On Nov 16, 2015 5:37 PM, "Lisi Reisz" <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday 16 November 2015 19:33:51 David Wright wrote:
> > On Mon 16 Nov 2015 at 06:54:40 (+0100), Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> > > In article <qvjTP-2Cs-1@gated-at.bofh.it> David Wright
> <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > As for script-file extensions in DOS, there was really only .BAT
> > > > wasn't there?, so the idea of distinguishing .bash, .csh, .py, .pl,
> > > > .sh, .zsh etc as being inherited from DOS is difficult for me to
> > > > understand.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it's because (MS)DOS begat WINDOWS that only knew how to run
> > > something based on the extension?
> > >
> > > And that is why we shudder on the sight of a (unnecessary?) extension?
> >
> > I wouldn't know. My experience of windows is far less than DOS, and my
> > use of DOS was pretty much restricted to an AUTOEXEC.BAT that started
> > an emulation system which was my area of expertise. Interesting choice
> > of language, though; shudder.
> >
> > I'm the person questioning the relevance of DOS to putting ".sh" at
> > the end of an on-PATH executable script's filename, when DOS was
> > brought up in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/11/msg00453.html
> >
> > I take it there's a whole generation of folk who gained their
> > experience of filename endings (a less loaded word than extension)
> > through DOS/windows, perhaps entirely so. With it, they picked up a
> > load of negative associations, causing shuddering here and unhappiness
> > in another part of this thread.
> >
> > I'm sorry for you. I didn't touch DOS until 1992-06-01 (to be precise)
> > about twentyone years into my computing career. To say I *used* it
> > would be an overstatement: I ran one package on it.
> >
> > Putting meaningful endings onto filenames (excepting, I hasten to
> > add lest people jump down my throat, executable scripts) had been a
> > way of life for years. Their necessity was variable from system to
> > system; sometimes they were just a convention. Look at man gcc.
> > It has meaningful endings. They've been there since at least
> > 15 March 1972 when, allegedly, the number of Unix installations had
> > grown to 10. (At that time, gcc was obviously called cc; Stallman
> > hadn't yet graduated.)
> >
> > As for unix scripts, well, yes, there's no *need* for any endings,
> > but that doesn't preclude their use. If that makes you unhappy or
> > into a shudderer, please get over it.
>
> I take it those who are so against file endings are equally upset by
> sources.list and menu.lst?
>
> Though it is very annoying when they are *needed*. Xsane usually puts them
> in, and I used not to bother to check. A few months ago I sent my lawyer a
> scan of a document he needed. An hour or two later, back came an
> email: "I'm so sorry, we have no software that can open that file. The IT
> department has been trying for an hour". Puzzled, because I thought I had
> sent a .pdf, and had checked that it opened fine in Evince, I looked at the
> file - groaned - and renamed scan-foo to scan-foo.pdf. When resent it opened
> fine.
>
Magic shouldn't be used when a file type is known and should be communicated (via its extension). If you create a pdf, it is bad to not have the pdf extension - you've lost data.
Also, I'm fine with installed executables not including extensions. However, in a repo with different types of executable code, I want to know at a glance what something is (there's also that vim filetype uses extension and I want stuff to work).