3 ms·

Apparently they did think of namespacing these devices files way back in the day. According to Wikipedia: "Versions 2.x of MS-DOS provide the AVAILDEV CONFIG.S

by tdeck 8y ago

Apparently they did think of namespacing these devices files way back in the day. According to Wikipedia: "Versions 2.x of MS-DOS provide the AVAILDEV CONFIG.SYS parameter that, if set to FALSE, makes these special names only active if prefixed with \DEV\, thus allowing ordinary files to be created with these names."

raverbashing 8y ago
Oh look, developers of DOS/Windows software not giving one drop of thought to any new (security/compatibility) features unless things break. Reminds me of how many things broke when Windows started any kind of basic enforcement of read/write permissions (files, registry keys) in NT 4, then in 2000, then in XP, until I guess they gave up and created an abstracted API so that programs can trash all they want) (Yes, I'm still bitter)
- karmenblack 8y ago
  Come on you could have created a better OS than DOS/Windows but you have mastered the art of moaning instead...
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    I'm not complaining about MS, I'm complaining about the software developers (of 3rd party software)
mcv 8y ago
Had they done that, it would have been fine. It's bizarre that once it became clear that this was going to be a problem (when harddisks and directories were introduced, or with Win95, or XP at the latest), they didn't decide to deprecate the stupid way and push everybody to use the sensible way. You may have to support both ways for a while, but once you start supporting stupid ideas like this out of a need for backwards compatibility, it should be obvious that it'll never go away unless you make it go away. Maybe allow old software to run in QDOS-compatibility mode or something. It's just insane that this is still a real limitation in Win10.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  All OSs have silly legacy-based limitations. The problems caused by this compatibility feature were just never frequent enough to warrant attention. Nowadays Microsoft has less give-a-damn for user suffering than ever before, so I suspect that this bug will be in Windows right up until Microsoft finally stops pretending to care about the Desktop and abandons it.
  - gus_massa 8y ago
    Quoting Linus: > If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel.
    - mcv 8y ago
      But it doesn't have to break anything. Programs written for DOS or old Windows version already tend to run in compatibility mode. You can have these devices be "everywhere" when the program runs in PC-DOS compatibility mode, and in \dev\ when it's not.
      - ygra 8y ago
        So you lock cmd in compat mode for all eternity because there are batch files that use such things?
        mcv 8y ago
        cmd is pretty crap anyway. Good excuse to phase it out together with the 'everywhere' devices, and replace it with a better command shell.

by tdeck 8y ago

raverbashing 8y ago

Oh look, developers of DOS/Windows software not giving one drop of thought to any new (security/compatibility) features unless things break. Reminds me of how many things broke when Windows started any kind of basic enforcement of read/write permissions (files, registry keys) in NT 4, then in 2000, then in XP, until I guess they gave up and created an abstracted API so that programs can trash all they want) (Yes, I'm still bitter)

karmenblack 8y ago
Come on you could have created a better OS than DOS/Windows but you have mastered the art of moaning instead...
- raverbashing 8y ago
  I'm not complaining about MS, I'm complaining about the software developers (of 3rd party software)

mcv 8y ago

Had they done that, it would have been fine. It's bizarre that once it became clear that this was going to be a problem (when harddisks and directories were introduced, or with Win95, or XP at the latest), they didn't decide to deprecate the stupid way and push everybody to use the sensible way. You may have to support both ways for a while, but once you start supporting stupid ideas like this out of a need for backwards compatibility, it should be obvious that it'll never go away unless you make it go away. Maybe allow old software to run in QDOS-compatibility mode or something. It's just insane that this is still a real limitation in Win10.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
All OSs have silly legacy-based limitations. The problems caused by this compatibility feature were just never frequent enough to warrant attention. Nowadays Microsoft has less give-a-damn for user suffering than ever before, so I suspect that this bug will be in Windows right up until Microsoft finally stops pretending to care about the Desktop and abandons it.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  Quoting Linus: > If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel.
  - mcv 8y ago
    But it doesn't have to break anything. Programs written for DOS or old Windows version already tend to run in compatibility mode. You can have these devices be "everywhere" when the program runs in PC-DOS compatibility mode, and in \dev\ when it's not.
    - ygra 8y ago
      So you lock cmd in compat mode for all eternity because there are batch files that use such things?
      - mcv 8y ago
        cmd is pretty crap anyway. Good excuse to phase it out together with the 'everywhere' devices, and replace it with a better command shell.