> possible rather than impossible. Question is - why was hide the default
> and what was that decision based upon ?
I agree with Alan - this is the key question.
I would further argue that silence in response to this question
suggests that there was no carefully considered reason;
presumably a good hacker just followed the spec, without considering how
these CDs are actually used.
It further suggests to me that I should prep a patch.
Thoughts? Screams of protest? Helpful tips on to whom I
should send the patch?
Thanks,
Jer
Hi,
On 3 Jun 2002, Jeremy White wrote:
> possible rather than impossible. Question is - why was hide the default
> and what was that decision based upon ?
Supposedly, someone wanted it _really_ hidden. I can't currently think of
another sane reason, I don't know if you can and it's just these
headaches. However, what's the advantage in disappearing files?
I suggest making them readable, but not listed.
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Thunder from the hill <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Hi,
>
> On 3 Jun 2002, Jeremy White wrote:
> > possible rather than impossible. Question is - why was hide the default
> > and what was that decision based upon ?
>
> Supposedly, someone wanted it _really_ hidden. I can't currently think of
> another sane reason, I don't know if you can and it's just these
> headaches. However, what's the advantage in disappearing files?
>
> I suggest making them readable, but not listed.
>
No, I think that's a bad idea. Make them listed, but make it possible
to query the attribute flags.
-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
Hi,
On 3 Jun 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> No, I think that's a bad idea. Make them listed, but make it possible
> to query the attribute flags.
So you suggest letting ls do the hide? Or if not, what do we call them
"hidden" for?
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3 Jun 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>>No, I think that's a bad idea. Make them listed, but make it possible
>>to query the attribute flags.
>
>
> So you suggest letting ls do the hide? Or if not, what do we call them
> "hidden" for?
>
I don't think it makes any sense for anything in Unix to hide them at all.
The "hidden" flag, however, matters to programs like Wine.
-hpa
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 18:05, Jeremy White wrote:
> > possible rather than impossible. Question is - why was hide the default
> > and what was that decision based upon ?
>
> I agree with Alan - this is the key question.
>
> I would further argue that silence in response to this question
> suggests that there was no carefully considered reason;
> presumably a good hacker just followed the spec, without considering how
> these CDs are actually used.
>
> It further suggests to me that I should prep a patch.
Go for it. I'll give it a test in the -ac tree happily. If nobody
screams it can then go upstream.