On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:21:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <uq7io1$34gg1$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 10/02/2024 09:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-02-09 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:19:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here’s what the OP said:
>>>>
>>>> No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
>>>
>>> You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
>>
>>
>> There is only a single OP, which is always the parent post of the
>> entire thread, which is yours in this case, a post in which you
>> explained how to make ext4 directories case insensitive, on 2024-02-08
>> 02:48
>>
>> If the thread then diverges in other branches, the OP remains being the
>> same, for ever. Even if the Subject line is changed.
>>
> I love the smell of semantics in the morning.

In any event, the only real complaint I've seen is when
a case-sensitive filesystem, with casefolded name collisions,
is switched to case-insensitive.

But you can't do that with Linux. The Linux scheme of doing
this: first, the filesystem has to be specially-formatted
to even support the casefolding. Then, the *empty*
directory needs to be set chattr +F. Since
the directory _must_ be empty, there won't be
any name collisions.

This approach appears to have been well thought-out,
and I imagine it might be useful for web
directory hierarchies.

--
-v

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 02:20:15 Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 2/8/24 18:39, Marc Olschok wrote:
>> I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
>> would desire case-insensitivity.
>
> I used it in the late '90s to host files on a Linux web server that had
> been written to be hosted on a Windows web server. There were WAY TOO
> MANY mixed case references to the same file. index.html != INDEX.HTML
> != InDeX.hTmL.
>
> Enabling the feature on the Document Root for that site allowed the
> Linux box to serve that site without any modifications.

Well, sanitizing the html files containing the references would have
been my first idea. But I see that this is a matter of the amount of
work involved. Nowadays one would problably use rewrite rules within
the server.

--
M.O.

On 2/10/24 18:12, Marc Olschok wrote:
> Well, sanitizing the html files containing the references would have
> been my first idea. But I see that this is a matter of the amount of
> work involved. Nowadays one would problably use rewrite rules within
> the server.

I looked into that, but it wasn't an option for me.

It was some sort of HTML version of dead tree books; think O'Reilly
animal collection or something like that.

The HTML files were one thing, but the search engine bit was another.

There was something that was going to be a LOT of work to fix and then
there was going to be something else that was impossible to fix without
source code.

Allowing mixed case support was about #5 of the preference list, but it
is what was done for the task then at hand.

But it was only done for the directory containing the books.

I also don't remember it requiring a format. But that was many file
systems ago.

--
Grant. . . .

On 11/02/2024 00:08, vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:21:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <uq7io1$34gg1$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 10/02/2024 09:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-09 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:19:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here’s what the OP said:
>>>>>
>>>>> No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
>>>>
>>>> You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is only a single OP, which is always the parent post of the
>>> entire thread, which is yours in this case, a post in which you
>>> explained how to make ext4 directories case insensitive, on 2024-02-08
>>> 02:48
>>>
>>> If the thread then diverges in other branches, the OP remains being the
>>> same, for ever. Even if the Subject line is changed.
>>>
>> I love the smell of semantics in the morning.
>
> In any event, the only real complaint I've seen is when
> a case-sensitive filesystem, with casefolded name collisions,
> is switched to case-insensitive.
>
> But you can't do that with Linux. The Linux scheme of doing
> this: first, the filesystem has to be specially-formatted
> to even support the casefolding. Then, the *empty*
> directory needs to be set chattr +F. Since
> the directory _must_ be empty, there won't be
> any name collisions.
>
> This approach appears to have been well thought-out,
> and I imagine it might be useful for web
> directory hierarchies.
>
Does anyone still use those? 99% of big sites seem to use some active
interpretation of URLS to serve you a bunch of executable - or is that
execrable - javaScript code..and any case folding is done there.

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

Den 2024-02-09 skrev Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid>:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 02:48:02 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive
>> file/directory names?[...]
>
> I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
> would desire case-insensitivity. But of course it helps to be aware
> of this possibility just in case one runs into a system configured
> this way. Thanks.
>

I would desire it for every day use, because there are practically no
instances where I would want to differentiate two files only by
character casing. As an example, I will never create Report.tex and
report.tex in the same directory as two separate reports.

I think Windows got this one right, but I also think that the
case-sensitive assumption has been prevalent in *nix for too long for
me to ever run my file systems case-insensitive.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 22:06:50 Andreas Kempe wrote:
> Den 2024-02-09 skrev Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid>:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 02:48:02 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive
>>> file/directory names?[...]
>>
>> I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
>> would desire case-insensitivity. But of course it helps to be aware
>> of this possibility just in case one runs into a system configured
>> this way. Thanks.
>>
>
> I would desire it for every day use, because there are practically no
> instances where I would want to differentiate two files only by
> character casing. As an example, I will never create Report.tex and
> report.tex in the same directory as two separate reports.

Neither would I. However I often use case to distinguish
- files and Directories
- tracks and Albums among mp3/ogg music files
- journal articles and Books
and of course I want to preserve this when moving stuff around.
And sometimes I encountered downloads where some files only
differed in case, so although I would not do this, I always
felt to be on the safer side when I could distinguish them afterwards.

>
> I think Windows got this one right, but I also think that the
> case-sensitive assumption has been prevalent in *nix for too long for
> me to ever run my file systems case-insensitive.

Yes, I guess this is the most compelling reason.

--
M.O.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:

> I think Windows got this one right ...

I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
remarks like
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.

Remember that Windows, like Java, is saddled with that clunky
albatross known as “UTF-16”, since it embraced Unicode back when
everybody had been led to believe that it was a fixed-length 16 bit
code. And also before Unicode actually developed its standard
case-folding algorithm.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> Do you linux geeks EVER run applications that run outside the command line?
>

Of course. But only if something actually needs graphics.

