Re: file name

[<jbush@pucp.edu.pe>]

verbosity will get you nowhere :]]]]

i well understand your using unix, hard to beat . . . but in the miserable
world of windows problems do arise . . .

if you have ever tried the wonderful program called iris you will find
that it does not recognize *.fits . .  i have written to christian buil
about this but no reply, i guess there are more important things in his
life than trying to adjust to everyone's desires . . .

jamie


On Fri, 8 Jun 101 edward@seaysystems.com wrote:

> Received from jbush@pucp.edu.pe:
> >
> > i would like to know what is the benefit of naming a file with a four chr
> > extension ?
>
> I think you have it backwards.  You are showing the influence that a
> broken "operating system" has had on you.
>
> Why have an "extension" at all?  MS/DOS needed some way to tell if it
> could execute a file or not (admittedly inherited from CP/M).  But that
> doesn't make it right.  It does limit the choices of the user.
>
> I have lived too many years in the UNIX environment.  The "." is just
> another character in the file name.  There is no such thing as an
> "extension", just "endings" agreed upon through convention, not enforced
> by the operating system.  I like my freedom.
>
> It seems that the folks at Micro$oft have realized this.  The recent
> offerings allow long file names with "extensions" more than three characters
> in length.
>
> > there are some astronomy programs that will not recognize such a
> > configuration
>
> Brokenness in the astronomy program.  Recently DOS will supply an 8.3
> filename for you to use with these.  I hope you have a "~" on your keyboard.
>
> > come on, make it a good reason, and i mean a very good one :]]]
>
> Rather, give me a reason to limit myself to 3 characters...
>
>