Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] RE: APRSPoint

scott at opentrac.org scott at opentrac.org
Fri Dec 3 05:47:47 UTC 2004


Just don't get me started on how none of these 'modern' operating systems
don't support any sort of REAL meta-data.  Heck, a DIR /FULL in VMS gives
you a full page of info for ONE FILE.  (Got a VAX-6000 in the garage...)

Really, it's a usability issue.  If it's intended to be viewed on Windows,
it should follow a Windows-recognized naming convention.  What's wrong with
README_WIN32.TXT?  Even README.WIN32.TXT should be fine.  And it should be
formatted in the DOS convention of CR/LF.  Nothing like opening a text file
in Notepad and getting it all on one line.

Even in a graphical Linux shell I suspect you're going to run into the same
problem.

Scott
N1VG

-----Original Message-----
From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org
[mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of Gerry Creager N5JXS
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:30 PM
To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
Subject: Re: [aprssig] RE: APRSPoint


I'm probably wandering into a minefield, and I know I'm sounding like a
Linux bigot, but just because Windows makes it harder to use by trying
to force everyone into a Redmond-predictive mold doesn't mean that
adding useful extensions to a filename is wrong.

Typing files by there extension isn't really the best way to do things.
  Even Windows has, in the past, employed flag bits to identify
executable files.  That they've abandoned it to claim uniqueness (I
guess... there are other possibilities) suggests a lack of real
understanding in creating both operating systems with clear-cut
objectives for functionality, and the concept of writing programs with
identifiable operations targets.

One problem a lot of Microsoft code (I'm *NOT* pointing at local
developers here!) embodies is "feature creep".  Too many functions are
shoehorned into a package.  It bloats, and starts decreasing its
functionality in core areas.  This can also happen in OS implementations.

Most bloated OS's die a timely death.  Some, supported by "market
acceptance" are perpetuated despite identifiable problems.

I'm sorry... I see a file extension of .win32 (or even .w32) and I know
it relates to a Windows implementation.  I see a '.txt' and it's telling
me it's a general readme.

Telling me I need to conform to your (or Microsoft's) standard for file
extension naming is as abhorent as my telling you that you must use MY
preferred OS.

What Curt's doing is making a decision on the file names he's going to
use.  What you've decided to do (and what I do if I'm forced to use
Windows) represents acknowledgement that Windows' filename conventions
are too limiting and need work.  Neither represents the concept of a
programmer overburdening users.  It may, however, demonstrate (once
more, to me) that Windows attempts to oversimplify the user experience
to a point of difficulty.

Gerry





More information about the aprssig mailing list