I've been running a CentOS web server, it's not too bad, actually I've been using it as my primary computer right now temporarily. I love yum, makes things easy

Oh ffs, I hate that. I hate the UNIX filesystem entirely.

/usr/bin/local/
/etc/games/dumpface/
~/.cfg/name\ longer\ than\ 255\ characters\ so\ half\ of\ the\ GNU\ tools\ buffer\ overrun\ and\ it\ also\ has\ spaces\ so\ it\'s\ painful\ to\ type.rc

If you use debian based distros, it's really easy to run a command line and find out all the places programs put files.

If you're typing long file names like that, you're doing it wrong.

Yes, quotation marks. Or tab auto-completion so the filename will be escaped automatically. Or use a GUI tool.

Doesn't change the fact that long filename support is a crapshoot. Old-world UNIX paths were fixed at 256 characters (null-terminated.) You can even create filenames that contain nulls and control characters. It's FUBAR.

Um, old windows had same problem... not complaining about old windows for the same thing, though? Windows has plenty of FUBAR issues with their filenames as well. Odd quoting issues replace odd escaping issues (although in windows you have to type a quote first, in dos prompt, to get it to work, I would say the unix way is better), reserved file names (file names that can't be created in ANY directory, not just in a specific windows folder location): try making a file called prn.txt anywhere... good luck with that (and the error messages are so friendly).

I think it's cool that you can create odd filenames. Not that I need to, but why try to prevent it?

Brian: because doing things like naming a file "." is ridiculous and should never, ever be necessary. Nothing like trying to do rm . when you don't want the current folder >.>

Also, Windows will automatically quote paths on tab completion if they have spaces...

What do you mean by "old windows" because NT did not.

Um... what same problem are we allegedly complaining about?

FAT12 to FAT16 (pre-Windows 95) only allow A-Z, 0-9, space, a few punctuation marks (excluding '.', '..' and wildcard characters,) and ASCII values above 128 (extended language support with the correct codepage.)

"Old Windows" definitely never allowed control characters to be included in a filename. I'm also pretty sure nobody has ever rooted a Windows box because a filename was too long.

Because you won't be able to delete a filename that contains control codes or a null.

Some of the restricted filenames are to preserve backwards-compatibility with old apps. Windows redirects the file stream when you try to open "prn.txt." I think it's good for an operating system to prevent me from creating a file I cannot delete.

The rest of the reserved filenames are NTFS metadata, and they contain a $ - which is a restricted character dating back to MS-DOS 1.0.

Okay so let me get this straight. You don't want odd characters in your filenames. So... don't put them there? You don't want to go over the speed limit in your car... we better have manufacturers start putting speed limiters in all new cars to protect you from yourself.

It's easy enough to delete files with odd characters in them, anyway, although I never tried putting a null character in the filename (because I never wanted one there).

I think his problem is less he can, and more they do (Programmers).
So his car refuses to go under the speed limit.

bwa bwa bwa I've never in the past 10 years of using linux ever had any person or any program ever create some odd file I couldn't delete -- but yeah good point about that, probably that's what made him so bitter.

you can tell brian posted something because it has 'bwa bwa bwa' in it.

i'm not even sure what that means.

My computer has 217,088 files on it. I created 3000 of them, tops. The rest of them were created by Microsoft, Apple, Adobe and Richard M. Stallman - none of whom can make any claim to reliability or sensible design. People are stupid. Programmers are stupid.

I do not have the time to scan my file system to make sure my arbitrary file naming conventions are being obeyed, and I definitely don't have time to inspect all of the machine code on my computer that could potentially produce a filename. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend it is even possible to simply 'avoid' such a design flaw.

Yes, we're talking about measures designed to protect millions of people at the cost of mildly inconveniencing a tiny minority who think they're more talented than they really are. That's actually a really good analogy.

I've never met anyone who was suddenly taken by this plague of epic proportions that you speak of. But I can agree with you on this -- arbitrarily "weird" characters infecting our filesystems should be stopped immediately, and anyone found using said characters in their filenames should be immediately arrested. We need to think of the children and stop this insanity. It may not be our generation that pay for this gross oversight and lack of government intervention, but our children or grandchildren will. Obama 2012!

Nobody's insulting you, Brian. Nobody's forcing you to agree it is a design flaw. There's really no need for the attitude.

