder
(directory). The lowest level in any TB folder tree is a dual file, one
containing the messages, and the other an index to those messages.

I suspect that "folder" was originally used because a) it's shorter and
easier to say than "directory"; and b) it reminded the users of file
folders, the actual physical objects they were used to. The metaphor
worked, IOW. But since then, things have gotten messy. Bah!

Another reason things have got messy is the Windows default setting that
hides the extensions of known file types in Explorer. Because of this,
a folder can contain more than one item with (apparently) the same name.
This breaks a Golden Rule of directories.

No, it actually doesn't break the rule. What the user sees looks like
it breaks the rule, but it doesn't since the user just isn't seeing the
full filename. Macs have done this for years, AFAIK. When using a Mac,
I always show the extensions so I know what type of file I'm dealing with.

The system works with the full filename, AFAIK, not just what the user
sees.

Macintosh is more complicated than that. The file extension on a Mac,
is mainly a "hint" to the user, a carry-over from a Windows
dominated world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork

"Note that the Macintosh file systems also have a separate area for
metadata distinct from either the data or resource fork. Being part
of the catalogue entry for the file, it is much faster to access this.
However, the amount of data stored here is minimal, being just the
creation and modification timestamps, the file type and creator codes, <---
fork lengths, and the file name."

You can set the Type and Creator fields for a file, with a separate
utility. I use FileTyper for this, but I can't even find a picture
of it any longer. This is an example of something similar. This
is a utility that allows setting Type and Creator metadata. The
Type field has storage space for four characters, and so does
the Creator field. A Type value of "TTXT", is a text file.

http://dazuma.freeshell.org/filetyper/graphics/shot1.gif

If I have a file "blah.pdf", if I set Type and Creator to "PDF " "CARO",
then when I double-click the file, Acrobat Reader opens. If I download
a PDF file from the Internet, and double-click it, the default
system PDF viewer opens instead. Using that metadata, is
very convenient, for doing a file-by-file binding of default
application, to the file. No extension necessary. The extension
is a "hint" for humans. Using Type and Creator field, and
setting the files one by one, I can have half my PDF files
open in System PDF viewer, half of the files open in Acrobat
Reader, when they're double-clicked.

Unix systems use /etc/magic, as a series of file signatures.
(And the newer MacOSX is a Unix based OS underneath.)
That's how a Unix system can tell what a file is, without
relying on the file extension. If I store a "blah.pdf" download
as "blah.txt", Unix knows the file is a PDF, based on
checking the signature. The /etc/magic file is updated
on a regular basis, as more file types come into existence.
For example, I counted 136 separate classifications for text
files alone. That's how many unique characteristics they have.

(This is not the magic file. This is to demonstrate the examination
of files with a hex editor, to see the unique fields that identify
them. And allow a /etc/magic file to be constructed. Generally,
the objective is, to not read more than the first 1024 bytes
in a file, to figure out the file type.)

http://www.garykessler.net/library/file_sigs.html

Some more examples of the complexities of Mac, here. People
demonstrating the usage of the above.

http://macosx.com/forums/apple-news-rumors-discussion/9985-type-creator-vs-suffix.html

The Mac certainly works without intervention. But it's
capable of much more. If you know how some of those
things work, you can avoid that system PDF viewer from
opening I hate that thing.

Seeing the ".txt" on a file, makes it easier for Window refugees,
to drag and drop their file onto the SimpleText icon. I
certainly use and appreciate the presence of an extension on
a file. But I also use FileTyper a lot to make things work better.
I don't really like SimpleText all that much, which is why
I'd set my .txt files so BBEdit Lite opens them.

Windows does this binding globally, and there's nothing
wrong with that. At least, as long as you don't go changing
the file extensions. And most people don't do stuff like that.
That's probably one reason Windows hides the extension by
default, so you won't be tempted to mess around.

Paul

 

[Ken Springer]

Macintosh is more complicated than that. The file extension on a Mac,
is mainly a "hint" to the user, a carry-over from a Windows
dominated world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork

From the first sentence in that link:

"The resource fork is a construct of the (classic) Mac OS operating
system used to store structured data in a file, alongside unstructured
data stored within the data fork."

Note the phrase "(classic) Mac OS operating system". That means System
9.x and older. The OP spoke of OS X and iPads, neither of which have a
resource fork. And OS X is based on NextStep/OpenStep, which is either
Linux or Unix derived.

OS X 10.2 Jaguar had the ability to run the older software in a built in
emulator for the older OS. OS X 10.5 Leopard did not. Somewhere in
between Apple dropped that capability from OS X.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.4
Firefox 23.0
Thunderbird 17.0.8
LibreOffice 4.1.04

 

[Paul]

From the first sentence in that link:

"The resource fork is a construct of the (classic) Mac OS operating
system used to store structured data in a file, alongside unstructured
data stored within the data fork."

