On Aug 25, 1:13 pm, Nikolaj Schumacher 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
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 5:31 am, Nikolaj Schumacher 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
