A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #196  
Old December 23rd 17, 10:42 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Your discussion from here
on in is nicely done, and helped me clarify "included in" and "included
with". You don't state it explicitly, but metadata for system use is
rarely the same as metadata for human use.

so what? there's all sorts of metadata for all sorts of purposes, and
where it's best stored can (and does) vary, even for the same metadata,
depending on the particular task.

Seems to me that it's where
these uses intersect that there is the most uncertainty, and hence
argument about where the data should go.

the argument stems from lumping everything into one pile.

It's not a pile. It's a structure.


more semantic nonsense.


You really hate semantics, doncha. Too bad. It's like the weather: it
affects you, for better or worse, no matter what you think or feel about it.


i hate when people play semantic games to try to argue.

call it whatever you want, a pile, a structure or a bag of bits. it
doesn't make a difference.

Well, in my mind it is, I don't know
about yours. It's incomplete, too, because I haven't made any attempt to
find out exactly how far the concept of metadata reaches.


you haven't made any attempt to understand much of anything.


On the contrary.


then whatever attempts you've made have been a massive failure.


Metadata of all types that you gave as examples is covered by "data used
to affect or determine how another chunk of data is handled by the
system, or used by a human."

That concept includes data-packet ID, since it's the ID that determines
the disposition of the data-packet (retain or discard). It's of course
possible to examine the contents of the data packet, etc, but that seems
to me irrelevant to the concept of "metadata".

One could of course dump the word, and invent several terms to refer to
the distinct functions of metadata. But it seems we're stuck with it, so
we had better be clearer about the complexity of the concept.


there's no need to invent new terms, as the existing terminology works
exceptionally well and has for a very long time.

i don't know why you continue to make up your own names for stuff, but
you do and that makes it impossible to communicate.


Because I want to understand, and not merely apply, terms.


i don't see any such wants.

data packets have headers.
files have metadata.
they are not the same.


Sure, if you think of files and data-packets as being fundamentally
different. You see them that way, I don't. "It's data all the way down."


then you're wrong (again).

files and data packets are fundamentally different, just as a house is
fundamentally different from the individual bricks used to build it.

I think the concept has grown away from the techs who invented it.

you think a lot of things, few of which have any basis in reality.

Well, one of the realities is that you can't control the development of
a term's meaning(s). To you, that's a abomination: any extension or
development of term's meaning is "wrong." To me, it's an opportunity for
analysis and understanding.


nobody is trying to control the meaning of anything.


Oh yes you are, every time to tell me that I'm using a term incorrectly.


nope.

the meanings are well established and have been for years and i'm using
them as the rest of the world (other than you) uses them.

if you use the terminology as is used in the industry and has been for
many decades, then there won't be any misunderstandings.

you're certainly welcome to use terms incorrectly or make up your own
terms, but don't be surprised when communication fails.


Actually, I am surprised.


surprised at what?

You guys present yourselves as intelligent persons. So I expect you to
to be at least as skilled as I am at detecting possible intended
meanings. And when terms are misused, I also expect a polite question or
two, and a rephrasing to show how those meanings should be expressed.
Such as, "By [term] do you mean X or Y"? And, "If you mean X, use [ABC]
instead. If you mean Y, then use [JKL].".


terms were not misused and you didn't ask for clarification.

i realize you are unfamiliar with mac os, both classic and mac os x, so
feel free to ask questions, which helps both you and others reading.

instead, you insist your bizarro definitions are how it is and that
*others*, including those who have been writing and using mac apps for
several decades, are wrong.

Instead, I see "idiot", "wrong", "nope", "ignoramus", etc.


that only came *after* you continued to insist you were correct despite
extensive proof to the contrary.

Frankly, I think you should be grateful that I'm willing to persist in
conversation with you.

BTW, when it comes to : vs / in Mac OS, I believe I now know which is
what, despite the disagreements that confused the issue.


somehow i doubt you know which is what.
Ads
  #197  
Old December 23rd 17, 10:42 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

A file is a file is a file. It's what you do with a
file that makes a program different from a document.
nope.

If you read a text file, it's a document. If you execute it, it's a
program. It's still all text.


nonsense.

apps are not text.
music, video and photos are not text.
lots of files are not text.


The misreading of my comment implied your response is breathtakingly
obtuse. "It" refers to the text file, no to any file.


that's *not* what you say below:

So whether a text file is a program or a document depends on what you do
with it.


as i said, that's
wrong. very wrong.