We need a :rms: emote for Brian.

This. I've had many friends come to me after they tried to install Linux on their machines and have no clue what to do, certain apps don't work, etc. And all I say is the same think Darth said 'welcome to linux'

My problems with Linux usually went as follows
1. Install Linux
2. Use apt-get to download the apps/dependencies i need
3. End up downloading 1 app or driver that just demolishes the computer in front of my eyes
4. BLANK SCREEN upon bootup
5. **** linux, going back to Windows

I also think it's funny how people when some command won't work in the Terminal, the linux geeks will go 'well, just put -f -x -c -a - tr -GRAH silly!' Yes, because we all just magically know this when we first start using Linux. Denying that Linux has no learning curve is pretty futile. I'm not saying the -f -x -c etc. is stupid. I'm just saying that it's just impractical for any new user. Those who actually remember and know how to use all that stuff *cough*GBK*cough* have my utmost respect.

Yes, because this is totally the same thing.

Look, give me a good reason why you'd want to ever have a file named ".". Ever.

Your car analogy applies well here! Speed limiters protect drivers from themselves, but limit something that can actually be used in various cases (racing strips for one).

Odd character filtering for file names and such serves the purpose of protecting the user from making something that they would never have an intentional reason of making.

I just got lectured by JonC for attitude. What is the world coming to?

mscbuck: I never stated there wasn't a learning curve. I never said learning command line programs was easy. However, if a command isn't working for you, there are many ways to get help. Also, my kids have accounts on my linux machine and have no problem logging in, checking their email, browsing the web, etc. If the first thing you are trying to do is recompile your kernel or make your games work on linux under Wine, well, you're doing it wrong. Yeah, that crap can be done, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to someone new at this.

CM: I never said I wanted a file named "." did I? What I am trying to say is that I don't need the operating system to coddle me and protect me. Every time you decide for the user what the user should want or need you have to write code to enforce that. Every additional line of code for this kind of bull**** adds complexity and the potential for bugs and inconsistencies. It's not worth it because if you don't want a file with the name of "." simply don't make one. It's like complaining because your car let you throw a wrench into the cooling fan and your fan blades broke. Yeah, sucks for you, but you're a moron if you do that. You going to go to Ford and tell them their car should have prevented you from doing damage?

Windows and all operating systems allow you to do stupid stuff that can catastrophically destroy your installation and require either reinstallation or a lot of knowledge and time to fix it. In fact, if you use a regular user account on a linux system, this is very, very hard to do. It's much easier to screw crap up on windows than linux. If you are constantly typing "sudo" to do stuff on linux, you are doing it wrong. If you go into windows folder and start deleting stuff, you are doing it wrong, but the operating system lets you do it. Picking one silly, little, inconsequential thing like being able to create a file that your choice of shells doesn't let you delete for some odd reason and saying Linux sucks because of that is wrong and adds nothing of value to anything. You know just enough to get yourself in trouble, clearly, but not enough to actually look for a solution to get that file deleted (I promise, there's a way, and it's not that difficult).

Anyway, regarding windows and this stuff, I just tried it. Windows has inconsistencies and oddities that demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. I went to dos prompt and tried to create a file called "." Permission denied. I tried to create a file called "foo." (note trailing .). It let me, but the file was actually called foo with no "." on the end (this is bad, the OS indicated that it let me, but really it changed the file name behind the scenes). I then went into windows explorer and tried to create a folder called "." A modal dialog box comes up, "You must type a file name." Which is weird, right, because I did type a file name. And there's no other files in that dir called "." (since it's just a convention for moving up and down directories using a shell). I press okay, and then try to call it "?" and I get a tiny info popup thing, "A filename cannot contain any of the following characters..." So, in trying to save myself from myself, they came up with inconsistent behavior and inconsistent ways to notify me.

Anyway, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The linux filesystem you're using must allow files called "." But your shell (probably bash) gets confused when you do that because it uses "." as a convention to reference the current directory. There's not really a file called "." in your current directory (I promise). So, get a different shell, or figure out how to escape it, or better yet, stop making stupid file names.