For all the rest, (even this news reader), there is the Xterm.

Jack
--
She came late to bed at 3AM. "You're drunk" I said.
She asked "How do you know?"
"You live next door." I replied.

On 2/11/24 18:54, Jack Strangio wrote:
> Of course. But only if something actually needs graphics.
>
> For all the rest, (even this news reader), there is the Xterm.

XTerm supports (at least) three types of graphics;

- ASCII character based
- SIXEL raster pixel based
- ReGIS vector pixel based

Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal.

--
Grant. . . .

Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
>
>> I think Windows got this one right ...
>
> I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
> remarks like
><https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
>

I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?

Regardless of Microsoft's implementation possibly being buggy, I stand
by my opinion of a case-insensitive file system being a good idea.

On 12/02/2024 12:43, Andreas Kempe wrote:
> Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
>>
>>> I think Windows got this one right ...
>>
>> I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
>> remarks like
>> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
>>
>
> I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
> pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
> systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
> they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?
>
> Regardless of Microsoft's implementation possibly being buggy, I stand
> by my opinion of a case-insensitive file system being a good idea.

Whatever floats your boat.

I see it, in a linux contezt, as YANF - yet another needless feature
that will break the *expected* behaviour of a file system.

Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.

As with deciding that it's OK to drive on any side of the road you feel
like, I see trouble, ahead...:-)

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

Den 2024-02-12 skrev The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>:
> On 12/02/2024 12:43, Andreas Kempe wrote:
>> Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Windows got this one right ...
>>>
>>> I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
>>> remarks like
>>> <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
>>>
>>
>> I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
>> pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
>> systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
>> they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?
>>
>> Regardless of Microsoft's implementation possibly being buggy, I stand
>> by my opinion of a case-insensitive file system being a good idea.
>
> Whatever floats your boat.
>
> I see it, in a linux contezt, as YANF - yet another needless feature
> that will break the *expected* behaviour of a file system.
>
> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
> filenames.
>
> As with deciding that it's OK to drive on any side of the road you feel
> like, I see trouble, ahead...:-)
>

If you read my prior post, you will see that while I think a
case-insensitive file system is preferrable, I also realise that that
train left the station a long time ago for Linux and Unix. All my file
systems are case-sensitive to avoid issues.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
> filenames.

Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently
case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g.
Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case-
insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.

On 2024-02-10 09:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 02:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 01:44:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/02/2024 21:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Standard coreutils programs like cp, mv, ls etc already work fine.
>>>
>>> They are linux utils.
>>
>> Wasn’t the argument made that there would be problems in both directions?
>
> Probably. What has that got to do with anything?
>
> Do you linux geeks EVER run applications that run outside the command line?

Certainly, full time.

This instant, for instance: Firefox (two different profiles),
Thunderbird, Libre Office... and several others you will not know.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-02-12 21:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
>> filenames.
>
> Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently
> case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g.
> Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case-
> insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.

As data store, not for the system itself.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:41:19 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2024-02-12 21:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
>>> filenames.
>>
>> Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently
>> case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g.
>> Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case-
>> insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.
>
> As data store, not for the system itself.

Not sure a) what that means, or b) what its relevance is to anything.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
> filenames.

macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been case
insensitive all along.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:30:19 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
>> filenames.
>
> macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been case
> insensitive all along.

And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself
“Unix”.

On 2024-02-12 23:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:41:19 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> On 2024-02-12 21:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
>>>> filenames.
>>>
>>> Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently
>>> case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g.
>>> Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case-
>>> insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.
>>
>> As data store, not for the system itself.
>
> Not sure a) what that means, or b) what its relevance is to anything.

No? Then I will not explain.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 02:13:16 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Then I will not explain.

Big surprise ...

On 2/12/24 17:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself
> “Unix”.

Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, OpenMVS, OpenServer, and UnixWare question the
veracity of /the/ /one/.

There's even a Linux distribution that has permission to call itself "Unix".

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
>
> XTerm supports (at least) three types of graphics;
>
And not forgetting (n)curses-based

> Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal.

Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure text-only
virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen or so virtual
desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text terminals open at the
same time. (I tend to do that.)

:)

Jack
--
They call me 007 at work:
0 Motivation
0 Skills
7 Smoke Breaks

On 2/12/24 21:20, Jack Strangio wrote:
> And not forgetting (n)curses-based

The ASCII character based I mentioned covers that.

IMHO (n)curses is a way to manage what characters are written where.

> Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
> text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen
> or so virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text
> terminals open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)

Yep.

--
Grant. . . .

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 03:20:17 -0000 (UTC), Jack Strangio wrote:

>> Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal.
>
> Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
> text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen or so
> virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text terminals
> open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)

And copy-and-paste, that great innovation of the GUI paradigm, works
really well between text (editor and terminal) windows. Very useful for
automating command sequences.

Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of actions
(keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI widgets, between
windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
> On 2/12/24 17:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself
>> “Unix”.

I don’t think TNP was talking about the trademark users so much as the
wider set of things which provide a reasonably faithful implementation
of the normal Unix interfaces.

> Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, OpenMVS, OpenServer, and UnixWare question the
> veracity of /the/ /one/.

The context was ‘desktop Unix’, and most of those only made any sense as
server deployments. Solaris certainly qualified in the past but it’d be
a weird choice today. I can’t remember if Unixware ever had pretences to
desktop use, I only used it as a server (until Linux matured enough to
replace it).

> There's even a Linux distribution that has permission to call itself
> "Unix".

So I’ve heard.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/