3 ms·

> the application layer cannot reliably show file names to users, other than as sequence of byte values. As you say, it can just show the sequence of bytes (p

> the application layer cannot reliably show file names to users, other than as sequence of byte values. As you say, it can just show the sequence of bytes (plus some visual hints that they are escaped). It is not like nonsensical filenames with seem composed of random numbers are uncommon (e.g. look into your .git dir) > How else does, for example, your shell find “ls” on your disk when you type those characters? This is purely a presentation layer issue. The filesystem assumes nothing.

klausa 4y ago
The git files aren't supposed to be seen by a human being. What you're suggesting would mean that a Korean user saving a file on their desktop and naming it in Korean would in turn see the filename turn into garbage, which, I hope we can all agree, is not a reasonable suggestion.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  Of course if the file-name is correctly decodeable in the user preferred encoding (hopefully UTF-8) it should be shown as such. But giving up on supposedly malformed filenames shouldn't be an option for robust software.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    Why though? What do you lose by forcing utf-8 at the filesystem level?
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      Compatibility with a few decades of data and with other systems.
      - eviks 4y ago
        But the future is longer than a few decades, so why extend the mistake further?
        sacnoradhq 4y ago
        Because change costs way more to than you think: maybe billions of dollars and impacting billions of users. Creating 2 different systems carries risks: it has a learning curve, a support cost, and breaks everything that came before. Perhaps, in a utopian green field, we redo a systems language, a portable systems API, and a common operating system with a compatibility layer to the old way on top.
        eviks 4y ago
        Change has already partially happened since there is no one single filesystem with one behavior. Not changing impacts many more users (all the future billions) and costs even more: the learning/support/etc. is all there, and it's harder to learn about a buggy system since you have more papercuts Also, it doesn't break everything, we're not living in a dystopia
        actionfromafar 4y ago
        This is all true. We should also fix global warming, it's the same kind of problem. Massive investments now or even more massive losses tomorrow.
        gpderetta 4y ago
        1) Not everybody, or even a majority, agrees that the current state is a mistake 2) Change what to what? There are multiple filesystems systems (and OSs) with different and sometimes incompatible filename encodings. Who picks the winner? 3) There is irony on dropping backward compat and requiring UTF-8, an econding whose claim to fame is backward compatibility with ASCII based systems (and not coincidentally was designed by UNIX Elder Ones)
        eviks 4y ago

klausa 4y ago

The git files aren't supposed to be seen by a human being. What you're suggesting would mean that a Korean user saving a file on their desktop and naming it in Korean would in turn see the filename turn into garbage, which, I hope we can all agree, is not a reasonable suggestion.

gpderetta 4y ago
Of course if the file-name is correctly decodeable in the user preferred encoding (hopefully UTF-8) it should be shown as such. But giving up on supposedly malformed filenames shouldn't be an option for robust software.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
  Why though? What do you lose by forcing utf-8 at the filesystem level?
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Compatibility with a few decades of data and with other systems.
    - eviks 4y ago
      But the future is longer than a few decades, so why extend the mistake further?
      - sacnoradhq 4y ago
        Because change costs way more to than you think: maybe billions of dollars and impacting billions of users. Creating 2 different systems carries risks: it has a learning curve, a support cost, and breaks everything that came before. Perhaps, in a utopian green field, we redo a systems language, a portable systems API, and a common operating system with a compatibility layer to the old way on top.
        eviks 4y ago
        Change has already partially happened since there is no one single filesystem with one behavior. Not changing impacts many more users (all the future billions) and costs even more: the learning/support/etc. is all there, and it's harder to learn about a buggy system since you have more papercuts Also, it doesn't break everything, we're not living in a dystopia
        actionfromafar 4y ago
        This is all true. We should also fix global warming, it's the same kind of problem. Massive investments now or even more massive losses tomorrow.
      - gpderetta 4y ago
        1) Not everybody, or even a majority, agrees that the current state is a mistake 2) Change what to what? There are multiple filesystems systems (and OSs) with different and sometimes incompatible filename encodings. Who picks the winner? 3) There is irony on dropping backward compat and requiring UTF-8, an econding whose claim to fame is backward compatibility with ASCII based systems (and not coincidentally was designed by UNIX Elder Ones)
        eviks 4y ago