If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote: This whole "issue" seems to be a case of PEBKAC to me. yep. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Tim Streater
wrote: On 2017-12-12, Arthur Wood wrote: guy named Fudman who is very knowledgeable in bimmer engines so for him to complain means that it's not obvious to all Macintosh users - but when I Being knowledgeable about car engines doesn't magically make him representative of all Macintosh users. I'm willing to bet most Mac users know how to rename a file. Anyone who uses all of the above platforms on a regular basis knows renaming files on macOS is just as simple as it is on Linux or Windows. Click the file's name and you are in filename editing mode - simple. the problem is that he changed the file's extension and hide extensions is normally on. the same problem exists on windows but he's too stupid to realize what the actual problem is and would rather just troll under yet another nym. This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. yep. classic mac os did not use file extensions. it used metadata, specifically type and creator, which worked *very* well. there was also a mechanism to automatically add extensions when transferring files to other systems for compatibility purposes. unfortunately, the rest of the world was stuck with extensions, so with os x, apple decided to join the crowd. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Paul
wrote: This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. The HOSTS file, an OS file provided by Microsoft, has no file extension. that's an exception. the hosts file is a system file and assumed to be text. I think an extension is "recommended" for naive users. more than just naive users. file associations are based on extensions. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On 2017-12-12 15:07, Your Name wrote:
You over-complicated the problem by making it a "fake PDF". He over complicated with his cologne: "Whiff of troll". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Tim Streater writes: In article , nospam wrote: In article , Jolly Roger wrote: On 2017-12-12, Arthur Wood wrote: guy named Fudman who is very knowledgeable in bimmer engines so for him to complain means that it's not obvious to all Macintosh users - but when I Being knowledgeable about car engines doesn't magically make him representative of all Macintosh users. I'm willing to bet most Mac users know how to rename a file. Anyone who uses all of the above platforms on a regular basis knows renaming files on macOS is just as simple as it is on Linux or Windows. Click the file's name and you are in filename editing mode - simple. the problem is that he changed the file's extension and hide extensions is normally on. the same problem exists on windows but he's too stupid to realize what the actual problem is and would rather just troll under yet another nym. This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. What nonsense might that be? Windows (and DOS) don't require an extension; OK, they normally _use_ one (and I definitely agree with all who think hiding them's a bad idea and certainly shouldn't be the _default_), but there's no _requirement_. Of course it is a requirement. Quick, go change a .exe to have no extension and see what happens when you try to run it, Or change any file with an extension and then try to use it as intended. The most obvious example being, I think, the hosts file. The only example. Or it not only, the one in a million example. -- Slab: Jus' say 'AarrghaarrghpleeassennononoUGH'. --Feet of Clay |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message , Lewis
writes: In message J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Tim Streater writes: [] This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. What nonsense might that be? Windows (and DOS) don't require an extension; OK, they normally _use_ one (and I definitely agree with all who think hiding them's a bad idea and certainly shouldn't be the _default_), but there's no _requirement_. Of course it is a requirement. Quick, go change a .exe to have no extension and see what happens when you try to run it, Or change any file with an extension and then try to use it as intended. I'm not sure how to run a .exe without an extension, but that doesn't stop me having the file. Certainly, I can have say a Word file without ..doc and open it in Word, or a text file without .txt and open it in Notepad. If by "as intended" you mean "by double-clicking on it", that's what extensions are _for_; but they're certainly not a _requirement_. Your comment that they are required would only make sense if, in some other OS you are familiar with, you can have filenames without extensions that still open in the appropriate application by being double-clicked on (or equivalent operation in that OS). The most obvious example being, I think, the hosts file. The only example. Or it not only, the one in a million example. It's the only one I could think of where _Microsoft_ do something with a file without an extension on its name. That doesn't mean anyone else among us can't have such, if they want to. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf pu gnikcab yb naem uoy tahw siht sI |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On 12/12/2017 03:55 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