What part of "if you execute it, it's a program. If you read it, it's a
document" don't you understand?


what part of 'you haven't a clue' do you not understand?

Have you never written a program? If so, have you not noticed that what
you produce is a text file, that is, a stream of alphanumeric
characters?? And that it has to be labelled as a program so that the OS
will execute it? And if you label it a text file, the OS will call an
app to display it?


nonsense.

what is produced is a *binary* file, not a text file, and in many
cases, it's not a single file.

One of the endearing quirks of Mint is that it ask you what to
do when you double click on text file.


text files are normally associated with a text editor or word processor
rather than mint, so double-clicking it would launch *that* app, not
mint.


It's "Mint", not "mint".


that doesn't change anything.

Mint is an OS. I haven't a clue what you mean
by "mint" in this context.


i was thinking of https://www.mint.com.

i thought there were mac/windows apps, but apparently it's just mobile,
so there won't be any text files to double-click.


Every comment you make rests on the limited, narrow meaning of
"metadata" that you insist is the only correct one. OK,in certain
context it is. Technical terminology has its necessary uses. But even
technical terminology isn't fuzz-free. "Metadata" as shown in your
examples is a Fuzzy concept, even if limited to your examples.


i've said several times that there are many types of metadata, which
makes it a wide definition, not narrow.


But not wide enough IMO. Or better, not abstract enough. You conceive of
it in relation to files, not to chunks of data. I'm using "chunks of
data" because in several posts you used "data" in contrast to "program",
and I want to be absolutely clear that I'm referring to any chunk of
data whatsoever, including the type labelled "metadata".

A file is just another chunk of data, unless and until it has a
file-type identifier. Without that, the OS cannot deal with that chunk
of data as it should.


wrong.

files do not need a file-type identifier.

if there isn't any, the os will treat it as unknown, perhaps with some
predetermined default or it asks the user what to do.

You've already asserted and implied, more than once IIRC, that file-type
ID is metadata, in the context of musing about where that item of
metadata should go. But that concept means that "file" refers to a chunk
of data with a file-type ID. Conversely, it means that "metadata" refers
a chunk of data with some essential connection to a file. Hence,
limiting metadata as it applies only to files is circular.

Besides: In your list of metadata examples, you included some created
for human use alone, such as shutter speed.


shutter speed (and other exif data) is not limited to human use alone.

Humans use metadata somewhat
differently than OSs. That's where the fuzz comes in. I think a
different term for that type of metadata would be better.


there is no fuzz and what you happen to think is irrelevant.

what matters is how things *actually* work, not how you want it to
work, using industry standard terms to describe it, not made up
'abstractions'.
  #198  
Old December 24th 17, 09:15 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-12-23 09:10, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

[...]
Nope, ain't moving any goalposts. "Filename" refers to two things, that
which the user sees, and that which the OS sees. They are are usually
the same, but apparently on the MAC, they aren't always the same, and /
has to be "translated" to : or vice versa,

nope. there is only one file name.


Like I said, the referent of "filename" was unclear in several of the
posts.


No it was not. YOUR UNDERSTANDING was, and is, unclear. Not the same
thing at all.

You don't understand that I wasn't talking about filenames etc, I was
talking about "filename" etc.


That's an meaningless statement and you are making up "filename" as a
distinction from filename, and your made up distinction is meaningless
to anyone but you. It is exactly the same as if you decided that 'fudge'
meant 'whipped cream'.

For the last time: Way back when, there was a claim that Mac filenames
could or could not use : or / in a filename. I don't care which it was,
I was noting that the people who argued about it didn't have the same
concept for "filename". Hence my comment that there's an ambiguity about
the use of "filename".


There is no ambiguity. You keep repeating this, but it's still not
true.

You disagreed, because you're apparently one of those people who believe
that "words have meanings", which means that using a word for a
different meaning is "wrong."


Using a word for a made-up meaning that applies only to your useage is
as wrong as it is possible to be in terms of language. The purpose of
language is communication, and that requires that words mean as nearly
the same to everyone as is possible.

It's not, it's just different. Especially if the two meanings overlap.
IOW, words have uses. I was trying to clarify the uses.


No, you were trying to pervert precise technical language into some
bull**** that fit your ignorant argument so that you could claim to have
been right about the ignorantly misguided and totally wrong things you
said and continue to say.

