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-2c...@gated-at.bofh.it> David Wright <deb...@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. Lisi