A. Your analogy doesn't apply whatsoever. If it were to apply, there'd be no hood, and a sign above the fan saying "Insert stuff here". Hope you know which stuff!
B. I am pretty much in shock that you think there should be absolutely no "protection" for the end user. Everyone is human, Brian, even you. Using your ridiculous rantings as a basis for an OS, we'd be left with some stripped down, held together by a string OS that crashes, errors, and such if you look at it the wrong way. Why? Because the user should just know how to avoid crashing it!



Actually, in recent versions of windows, you can't go deleting system files willy nilly on a regular user account either.

Also, you're picking on one silly, little, inconsequential thing too here, so much for that argument.



So because it is not clear in telling you the rules for making it, they should just let users do whatever the hell they want! Sure!

Hey, let's make everyone root users as well! No one's accidentally rm -rf /'d before!



Every linux shell I've ever used, even just SH, does that. Also, I await the day when you accidentally rm -rf / your whole drive.

Dude, you can rm -rf your whole windows drive, too. You're complaining about crap you can do on windows, mac, linux, etc., and trying to pretend like it's a linux problem.

Also, the hood of a car is for a lot more than keeping people from dropping stuff in the fan. And regarding my ridiculous rantings, according to you, they already have used them for the basis of an operating system, and that seems to be linux, in your estimation.

And for the record, you're the one complaining about an entire operating system because it lets you make a file called "." (which you asked it to do, apparently). I'm just saying, if you don't want a file called "." don't make one. Not too difficult a concept, really.

Oh no, some girl stubbed her toe on a tree root in a national park, let's pass a law to protect her!!!!!!!! Complaining about making a file name called "." is even more ridiculous than that, since you did it on purpose.

...And you're still completely ignoring the fact that programs can (and do) autonomously create files.

I'm not ignoring that. I already stated that I've never witnessed this and nobody I know on earth (except you guys) have told me this is a problem. Who cares what files a program makes anyway? You have a few options. Stop using said program. Use another OS completely. Ask the author to stop it. Ignore it. No skin off my back. Also, it's a program that's doing that, not "linux."

Windows programs created a file called "{F3AF6BA2-8DFB-4AC9-8AD8-5EC04534E6B8}" on my hd. I have the same options I discussed above if I don't like it using meaningless filenames.

A GUID isn't meaningless.

It's just as meaningless to an end user as a "."

The end user may not be able to understand the meaning of "{F3AF6BA2-8DFB-4AC9-8AD8-5EC04534E6B8}," but its existence will not cause the end user's operating system to malfunction.
Try dumping a bunch of VT100 control codes into your filenames and run ls. Especially delete, and see what tab completion gets you. This is bad voodoo. It's nice that nobody abuses it (as far as we know) but it's still seriously messed up.

...This thread has made me think back to an old IIS bug. Someone with Linux should try to create a file named with the characters: 0xC0 0xAF. Then try deleting it with a GUI tool.
Might wipe out root, don't try unless you're in a VM (or have backups)

I never said you couldn't do that on Windows or Mac. The point is, you can't do it without root user access (or administrator on windows).

If users are to be fully trusted with what they're doing, and no nannying, then why even bother having different levels of access? Why should an administrator even have a regular user account?


For the record, that was merely an example to counter yours about nanny OS features. There are other examples as well, including the rm -rf issue. I don't particularly care about linux vs. windows, it's more your belief that OSes shouldn't do anything at all to protect the user.

You seriously think a non-root user can rm -rf a linux drive?

Do you not read my posts or...

I said, you apparently think everyone should be running root all the time, and thus able to rm -rf / all the time. After all, why bother nannying!

Except creating a file with the name "." doesn't have any security implications whatsoever. You're projecting your ideas of what someone else would want to do with their computer into operating system policy somehow. Just because you can't think of a use for something, or perhaps I should say, just because you don't think someone else has properly justified their reason for wanting an operating system to let them create a file with name ".", the entire operating system should prevent it. I'm saying, that's complete bull****, just because you don't like someone's justification, reason, or lack thereof should definitely not obligate someone else to program their operating system (or filesystem + shell) to your liking.

Are you one of those people who hate gas-guzzling SUVs and try to prevent everyone else from using them because their reasons aren't good enough for you? And that comparison again isn't really valid because me having directories full of files called "." doesn't impact your ability to do anything whatsoever (whereas me driving an SUV could possibly impact you by making you breathe more fumes than were I to try to tow my boat with a prius).