But you weren't trying to clarify concepts, you were trying to "win" an
argument.


Hah. That is rich!

In terms of argument: Your claim that I'm confused merely supports my
claim that there's ambiguities. Because if there weren't I wouldn't have
noted that "filename" was being used for two different things.


Only by YOU.

But to find a file, you need more than a filename.

that was never in dispute.


Oh yes it was/is. Lewis claims you don't need those additional data. He
says a filename is enough to "specify" a file. The context of that claim
is "finding/locating a file."


I never said anything even slightly like that, you lying sack of ****.
You can go **** off now, ****bag.


FYI, in Message-ID: , someone
impersonating you said the following:
A pathname is not needed to specify a file, that is correct.


Your problem isn't with Wolf, it's with that guy. He's clearly making
things up as he goes, and he posts with the same nym that you use.

You may have "never said anything even slightly like that", but the
other Lewis certainly did. Actually, the quote above isn't even the only
time he said it. He repeated it again today.

Message-ID:
You do not need a pathname to find a file.


You seem like a sharp fellow, but the other Lewis is a complete idiot.

--

Char Jackson
  #199  
Old December 24th 17, 09:42 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:50:37 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

All terminology is abstraction. As you should know, since you use terms
at different levels of abstraction daily, if (as I speculate, but do not
infer) you are actually employed in the industry. If you haven't noticed
that terms operate at different levels of abstraction, you lack insight.
IOW, you don't know what you're doing. You are just following a recipe.
like an algorithm. Like a robot.

Say, maybe that's what you are, a 'bot!

Why didn't I think of that possibility before. You display all the
characteristics: picking up on a few key words, poor parsing of context,
interpreting words with rigid literalness, repeating phrases, and so on.

Well, well, well. Whoda thunk it?


There's a better than 50/50 chance that you're right, of course. I've
been aware of nospam since about 2000, when I was struck by the fact
that most responses are of the "nope" and "nonsense" varieties, with the
occasional "you're confused" or "you're wrong" tossed in to mix things
up. Fast forward to nearly 2018 and literally nothing has changed.

--

Char Jackson
  #200  
Old December 24th 17, 02:12 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

"Wolf K" wrote

| Say, maybe that's what you are, a 'bot!
|
| Why didn't I think of that possibility before. You display all the
| characteristics: picking up on a few key words, poor parsing of context,
| interpreting words with rigid literalness, repeating phrases, and so on.
|
There seems to be a type. The know-it-all
who likes to hold forth with pseudo-intellectual
talk, but doesn't actually function via analytical
thought. It's the short, loud man at the local
pub who always knows the answer.

There used to be a Microsoft MVP in the
programming groups who was strikingly similar.
He argued with anyone who expressed a view,
especially if that view was at all critical of
Microsoft. But each attack he made was always
attacking only a facsimile of the point:

A: The sky is blue.
B: Not on cloudy days.
A: True. But most people would agree the sky is blue.
B: Nonsense. There are lots of colors.

Such people are not bothered by "intellectual
conscience". They don't understand that what they
say is incoherent, which yields very creative logic.

They can do harm, though, in that they confuse
issues by talking nonsense while appearing to know
what they're talking about. The result is a lot of
misinformation. It's notable that there are always a
lot of onlookers who believe the know-it-all knows
what he's talking about. I've seen people defend
nospam that way: "Yes, he's annoying, but you
have to admit that he knows his stuff." (!)

And the man mentioned above was given MVP status by
Microsoft. I think that actually tech people are more
prone to this pattern than most. Just look at a Slashdot
discussion. Emotional development at a 12 year old level.
Logical thinking very advanced. Intellectual development
and multi-paradigmatic awareness missing altogether.
It's emotionally-driven machine thinking.

On the other hand, you're arguing with him. What
do you do when you think you've met the perfect lover
and she turns out to be a sex robot?


  #201  
Old December 25th 17, 04:00 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 390
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:


In message Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-12-23 09:10, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:
[...]
Nope, ain't moving any goalposts. "Filename" refers to two things, that
which the user sees, and that which the OS sees. They are are usually
the same, but apparently on the MAC, they aren't always the same, and /
has to be "translated" to : or vice versa,

nope. there is only one file name.


Like I said, the referent of "filename" was unclear in several of the
posts.


