On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 01:41:17PM +0200, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote: > Joshua Juran: > > > [2] Fetishes include extensionless filenames > > Ok, I’ll bite. > > I might’ve used extensionless filenames on my Linux desktop out of > æsthetic reasons (which you might call fetishes and I’ll be happy about > it), and I stopped because Nautilus wouldn’t create picture previews > when the file was extensionless, but why do you actually *need* > extensions for? > > Surely you can’t do anything serious with a file based solely on its > extension, and I guess you’d rather my UI would not have to look at the > header just to choose an icon for a file, *and* the shell completion is > so much easier to code if it only has to consider extensions – but why > wouldn’t a filesystem that, say, stores the file type in metadata, work > better than extensions?
Thinks I often do: $ grep 'foo bar' *.[ch] $ display *.jpg $ rm *.p[ml] Oh, sure, it *could* all be done based on actual content, but while you're looking at the first file, I'm already done processing the directory. Now, go write a useful, non-trivial, Makefile that doesn't use extensions. Abigail