[snip] This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. You can create a file that looks like it has no extension (actually the extension is an empty string) and work with it, although some programs may add an extension. What Windows won't accept is a filename that is ONLY extension (such as ".htaccess" (it complains about there being no filename). I just checked this on Windows 7, but it appears to be correct fir other versions as well. -- 12 days until the winter celebration (Monday December 25, 2017 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Whenever religion is involved, terrorists kill more people." [Dr. Bruce Hoffman, director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University, Scotland] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. What nonsense might that be? Windows (and DOS) don't require an extension; OK, they normally _use_ one (and I definitely agree with all who think hiding them's a bad idea and certainly shouldn't be the _default_), but there's no _requirement_. Of course it is a requirement. Quick, go change a .exe to have no extension and see what happens when you try to run it, Or change any file with an extension and then try to use it as intended. I'm not sure how to run a .exe without an extension, but that doesn't stop me having the file. Certainly, I can have say a Word file without .doc and open it in Word, or a text file without .txt and open it in Notepad. If by "as intended" you mean "by double-clicking on it", that's what extensions are _for_; but they're certainly not a _requirement_. Your comment that they are required would only make sense if, in some other OS you are familiar with, you can have filenames without extensions that still open in the appropriate application by being double-clicked on (or equivalent operation in that OS). classic mac os did exactly that. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Tim Streater
wrote: Your comment that they are required would only make sense if, in some other OS you are familiar with, you can have filenames without extensions that still open in the appropriate application by being double-clicked on (or equivalent operation in that OS). classic mac os did exactly that. And that is still the case, AFAICT. I just removed .tiff from a file and double-clicked it. Still opened in Preview. mac os x tries to do that but it's not 100%. classic mac os was designed *not* to use extensions. The type of a file and which app you'd like it to open with are items of file metadata and have no business being part of the filename. yep. unfortunately, that ship has sailed and we're stuck with extensions. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On 2017-12-13 22:13:44 +0000, Tim Streater said:
In article , nospam wrote: In article , J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows nonsense of *requiring* a file extension. What nonsense might that be? Windows (and DOS) don't require an extension; OK, they normally _use_ one (and I definitely agree with all who think hiding them's a bad idea and certainly shouldn't be the _default_), but there's no _requirement_. Of course it is a requirement. Quick, go change a .exe to have no extension and see what happens when you try to run it, Or change any file with an extension and then try to use it as intended. I'm not sure how to run a .exe without an extension, but that doesn't stop me having the file. Certainly, I can have say a Word file without .doc and open it in Word, or a text file without .txt and open it in Notepad. If by "as intended" you mean "by double-clicking on it", that's what extensions are _for_; but they're certainly not a _requirement_. Your comment that they are required would only make sense if, in some other OS you are familiar with, you can have filenames without extensions that still open in the appropriate application by being double-clicked on (or equivalent operation in that OS). classic mac os did exactly that. Yes and no. Classic Mac OS doesn't need filename extensions as such, but does have a similar technique stored within the file's Finder data (the File Type and Creator codes). These just aren't visible to the general user without using something like ResEdit, Resourcer, FileBuddy, etc. And that is still the case, AFAICT. I just removed .tiff from a file and double-clicked it. Still opened in Preview. That's because *that* file had already been set as a TIFF and associated with Preview. The preference has already been stored in the Finder's data files and the OS doesn't bother to change that ... unless you change the filename extension to a different one (try changing the filename extension from .tiff to .docx, for example, and see what happens when you double-click it). Try saving a TIFF file without the extension and then double-clicking it. Finder will ask you what to open it with, and then associate that choice with that file. The type of a file and which app you'd like it to open with are items of file metadata and have no business being part of the filename. It is useful and sensible to have the file type as part of the filename. Otherwise you'd get a pile of files which neither you nor the OS having any idea whether they are images, sounds, text, etc. You would then have to try to open the file in every app you own until you found one that could open it ... you can't rely on the OS to do that since a JPEG image file can actually be opened in a text editor as the file's data, even if it's rarely useful to do so. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Your Name
