Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive file/directory names?
First of all, ensure your kernel was built with the “CONFIG_UNICODE=y” option. Then, you have to enable this option at filesystem creation time,
by specifying an “encoding” setting, e.g.
mkfs -t ext4 -E encoding=utf8 «block-device»
Next, you mount the volume as normal, but there is no difference in behaviour--yet. You must enable case-insensitivity on the directories on
that volume where you want it (before putting anything in those
directories):
chattr +F «dirname»
This attribute is propagated by default when subdirectories are created in that directory, so if you want to enable it for the whole volume, you can
set it on the root directory of the volume while it is still empty.
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:It's a fundamental paradigm change that goes against one of the things
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
Why?
Which executable is run first when you type `su`?
- /usr/local/bin/SU
- /usr/bin/sU
- /bin/su
On 2/7/24 21:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:It's a fundamental paradigm change that goes against one of the things
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
Why?
that is related to security.
E.g. PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
Which executable is run first when you type `su`?
- /usr/local/bin/SU
- /usr/bin/sU
- /bin/su
By changing how the system interprets case, you inadvertently break fundamental assumptions that the system makes.
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive
file/directory names?
First of all, ensure your kernel was built with the “CONFIG_UNICODE=y” >> option. Then, you have to enable this option at filesystem creation time,
by specifying an “encoding” setting, e.g.
mkfs -t ext4 -E encoding=utf8 «block-device»
Next, you mount the volume as normal, but there is no difference in
behaviour--yet. You must enable case-insensitivity on the directories on
that volume where you want it (before putting anything in those
directories):
chattr +F «dirname»
This attribute is propagated by default when subdirectories are
created in
that directory, so if you want to enable it for the whole volume, you can
set it on the root directory of the volume while it is still empty.
Be careful, this is dangerous.
On 2/7/24 21:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:It's a fundamental paradigm change that goes against one of the things
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Why?
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
that is related to security.
E.g. PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
Which executable is run first when you type `su`?
- /usr/local/bin/SU
- /usr/bin/sU
- /bin/su
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:.....
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
Why?
There’s a bit of extra attack surface not present in a case-sensitive filesystem, i.e. the code to do case-insensitive comparisons.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
Why?
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
Why?
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
On 2/7/24 21:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:It's a fundamental paradigm change that goes against one of the things
On 2024-02-08 02:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Why?
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for
case-insensitive file/directory names?
Be careful, this is dangerous.
that is related to security.
E.g. PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
Which executable is run first when you type `su`?
- /usr/local/bin/SU
- /usr/bin/sU
- /bin/su
What’s the threat model here?
On 2024-02-08 11:58, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
It's a fundamental paradigm change that goes against one of the thingsWhat’s the threat model here?
that is related to security.
E.g. PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
Which executable is run first when you type `su`?
- /usr/local/bin/SU
- /usr/bin/sU
- /bin/su
It is not about threats.
Because the filesystem structure is designed *considering the case is relevant*.
You would have to examine all the files in your distribution, to check
that there are no collisions. Check all the scripts, all the programs.
Huge overtaking.
You can, however, do it for a data directory of your design. For
example, if you have a directory which you export via samba to windows machines, that directory could be useful to be case insensitive.
/sambashare
On 2024-02-08 04:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Be careful, this is dangerous.Why?
Because the filesystem structure is designed considering the case is relevant.
You would have to examine all the files in your distribution, to check
that there are no collisions. Check all the scripts, all the programs.
Huge overtaking.
On 08/02/2024 13:05, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Because the filesystem structure is designed *considering the case isThat is the killer. It's like taking a car designed for a 1.5 litre
relevant*.
engine and cramming a supercharged 6 litre in it. Things will simply break.
You would have to examine all the files in your distribution, to checkUndertaking...
that there are no collisions. Check all the scripts, all the programs.
Huge overtaking.
Moving away from uppercase DOS 6x.3x filenames was a step forward. Why
You can, however, do it for a data directory of your design. For
example, if you have a directory which you export via samba to windows
machines, that directory could be useful to be case insensitive.
/sambashare
would anyone go back?
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
On 2024-02-08 04:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:28:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Be careful, this is dangerous.Why?
Because the filesystem structure is designed considering the case is
relevant.
You would have to examine all the files in your distribution, to check
that there are no collisions. Check all the scripts, all the programs.
Huge overtaking.