No it was not. YOUR UNDERSTANDING was, and is, unclear. Not the same
thing at all.

You don't understand that I wasn't talking about filenames etc, I was
talking about "filename" etc.


That's an meaningless statement and you are making up "filename" as a
distinction from filename, and your made up distinction is meaningless
to anyone but you. It is exactly the same as if you decided that 'fudge'
meant 'whipped cream'.

For the last time: Way back when, there was a claim that Mac filenames
could or could not use : or / in a filename. I don't care which it was,
I was noting that the people who argued about it didn't have the same
concept for "filename". Hence my comment that there's an ambiguity about
the use of "filename".


There is no ambiguity. You keep repeating this, but it's still not
true.

You disagreed, because you're apparently one of those people who believe
that "words have meanings", which means that using a word for a
different meaning is "wrong."


Using a word for a made-up meaning that applies only to your useage is
as wrong as it is possible to be in terms of language. The purpose of
language is communication, and that requires that words mean as nearly
the same to everyone as is possible.

It's not, it's just different. Especially if the two meanings overlap.
IOW, words have uses. I was trying to clarify the uses.


No, you were trying to pervert precise technical language into some
bull**** that fit your ignorant argument so that you could claim to have
been right about the ignorantly misguided and totally wrong things you
said and continue to say.

But you weren't trying to clarify concepts, you were trying to "win" an
argument.


Hah. That is rich!

In terms of argument: Your claim that I'm confused merely supports my
claim that there's ambiguities. Because if there weren't I wouldn't have
noted that "filename" was being used for two different things.


Only by YOU.

But to find a file, you need more than a filename.

that was never in dispute.


Oh yes it was/is. Lewis claims you don't need those additional data. He
says a filename is enough to "specify" a file. The context of that claim
is "finding/locating a file."


I never said anything even slightly like that, you lying sack of ****.
You can go **** off now, ****bag.


FYI, in Message-ID: , someone
impersonating you said the following:
A pathname is not needed to specify a file, that is correct.


Not at all the same thing. thanks for playing, but you scored nil.

--
Generalizations are always inaccurate.
  #202  
Old December 25th 17, 05:39 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:


In message Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-12-23 09:10, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:
[...]
Nope, ain't moving any goalposts. "Filename" refers to two things, that
which the user sees, and that which the OS sees. They are are usually
the same, but apparently on the MAC, they aren't always the same, and /
has to be "translated" to : or vice versa,

nope. there is only one file name.

Like I said, the referent of "filename" was unclear in several of the
posts.

No it was not. YOUR UNDERSTANDING was, and is, unclear. Not the same
thing at all.

You don't understand that I wasn't talking about filenames etc, I was
talking about "filename" etc.

That's an meaningless statement and you are making up "filename" as a
distinction from filename, and your made up distinction is meaningless
to anyone but you. It is exactly the same as if you decided that 'fudge'
meant 'whipped cream'.

For the last time: Way back when, there was a claim that Mac filenames
could or could not use : or / in a filename. I don't care which it was,
I was noting that the people who argued about it didn't have the same
concept for "filename". Hence my comment that there's an ambiguity about
the use of "filename".

There is no ambiguity. You keep repeating this, but it's still not
true.

You disagreed, because you're apparently one of those people who believe
that "words have meanings", which means that using a word for a
different meaning is "wrong."

Using a word for a made-up meaning that applies only to your useage is
as wrong as it is possible to be in terms of language. The purpose of
language is communication, and that requires that words mean as nearly
the same to everyone as is possible.

It's not, it's just different. Especially if the two meanings overlap.
IOW, words have uses. I was trying to clarify the uses.

No, you were trying to pervert precise technical language into some
bull**** that fit your ignorant argument so that you could claim to have
been right about the ignorantly misguided and totally wrong things you
said and continue to say.

But you weren't trying to clarify concepts, you were trying to "win" an
argument.

Hah. That is rich!

In terms of argument: Your claim that I'm confused merely supports my
claim that there's ambiguities. Because if there weren't I wouldn't have
noted that "filename" was being used for two different things.

Only by YOU.

But to find a file, you need more than a filename.

that was never in dispute.

Oh yes it was/is. Lewis claims you don't need those additional data. He
says a filename is enough to "specify" a file. The context of that claim
is "finding/locating a file."

I never said anything even slightly like that, you lying sack of ****.
You can go **** off now, ****bag.


