4 ms·

magic file used by the file(1) command

35 points by SeenNotHeard 1y ago

kps 1y ago
> Today, we can go all the way back to its first commit from around 40 years ago via its Git repository I can't wait to see someone to find the first commit of SCCS via its Git repository.
- genewitch 1y ago
  I think this is probably a parsing error, if i read your comment correctly; like "git isn't 40 years old"; however the statement can be parsed as "the original commits and revision history are saved in its (now) git repository"
  - kps 1y ago
    It's really about the assumption that the past was like the present, only older. Unix didn't have version control when `file(1)` was written, unless you count last week's backup tapes. (Granted, ‘backup tapes with fancy labels’ is also the working model of git.)
    - genewitch 1y ago
      right, but if i take some vb6 thing i wrote and update it for .net or .ts or whatever, but i also upload the original vb6 project/file(s) into git as well, that satisfies the meaning of the sentence. we could probably think of a better way to say it as concisely, but, as i said, i just parsed it differently.
jandrese 1y ago
I still think it is a shame that Unix never adopted the concept of the resource fork from Macs. Having a pair of 4 byte fields that denote file type and associated program is so much better than reading the first few bytes of the data and guessing. file(1) is and has always been a hack.
- rollcat 1y ago
  Today we still have xattrs, but it's not even too late, it's simply impossible; even OS X gave up on resource forks, because PCs won. (An excerpt from history.txt)
  - frizlab 1y ago
    macOS has xattrs too (had them very early actually), and supports resource forks through them (it’s the same concept), though they are not used anymore except in some fringe cases.
- hedora 1y ago
  I’ve repeatedly lost data copying files off macs (especially pre-osx) because some things move the file header into the resource fork, and other things ignore the resource fork when copying to other operating systems.
  - genewitch 1y ago
    Wait, macOS still doss this? So you still have to use stuffit for a platform agnostic transfer? Don't get me wrong, hacking everything with resedit and the like almost makes me reach for the rose glasses. I have scads of macOS footprints all over my NAS from a Mac I used a decade ago.
    - kmeisthax 1y ago
      Mac OS X (because NeXT) switched packaging format from resource forks to directory hives, which are just as alien a concept, but with the advantage that most tools that silently ignore the resource fork will work correctly on directories. Stuffit is, AFAIK, dead. Along with all the various other OS9-era packaging formats for resource fork files. If you need to send a directory hive over something that only accepts individual files you send a disk image or ZIP archive, both of which macOS will happily extract for you.
      - 1y ago

35 points by SeenNotHeard 1y ago

kps 1y ago

> Today, we can go all the way back to its first commit from around 40 years ago via its Git repository I can't wait to see someone to find the first commit of SCCS via its Git repository.

genewitch 1y ago
I think this is probably a parsing error, if i read your comment correctly; like "git isn't 40 years old"; however the statement can be parsed as "the original commits and revision history are saved in its (now) git repository"
- kps 1y ago
  It's really about the assumption that the past was like the present, only older. Unix didn't have version control when `file(1)` was written, unless you count last week's backup tapes. (Granted, ‘backup tapes with fancy labels’ is also the working model of git.)
  - genewitch 1y ago
    right, but if i take some vb6 thing i wrote and update it for .net or .ts or whatever, but i also upload the original vb6 project/file(s) into git as well, that satisfies the meaning of the sentence. we could probably think of a better way to say it as concisely, but, as i said, i just parsed it differently.

jandrese 1y ago

I still think it is a shame that Unix never adopted the concept of the resource fork from Macs. Having a pair of 4 byte fields that denote file type and associated program is so much better than reading the first few bytes of the data and guessing. file(1) is and has always been a hack.

rollcat 1y ago
Today we still have xattrs, but it's not even too late, it's simply impossible; even OS X gave up on resource forks, because PCs won. (An excerpt from history.txt)
- frizlab 1y ago
  macOS has xattrs too (had them very early actually), and supports resource forks through them (it’s the same concept), though they are not used anymore except in some fringe cases.
hedora 1y ago
I’ve repeatedly lost data copying files off macs (especially pre-osx) because some things move the file header into the resource fork, and other things ignore the resource fork when copying to other operating systems.
- genewitch 1y ago
  Wait, macOS still doss this? So you still have to use stuffit for a platform agnostic transfer? Don't get me wrong, hacking everything with resedit and the like almost makes me reach for the rose glasses. I have scads of macOS footprints all over my NAS from a Mac I used a decade ago.
  - kmeisthax 1y ago
    Mac OS X (because NeXT) switched packaging format from resource forks to directory hives, which are just as alien a concept, but with the advantage that most tools that silently ignore the resource fork will work correctly on directories. Stuffit is, AFAIK, dead. Along with all the various other OS9-era packaging formats for resource fork files. If you need to send a directory hive over something that only accepts individual files you send a disk image or ZIP archive, both of which macOS will happily extract for you.
    - 1y ago