At 02:21 PM 7/22/2005, you wrote: >My opinion of this matter: > >Hidden should not imply read-only... There are read-only and system >attributes which can perform this feat. > >Why in the world Microsoft decided hidden should be read-only in some of the >time (dos edit -- for those of us who've had to use it when necessary) is >beyond me. > >If a file is hidden, it insinuates that an average user should not need access >to the file. By hiding it, under normal circumstances that circut is >complete, one cannot edit what one cannot find. > >IMO the read-only flag should be the only one that implies read-only. I >conceed that there is logic to the system flag also impliing read-only. >I don't see much logic in hidden implying read-only. That implies confusion >to a simple state of being. > >WordPad hidden-file save = access denied >NotePad hidden-file save = file saved > >There is no logic in that...
I think it's fair to say that further discussion along the lines of whether Windows is smart or stupid to implement the hidden file semantics as it does is off-topic for this list. Any further comments along these lines should be taken to the cygwin-talk list (if they could conceivably be linked to Cygwin in some way) or a Windows forum. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