FYI, in Message-ID: , someone
impersonating you said the following:
A pathname is not needed to specify a file, that is correct.


Not at all the same thing. thanks for playing, but you scored nil.


This isn't social media where what you say disappears after it's read.
As anyone can see, your denial, "I never said anything even slightly
like that", is demonstrably false. Your latest denial, "Not at all the
same thing", is likewise demonstrably false. You said what you said,
denials notwithstanding.

Were you hoping no one would scroll back and look?

--

Char Jackson
  #203  
Old December 25th 17, 09:31 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 390
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:


In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:


In message Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-12-23 09:10, nospam wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:
[...]
Nope, ain't moving any goalposts. "Filename" refers to two things, that
which the user sees, and that which the OS sees. They are are usually
the same, but apparently on the MAC, they aren't always the same, and /
has to be "translated" to : or vice versa,

nope. there is only one file name.

Like I said, the referent of "filename" was unclear in several of the
posts.

No it was not. YOUR UNDERSTANDING was, and is, unclear. Not the same
thing at all.

You don't understand that I wasn't talking about filenames etc, I was
talking about "filename" etc.

That's an meaningless statement and you are making up "filename" as a
distinction from filename, and your made up distinction is meaningless
to anyone but you. It is exactly the same as if you decided that 'fudge'
meant 'whipped cream'.

For the last time: Way back when, there was a claim that Mac filenames
could or could not use : or / in a filename. I don't care which it was,
I was noting that the people who argued about it didn't have the same
concept for "filename". Hence my comment that there's an ambiguity about
the use of "filename".

There is no ambiguity. You keep repeating this, but it's still not
true.

You disagreed, because you're apparently one of those people who believe
that "words have meanings", which means that using a word for a
different meaning is "wrong."

Using a word for a made-up meaning that applies only to your useage is
as wrong as it is possible to be in terms of language. The purpose of
language is communication, and that requires that words mean as nearly
the same to everyone as is possible.

It's not, it's just different. Especially if the two meanings overlap.
IOW, words have uses. I was trying to clarify the uses.

No, you were trying to pervert precise technical language into some
bull**** that fit your ignorant argument so that you could claim to have
been right about the ignorantly misguided and totally wrong things you
said and continue to say.

But you weren't trying to clarify concepts, you were trying to "win" an
argument.

Hah. That is rich!

In terms of argument: Your claim that I'm confused merely supports my
claim that there's ambiguities. Because if there weren't I wouldn't have
noted that "filename" was being used for two different things.

Only by YOU.

But to find a file, you need more than a filename.

that was never in dispute.

Oh yes it was/is. Lewis claims you don't need those additional data. He
says a filename is enough to "specify" a file. The context of that claim
is "finding/locating a file."

I never said anything even slightly like that, you lying sack of ****.
You can go **** off now, ****bag.


FYI, in Message-ID: , someone
impersonating you said the following:
A pathname is not needed to specify a file, that is correct.


Not at all the same thing. thanks for playing, but you scored nil.


This isn't social media where what you say disappears after it's read.
As anyone can see, your denial, "I never said anything even slightly
like that", is demonstrably false.


Nope. Your inability to understand simple English is your issue, not
mine.

A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at
all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file".

--
Rule #5: Get Kirsten Dunst Wet
  #204  
Old December 25th 17, 10:51 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:31:16 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at
all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file".


Are you seriously trying to sell that?

Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think.

--

Char Jackson
  #205  
Old December 26th 17, 12:09 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Sure, if you think of files and data-packets as being fundamentally
different. You see them that way, I don't. "It's data all the way down."

then you're wrong (again).


See, that's why I think of you an odd duck. I tell you what I think, and
instead of saying "that's interesting, but it's not what I think and
here's why", you just ring a change on "you're wrong."


you're certainly welcome to think anything you want, but there is
nothing odd about saying something is wrong when it's wrong.

what *i* find odd is that you refuse to learn from others.
  #206  
Old December 26th 17, 12:09 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

A file is a file is a file. It's what you do with a
file that makes a program different from a document.
nope.

If you read a text file, it's a document. If you execute it, it's a
program. It's still all text.

nonsense.

apps are not text.
music, video and photos are not text.
lots of files are not text.

The misreading of my comment implied your response is breathtakingly
obtuse. "It" refers to the text file, no to any file.


that's *not* what you say below:

So whether a text file is a program or a document depends on what you do
with it.


as i said, that's
wrong. very wrong.

