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 |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|