3 ms·

Not to be too snarky, but tons of other operating systems have these kinds of "features". The most prominent example is in macOS and Linux with file names start

Not to be too snarky, but tons of other operating systems have these kinds of "features". The most prominent example is in macOS and Linux with file names starting with a dot being hidden by default.

ams6110 9y ago
Yes, but the reason for that convention is just to avoid clutter in the output of ls. It's not to prevent users from deleting files that they shouldn't -- file system permissions, and not logging in as "root" all the time, are the correct way to handle that.
stevebmark 9y ago
Hiding files starting with a dot is just a cosmetic, view level implementation. This article shows that Windows had coupled this behavior directly to system level file flags.
- badosu 9y ago
  > Hiding files starting with a dot is just a cosmetic, view level implementation. Is it? [0] [0]: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9...
- sratner 9y ago
  This is also just a cosmetic, view level implementation in Explorer (complete with a bug, also in Explorer). In fact, the fix was to use kernel fs functions directly.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  > cosmetic, view level implementation Sort of. The kernel doesn't treat it special but the OS does. Any POSIX compliant shell won't include dot files for a single wildcard. E.g. rm -fr * doesn't empty the current directory.
gerdesj 9y ago
The Unix (Linux and Mac inherit this) idea of a leading dot = hidden is almost certainly from the days before file attributes were even invented (err available on Unix). Don't quote me on that and I can't be arsed to do the research but it certainly sounds possible! In Linux it is a bit of an arse. My home directory looks absolutely rubbish when I view it on a Windows box, which I do with monotonous regularity when fixing the bloody things (Windows boxes that is.)
- ams6110 9y ago
  I suppose that could be, I don't know either. I think it's more likely from the early days where users were interacting over slow teletypes or terminals, and having a convention that hid rarely-interesting files by default was more efficient.
  - loeg 9y ago
    It was a bug in ls. The intent was to hide only "." and "..". https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88875/why-are-filenames-that-start-with-a-dot-hidden-can-i-hide-files-without-using-a https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88875/why-are-filen...
- mintplant 9y ago
  It started out as unintended behavior of some code in "ls" which was put in to skip "." and ".." when printing directory listings. https://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp https://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp The concept of a "hidden file" was an accidental invention.

Not to be too snarky, but tons of other operating systems have these kinds of "features". The most prominent example is in macOS and Linux with file names starting with a dot being hidden by default.

ams6110 9y ago

Yes, but the reason for that convention is just to avoid clutter in the output of ls. It's not to prevent users from deleting files that they shouldn't -- file system permissions, and not logging in as "root" all the time, are the correct way to handle that.

stevebmark 9y ago

Hiding files starting with a dot is just a cosmetic, view level implementation. This article shows that Windows had coupled this behavior directly to system level file flags.

badosu 9y ago
> Hiding files starting with a dot is just a cosmetic, view level implementation. Is it? [0] [0]: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9...
sratner 9y ago
This is also just a cosmetic, view level implementation in Explorer (complete with a bug, also in Explorer). In fact, the fix was to use kernel fs functions directly.
paulddraper 9y ago
> cosmetic, view level implementation Sort of. The kernel doesn't treat it special but the OS does. Any POSIX compliant shell won't include dot files for a single wildcard. E.g. rm -fr * doesn't empty the current directory.

gerdesj 9y ago

The Unix (Linux and Mac inherit this) idea of a leading dot = hidden is almost certainly from the days before file attributes were even invented (err available on Unix). Don't quote me on that and I can't be arsed to do the research but it certainly sounds possible! In Linux it is a bit of an arse. My home directory looks absolutely rubbish when I view it on a Windows box, which I do with monotonous regularity when fixing the bloody things (Windows boxes that is.)

ams6110 9y ago
I suppose that could be, I don't know either. I think it's more likely from the early days where users were interacting over slow teletypes or terminals, and having a convention that hid rarely-interesting files by default was more efficient.
- loeg 9y ago
  It was a bug in ls. The intent was to hide only "." and "..". https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88875/why-are-filenames-that-start-with-a-dot-hidden-can-i-hide-files-without-using-a https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88875/why-are-filen...
mintplant 9y ago
It started out as unintended behavior of some code in "ls" which was put in to skip "." and ".." when printing directory listings. https://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp https://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp The concept of a "hidden file" was an accidental invention.