What part of "if you execute it, it's a program. If you read it, it's a
document" don't you understand?


what part of 'you haven't a clue' do you not understand?

Have you never written a program? If so, have you not noticed that what
you produce is a text file, that is, a stream of alphanumeric
characters?? And that it has to be labelled as a program so that the OS
will execute it? And if you label it a text file, the OS will call an
app to display it?


nonsense.

what is produced is a *binary* file, not a text file, and in many
cases, it's not a single file.


Depends on the langauge used.


nope

Or maybe you won't apply "program" to a
script file.


of course not. a script file is not a program.

it's a script file and vastly more limited in what it can do than a
native compiled app, what is also called a program and now an
application.

Or whatever. Anyhow, you're wrong. Not all programs are
binary files.


yes they are.

processors do not understand text. a program *must* be binary code.

text scripts are interpreted by a shell or other interpreter.

in some cases, a script can be compiled to binary, but that's the
exception, not the rule.

Of course, as they are executed, the final layer is a
string of bytes.


exactly, which means programs must be binary.

That's OK, it's just another instance of "It's X all
the way down." In this case, "It's bytes all the way down."


no it's not ok.

there is a very significant difference between the binary code in a
compiled app and a text script, even to non-geeks.

One of the endearing quirks of Mint is that it ask you what to
do when you double click on text file.

text files are normally associated with a text editor or word processor
rather than mint, so double-clicking it would launch *that* app, not
mint.

It's "Mint", not "mint".


that doesn't change anything.

Mint is an OS. I haven't a clue what you mean
by "mint" in this context.


i was thinking of https://www.mint.com.

i thought there were mac/windows apps, but apparently it's just mobile,
so there won't be any text files to double-click.


Mint is a version of Ubuntu, which is a distro of Linux.

As you should know, if you're such an industry expert as you present
yourself to be.


i know about mint linux and other distros, but i assumed you meant
mint.com, since there are far more people using that versus linux on
the desktop for all linux distros combined.


Every comment you make rests on the limited, narrow meaning of
"metadata" that you insist is the only correct one. OK,in certain
context it is. Technical terminology has its necessary uses. But even
technical terminology isn't fuzz-free. "Metadata" as shown in your
examples is a Fuzzy concept, even if limited to your examples.

i've said several times that there are many types of metadata, which
makes it a wide definition, not narrow.

But not wide enough IMO. Or better, not abstract enough. You conceive of
it in relation to files, not to chunks of data. I'm using "chunks of
data" because in several posts you used "data" in contrast to "program",
and I want to be absolutely clear that I'm referring to any chunk of
data whatsoever, including the type labelled "metadata".

A file is just another chunk of data, unless and until it has a
file-type identifier. Without that, the OS cannot deal with that chunk
of data as it should.


wrong.

files do not need a file-type identifier.

if there isn't any, the os will treat it as unknown, perhaps with some
predetermined default or it asks the user what to do.


If it's treated a some default type, then the default spec functions as
the file-type identifier.


not necessarily.

a default value (e.g., 'text') is not the same as unassigned or unknown.

If it asks the user what to do, it's asking "What's the file type?"


no, it's saying 'file type is unknown, what do you want to do?'.

if there was a default value, it would use *that* to decide what to do.

Else the file won't be dealt with as the user expects.

And if you now insist that the OS doesn't put up the words "What's the
file type", you are once again refusing to read for meaning.


it doesn't need to put up those particular words. asking what to do
with the file is the same thing.

BTW, Mint, the last time I played with it, asked me every time what to
with a previously unopened text file. Should it execute the file, or
should it display the file. Once the question was answered, Mint
apparently added a file-type identifier.


that's simply ****ed up.

yet another reason why linux will never be mainstream.

You've already asserted and implied, more than once IIRC, that file-type
ID is metadata, in the context of musing about where that item of
metadata should go. But that concept means that "file" refers to a chunk
of data with a file-type ID. Conversely, it means that "metadata" refers
a chunk of data with some essential connection to a file. Hence,
limiting metadata as it applies only to files is circular.

Besides: In your list of metadata examples, you included some created
for human use alone, such as shutter speed.


shutter speed (and other exif data) is not limited to human use alone.