Okay, let's make a deal. You come over to my house and look through my files and delete anything that has a filename you don't like. Would that make you feel better? You can even borrow my snuggie while you're doing it.

I'm not rejecting justification, I am saying there is none. You've yet to make even one lousy justification for it other than "I JUST WANT TO".

And it's merely an example. Jon`C provided another, naming a file / using UTF8 characters, causes a file that you can't readily delete easily from the console as well. Even absolute paths will not work, you have to use wildcards or a gui/special tool.

Also, what's the difference between security and nannying anyway? I consider having regular user accounts to be nannying, even if it is a security implication. A knowledgeable user could make his own protections against root pitfalls!

"I just want to" is justification, even if you don't agree with it. Actually, I've stated on numerous occasions that I don't want to, and never have. Odd that I haven't been bitten by this yet, maybe it's not as big of a problem as you're trying to claim?

Multiple user accounts doesn't seem like nannying to me, seeing as how I can't find any other reliable way to let multiple people use the same computer without stepping on eachother's toes. But if you're going to go log in as root all the time, why do I care?

The difference between us is that you seem to think the operating system should prevent you from logging in as root all the time and I think it's fine that they let you, but if you do something dumb, it's your own fault.

And, just for the record, I have, in the past, accidentally rm -rf my whole home directory. Did it piss me off? Yes. Did I blame the designers of the OS? No. Do I think they should change the way it works to pop up a prompt asking me whether I really want to delete my whole home directory? No.

Again, not what I said. Those multiple user accounts would all be root access.



Having the option is different than saying you can do it all the time, which is what you were saying before. Having the option means more nannying, more "bugs", according to you.

The fact that you think a program should never second guess the user is absolutely ridiculous in all cases. And thankfully, it seems many, including those in the linux community, agree with me on that. (By doing things such as aliasing rm to rm -i by default, or aliasing the rm -rf / command so that it doesn't work, etc)

I officially have no idea what you are talking about. You are free to make a linux box and give root access to all users. It's really moronic but feel free... I really don't understand what you are trying to say. It seems to me you said:

"It's stupid to allow file names with "." so the OS shouldn't allow it."

and then I said:

"It's stupid but if you don't want file names called "." don't make them. I don't think the OS should disallow stuff just because you think it is stupid."

and then you said:

"You should be able to make user accounts all running as root."

and then I said:

"Sure, you can do that, go ahead, but it's stupid." (note I didn't say the OS should prevent you from being stupid, but you did)

And also, putting bash aliases to try to prevent stupid crap is also stupid. The "linux community" doesn't agree with, whoever packaged bash for your distro may have, but please notice, it's really, really easy to disable those aliases and rm -rf your whole drive. It's not PREVENTING you, it's warning you, there's a huge difference. But I think warnings are stupid in this case, too. If I tell my computer to do something, it would be nice if it did it.

Did you know windows allows you to turn off the option to warn you every time you delete a file!? *gasp* and you can even turn off the annoying prompt when you empty your recycle bin.

This whole conversation is stupid. You can sit there all you want telling me it's better to have an OS protect me from myself. I am going to say all I want that I'd rather have an OS that doesn't do that, because it's annoying. There are drawbacks to either side -- yours, I get constantly warned and popped up to death and it makes the whole experience frustrating. Mine, I run the risk of deleting my drive w/out being warned (guess how often that happens). Big deal? The fact is BOTH operating systems (rather, Windows and various linux distros) coddle users to a certain extent. You appreciate the coddling. I don't. What's the point of arguing about this?

No, I said that's what you want to do. Because that is what you want to do. You want complete 100% access with no warnings or anything. Well that's root. And it is stupid, but hey, that's what you've been telling us you want out of an OS, so by all means, run all your accounts with root privileges.

You know what I hate about linux

How it gets people like Brian in a huff when someone talks about it even in a remotely negative way?

I'm glad this went so well.

Did you know that the design of the Linux kernel is a joke? Tanenbaum was right, monolithic kernels were obsolete in the 70s.

And it didn't even have a fully preemptible kernel until 2.6!

Also, Linux Torvalds is a perversely brilliant person, because he is smart but a horrible engineer. Ever read his rants against C++? He doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about and uses his ego and authoritarian position as a "god" to make other people look stupid without actually addressing their arguments.