Doing the check on an installed system is a shell one-liner (and it
produces a few dozen hits on my system). Doing it on, say, a
distribution archive would be a little more but it’s not really a
difficult task.
However I don’t see Lawrence advocating doing it to whole system
(i.e. /) so much as individual volumes or even directories.
A more concrete issue is that where a collection of files (e.g. a zip archive, a git repo, etc) contains files that differ only in letter
case, it can’t be represented correctly in a case-independent
filesystem.
I once mistakenly added a case sensitive disk to an Apple OS/X machine. Applications promptly stopped working.
However I don’t see Lawrence advocating doing it to whole system (i.e.
/) so much as individual volumes or even directories.
On 2024-02-08 11:58, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
E.g. PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin
Which executable is run first when you type `su`?
- /usr/local/bin/SU
- /usr/bin/sU
- /bin/su
What’s the threat model here?
It is not about threats.
The first one that matches, same as now.
What’s the threat model here?
If an attacker can put a hostile command sU in /usr/bin, they must have
been able to write /usr/bin, in which case they could just replace /usr/bin/su with their own version. They don’t need a case-insensitive filesystem to do that.
If a legitimate administrator has created /usr/bin/sU, with different behavior to /usr/bin/su, they’re only attacking themselves.
The point is, you never know what script or program may create or access
a file of the same name but different case as another part of the
program or another program. You can never be sure.
That's feasible. For a Samba share, it would be desirable, it can avoid trouble in Windows programs that expect case to not matter.
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive file/directory names?[...]
Grant seems to think it is; he explicitly mentioned security.
Undertaking...
Moving away from uppercase DOS 6x.3x filenames was a step forward.
However I don’t see Lawrence advocating doing it to whole system
(i.e. /) so much as individual volumes or even directories.
I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
would desire case-insensitivity.
But of course it helps to be aware of this possibility just in case
one runs into a system configured this way. Thanks.
And if your system was using case insensitive files like you are
suggesting and I arranged to put `SU` in a directory earlier in your
path, you just ran a trojan when you mean to run `su`.
That’s the opposite of what we’re discussing here.
What if someone has `.` as the first directory in their PATH
On 2/8/24 16:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
That’s the opposite of what we’re discussing here.
No, it really isn't.
It's the same feature, just flipping it the other way.
... a vague reference to a directory.
On 2/8/24 20:15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
We decided that was a bad idea back in the last century.
And yet people still do it.
So you felt “You must enable case-insensitivity on the directories
on that volume where you want it (before putting anything in those directories)” was not clear enough for you?
If they do it, it’s not clear what difference this option will make, security-wise. Can you explain why it would make a difference?
You can only do that if you have write access to that directory. If so,
why would you put “SU” rather than “su”?
On 2/8/24 20:13, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
You can only do that if you have write access to that directory. If so,
why would you put “SU” rather than “su”?
Does BOFH mean anything to you?
On 2/8/24 22:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
If they do it, it’s not clear what difference this option will make,
security-wise. Can you explain why it would make a difference?
Which option are you asking about; case confusion and / or prefixing
PATH with `.`?
On 2/8/24 20:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Except it causes a problem one way that it doesn’t cause the other way.
Handling case in an unexpected way /always/ causes confusion.
On 2/8/24 20:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
So you felt “You must enable case-insensitivity on the directories on
that volume where you want it (before putting anything in those
directories)” was not clear enough for you?
Obviously not.
We decided that was a bad idea back in the last century.
Except it causes a problem one way that it doesn’t cause the other way.
Which part would you like clarified?
But the “confusion” only happens one way, not the other way.
On 2/8/24 22:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But the “confusion” only happens one way, not the other way.
It happens both ways.
On 2/8/24 22:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Which part would you like clarified?
I don't want anything clarified.
You asked if your previous statement was clear.
I stated that it was obviously not clear because it was questioned.
You have since made it clear elsewhere.
But your previous statement was obviously not clear enough.
On 2/8/24 22:39, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nope.
You should look it up.
I think they are funny stories.
Nope.
Doing something to enable case confusion and prefixing PATH with a . are
a Bad Idea (TM).
On 2/8/24 04:58, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
What’s the threat model here?
It's different for different people.
If an attacker can put a hostile command sU in /usr/bin, they must have
been able to write /usr/bin, in which case they could just replace
/usr/bin/su with their own version. They don’t need a case-insensitive
filesystem to do that.
The examples I gave were exactly that, overt examples meant to
demonstrate a concept. There are MANY subtle ways that this type of
thing can bite you.