Example, please. I can't think of any system level file processing that
need to know shutter speed. That's why I chose it as an example.


just because you can't think of anything doesn't mean it's not needed.

exif data is readable by any app and can be used for any purpose.

examples include sorting photos based on shutter speed, or searching
for photos (manual or automatically) with a particular shutter speed or
faster/slower than some threshold. many other examples exist.

one doesn't even need a third party app, since exposure time, f/number
and many others are standard search parameters in mac os (and plenty
more not pictured):
http://ims.uthscsa.edu/technology_support/images/14_filesave.jpg

OTOH,
image orientation is needed by the system so that it display the image
correctly.


and also by the user for various purposes *other* than that.

for example, it's easy to create a smart collection of only landscape
photos taken in france with a shutter speed slower than 1/30th, using a
nikon d5 camera and has a rating of 3 * or better. any time new photos
are taken that meet that criteria, the collection automatically
updates. create whatever mix of parameters you want.

(Footnote: Image taken with an older camera a decade or more
ago display correctly, but the thumbnails don't. You can probably figure
out why).


it's because whatever viewer you used was buggy.

switch to a non-****ty app.

Humans use metadata somewhat
differently than OSs. That's where the fuzz comes in. I think a
different term for that type of metadata would be better.


there is no fuzz and what you happen to think is irrelevant.

what matters is how things *actually* work, not how you want it to
work, using industry standard terms to describe it, not made up
'abstractions'.


All terminology is abstraction.


no.

terminology must be precise.

As you should know, since you use terms
at different levels of abstraction daily, if (as I speculate, but do not
infer) you are actually employed in the industry. If you haven't noticed
that terms operate at different levels of abstraction, you lack insight.
IOW, you don't know what you're doing. You are just following a recipe.
like an algorithm. Like a robot.

Say, maybe that's what you are, a 'bot!

Why didn't I think of that possibility before. You display all the
characteristics: picking up on a few key words, poor parsing of context,
interpreting words with rigid literalness, repeating phrases, and so on.

Well, well, well. Whoda thunk it?


obviously, you thunk it.

and like most things you say, completely wrong.
  #207  
Old December 26th 17, 12:09 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:

A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at
all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file".


Are you seriously trying to sell that?

Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think.


he's correct.
  #208  
Old December 26th 17, 05:36 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


I've learned some more or less interesting technical details. I've
reread Al Baker's post about the data that Finder uses, for example.
I've also gone online to find out just what's going on with forbidden
characters in Mac-OS. This was the article found most helpful:
https://kb.acronis.com/content/39790. You should read it, it explains
why people got all argy-bargy about : and /.


it's unfortunate that you find an inaccurate article helpful and worse,
that you'd believe a windows app developer for specifics about the mac,
rather than going to the source, namely apple developer documentation.

because of the errors regarding the mac, it brings into question just
how good and reliable their mac software is (i.e., not very).

for example, for mac os x, they claim:
File and folder names are not permitted to begin with a dot "."

that is absolutely false. laughably so.

anyone who makes that claim should *not* be writing *any* mac software.
period.

for mac os 9, they claim:
File and folder names may be up to 31 characters in length

that too is false. the limitation is finder, not mac os 9.

both mac os 9 and mac os x use hfs+, which supports up to 255 utf16
character file names.

you should also delimit urls with and put the punctuation *outside*
the url, i.e.: https://kb.acronis.com/content/39790.
  #209  
Old December 26th 17, 05:36 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

text scripts are interpreted by a shell or other interpreter.

in some cases, a script can be compiled to binary, but that's the
exception, not the rule.


Yup, but that doesn't make the use of "program" when talking about
scripts incorrect. That's because in such a context "Program" is used in
contrast to "data". IOW, the concept is "A script is a type of program."


only in the very loosest sense of the word.
  #210  
Old December 26th 17, 06:35 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.apps
Andre G. Isaak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

text scripts are interpreted by a shell or other interpreter.

in some cases, a script can be compiled to binary, but that's the
exception, not the rule.


Yup, but that doesn't make the use of "program" when talking about
scripts incorrect. That's because in such a context "Program" is used in
contrast to "data". IOW, the concept is "A script is a type of program."


only in the very loosest sense of the word.


I think you are conflating the word 'program' with 'executable'.

If I write a program in a file called main.c, I would consider 'main.c'
to be a program even though it is not an executable until compiled and
linked.

A script is still a program, though since scripts are generally
interpreted it will have no corresponding executable.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.