wrote: Your comment that they are required would only make sense if, in some other OS you are familiar with, you can have filenames without extensions that still open in the appropriate application by being double-clicked on (or equivalent operation in that OS). classic mac os did exactly that. Yes and no. actually, just yes. Classic Mac OS doesn't need filename extensions as such, but does have a similar technique stored within the file's Finder data (the File Type and Creator codes). These just aren't visible to the general user without using something like ResEdit, Resourcer, FileBuddy, etc. in other words, no extensions. The type of a file and which app you'd like it to open with are items of file metadata and have no business being part of the filename. It is useful and sensible to have the file type as part of the filename. no it's not. Otherwise you'd get a pile of files which neither you nor the OS having any idea whether they are images, sounds, text, etc. You would then have to try to open the file in every app you own until you found one that could open it ... nonsense. it uses the type/creator to decide which app to launch when double-clicked. you can't rely on the OS to do that since a JPEG image file can actually be opened in a text editor as the file's data, even if it's rarely useful to do so. drag the file to whatever app you want to use, and if it can handle it, it will open it. bbedit, for example, will open a jpeg (or anything else for that matter) as text. alternately, open the file from within the desired app. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On 2017-12-14 03:16:11 +0000, Wolf K said:
On 2017-12-13 19:37, Your Name wrote: On 2017-12-13 22:13:44 +0000, Tim Streater said: In article , nospam wrote: [...] The type of a file and which app you'd like it to open with are items of file metadata and have no business being part of the filename. It is useful and sensible to have the file type as part of the filename. Otherwise you'd get a pile of files which neither you nor the OS having any idea whether they are images, sounds, text, etc. You would then have to try to open the file in every app you own until you found one that could open it Many files have such type-identifiers included. E.g., a JPG file begins with JFIF, a WordPerfect file includes WPC in the first line, an MS .doc includes "Microsoft Word Document" in plain text in the header, and so on. Some image viewers will even tell you that the extension doesn't match the file type, if that happens to be the case. But then you actually have to open the file to see that. The filename extension, or Classic Mac OS's type and creator codes, don't need the file to be opened to find out what it is ... or at least supposedly is since those can be easily fooled. ... you can't rely on the OS to do that since a JPEG image file can actually be opened in a text editor as the file's data, even if it's rarely useful to do so. That's what Open With is for. Open With is near useless if you don't know what the file actually is. You'd have to Open With with every app you have until you found one that could open it properly. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
Your Name wrote:
On 2017-12-14 03:16:11 +0000, Wolf K said: That's what Open With is for. Open With is near useless if you don't know what the file actually is. You'd have to Open With with every app you have until you found one that could open it properly. If you don't have any tools, and are on a desert island, you use "Open With" "Wordpad" to figure out what something is. It's not that hard. ******* In Windows 10, you'd do: bash cd /mnt/c/users/freddy/Downloads file my_unknown_file_download and it would tell you. Not everyone installs the optional bash (downloads from the Store, on command). ******* On Windows 7, you could get a copy of this. As you wouldn't have the Bash version to use. http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/file.htm Paul |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message , Tim Streater
writes: [] The type of a file and which app you'd like it to open with are items of file metadata and have no business being part of the filename. 1. I think it does no _harm_ to have it as part of the filename, though. 2. The use of metadata requires that it be _in the file_, not in something the OS stores _alongside_ the file - since that can get separated from it, or corrupted separately. And since there are filetypes for which metadata _isn't_ in the file (plain text being the obvious, but I think some forms of raw image, some hex dumps and the like ...), that ship has sailed. It's rather like those photo-album softwares that use their own tags, which get confused if someone moves one of the image files in explorer without telling the photo-album software. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech; they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader), in RT 6-12 July 2013 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file? (Now discussion of metadata)
In message , Tim Streater
writes: In article , Wolf K wrote: On 2017-12-13 19:37, Your Name wrote: On 2017-12-13 22:13:44 +0000, Tim Streater said: In article , nospam wrote: [...] The type of a file and which app you'd like it to open with are items of file metadata and have no business being part of the filename. It is useful and sensible to have the file type as part of the filename. Otherwise you'd get a pile of files which neither you nor the OS having any idea whether they are images, sounds, text, etc. You would then have to try to open the file in every app you own until you found one that could open it Many files have such type-identifiers included. E.g., a JPG file begins with JFIF, a WordPerfect file includes WPC in the first line, an MS .doc includes "Microsoft Word Document" in plain text in the header, and so on. Some image viewers will even tell you that the extension doesn't match the file type, if that happens to be the case. Then you've put the metadata inside the file, which is even worse. It should be part of the file system. On the contrary: I think metadata _should_ be inside the file. That way it can't be separated, even if the file is moved (or even emailed). Relying on it being part of the file system only works while you're inside the same OS, unless you believe in forcing all OSs to have the same standards for handling metadata. MP3 and JPG files don't seem to come to any harm by having metadata inside them. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf All's well that ends. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|