Note the phrase "(classic) Mac OS operating system". That means System
9.x and older. The OP spoke of OS X and iPads, neither of which have a
resource fork. And OS X is based on NextStep/OpenStep, which is either
Linux or Unix derived.

OS X 10.2 Jaguar had the ability to run the older software in a built in
emulator for the older OS. OS X 10.5 Leopard did not. Somewhere in
between Apple dropped that capability from OS X.

http://www.rubicode.com/Software/RCDefaultApp/faq.html#f2_4

"Can I assign Classic applications to be default handlers?

In MacOS X 10.2 (Jaguar), Classic applications should show up in the
suggested applications list, and can be assigned.

In MacOS X 10.3 (Panther), Classic applications no longer show
up in the suggested lists, but can still be assigned by using
the "Other..." option.

In MacOS X 10.4 (Tiger), Classic applications no longer appear
to work at all. This is most like due to the use of "bundle identifiers"
(see question and answer further down), which are a MacOS X concept
that no Classic applications will have.
"

But the Apple documentation, still mentions the methodology, as late
as 10.6.

"Launch Services Programming Guide"

https://developer.apple.com/library...html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000999-CH202-TP9

"Launch Services Concepts"

https://developer.apple.com/library...html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000999-CH202-TP9

"In addition, some Launch Services functions apply not to specific
individual items but to families of items defined by certain
identifying characteristics. These characteristics can include:

* A four-character file type code
* A four-character creator signature
* A filename extension
* A MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension) type
"

"Note: In OS X version 10.6 and later, Launch Services no longer
considers file creator signatures when binding documents to
applications. Launch Services ignores the creator signature when
it’s attached to a document.
"

But that implies the Type field in the metadata, such as "TTXT"
for TeachText (the precedessor to SimpleText), is still being
used in some way.

Even on my 10.2 system, setting the Type and Creator, can
launch a non-classic application. The Acrobat Reader wasn't
on the Classic side, whereas my BBEdit Lite example was on the
Classic side. The Acrobat Reader was on the MacOSX side.

The point is, launching applications on a Macintosh, is not
based solely on extension. And as this research is proving,
it has a pretty "dribbly" history. You have to be
an archaeologist to keep track.

It's almost as lame, as the statements Apple used to make,
about the maximum file size supported, the maximum number
of files (file system limits). Time and time again, the
information was shown to be incorrect. So while their
hearts are in the right place (over the years, providing
good documentation about how some of the stuff works),
they do have a weak spot on accuracy.

Paul

 

[Mike Barnes]

No, it actually doesn't break the rule. What the user sees looks like
it breaks the rule, but it doesn't since the user just isn't seeing the
full filename.

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

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

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

Macs have done this for years, AFAIK.

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

When using a Mac, I always show the extensions so I know what type of
file I'm dealing with.

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

The system works with the full filename, AFAIK, not just what the user sees.

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

 

[Char Jackson]

I've read and reread this post more times than I have fingers and toes,
and I'm totally befuddled and confused as to how you view Libraries and
what they actually contain. LOL

Would you mind describing what you think the contents of a Library
folder are? Actual folders/files? Copies of folders/files? Shortcuts
to files/folders? Something else?

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

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

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

 

[Char Jackson]

The implied implication in your use of that doesn't help!

Sorry, I was simply using a word to indicate a situation where something
that should have been totally obvious was somehow surprising.

I think it would be truly useful for we pointer-believers (?) if you
were to give some examples of how you actually do use them. Since they
are _not_ just pointers, then I still haven't grasped what they _are_
for, so some examples could be genuinely useful. (Academically for me:
I'm still on XP, and happy with it.)

I use Libraries to aggregate one or more (not a typo, but usually more than
one) non-Library folders. I access my Library folders with Windows Explorer,
which is by far my most-used Windows program. For me, working with Libraries
is 100% the same as working with non-Libraries since the only difference
deals with 'deleting' folders, and I don't do that from within a Library
view.

I wonder if this hysteria, confusion, and general fear was evident back in
the first days of a Windows GUI-based file manager. Can you imagine someone
deleting a file from within File Manager, then accessing the same folder via
the DOS prompt and freaking out because the file was gone? It's the same
thing now, and IMHO we should be well past that.



"I deleted a file from a Library and when I went to the actual folder I
discovered that the file was gone!"
To which I say, "DUH!"

 

[Steve Hayes]

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

 

[Mike Barnes]

I find it impossible to work like that, and have always changed it.

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

 

[Steve Hayes]

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

I wouldn't trust them with a computer at all. They are the ones who phone up
and say "My computer stopped working, can you help me?"

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I wouldn't trust them with a computer at all. They are the ones who phone up
and say "My computer stopped working, can you help me?"

Well, *can* you help them?

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