What if someone has `.` as the first directory in their PATH (.:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin type thing) and the are in (their
current working directory is) /tmp, and someone places a file named
`SU` -- which is a wrapper around /bin/su -- and the person runs `su`
to do something. The person unwittingly / inadvertently ran /tmp/SU
instead of the expected /bin/su.
There are multiple things that work in concert with each other to
result in unexpected and likely unwanted behavior of the system. Each
of the things is in and of itself innocuous enough. But combined
... unwanted things can easily, if not likely, happen.
Depending exactly on how the case folding works, what library is used
when someone needs to load libnss_dns.so:
/lib/LIBNSS_DNS.SO
/lib/LiBnSs_DnS.sO
/lib/libnss_dns.so
What if two users named Bob exist on the system from when case folding
wasn't enabled:
/home/BOB
/home/bob
Case folding is enabled.
Eliding authentication issues, which home directory is used?
In current day Windows you can name files with upper, lower, mixed case.
No matter how you do it, in Windows it is the same file. It is simply a prettier file name.
On 2/8/24 08:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
However I don’t see Lawrence advocating doing it to whole system
(i.e. /) so much as individual volumes or even directories.
Lawrence didn't give any indication on the scope of where the setting
would be used save for at the file system level and a vague reference
to a directory.
Without further guidance, it's natural to assume that it's the file
system mount point -> entire file system.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:42:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I once mistakenly added a case sensitive disk to an Apple OS/X machine.
Applications promptly stopped working.
That’s the opposite of what we’re discussing here.
On 2/8/24 08:04, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Grant seems to think it is; he explicitly mentioned security.
Security is the most obvious / easiest place to demonstrate problems
that arise from case confusion.
The way -F folding works, you can't have a directory entry for "foo"
and "FOO".
That one is well into “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. If
your policy for naming home directories (or anything else) generates
names that differ only in letter case, why would you choose to enable case-insensitive matching?
What’s natural is personal and situational. Assuming the worst
possible interpretation of a text is probably a sensible thing to do
in a high-stakes contract negotiation, but it really doesn’t seem
like a good strategy in an informal discussion.
But it's the same issue, just the other way around. Either case matters inside the code you are using or it doesn't. Switching that over makes
stuff break.
If you specify a lower case file name and you get an uppercase filename,
it breaks your code.
Here’s what the OP said:
How come?
On 2/8/24 15:16, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The point is, you never know what script or program may create or
access a file of the same name but different case as another part of
the program or another program. You can never be sure.
Yep.
That's feasible. For a Samba share, it would be desirable, it can
avoid trouble in Windows programs that expect case to not matter.
Samba (et al.) is (are) special case wherein the daemon does the case folding, not the underlying file system.
IMHO this is the proper place to handle this type of conversion.
On 2/9/24 00:29, vallor wrote:
The way -F folding works, you can't have a directory entry for "foo"
and "FOO".
You don't need different cased files of the same name in the same
directory.
All you need is the directory that contains the file in the case that
differs from what you typed earlier in the PATH than the directory that contains the file in the case that you did type.
Any directory and any file name suffices to be kicked by this case
confusion problem.
There are many ways for this to be arranged to happen.
- too many people run things they download without reviewing them -
they can easily modify the PATH a number of ways.
- people can naively add a world writable directory to their PATH -
NFS mounts in the PATH can be compromised at the source - someone
could walk up to your terminal before a screen saver kicks
in after you walk away
- copying and pasting from web pages with embedded control codes to
hide commands in what is pasted
System security or safety or stability is all about doing as many things
as possible to minimize exposure and chance of problems.
As such, doing as many things as possible to avoid potential problems or contributing to a larger problem is Good Thing (TM). Not enabling
something that could allow case confusion falls into that just like not prepending your PATH with `.`.
/home/BOB
/home/bob
That one is well into “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. If your policy for naming home directories (or anything else) generates names
that differ only in letter case, why would you choose to enable case-insensitive matching?
I've had a very good career out of assuming the worst ...
On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Here’s what the OP said:
No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
On 08/02/2024 22:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:42:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I once mistakenly added a case sensitive disk to an Apple OS/X
machine.
Applications promptly stopped working.
That’s the opposite of what we’re discussing here.
But it's the same issue, just the other way around. Either case matters inside the code you are using or it doesn't. Switching that over makes
stuff break.
You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
8--
8--
On 2/7/24 23:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The first one that matches, same as now.
I disagree.
`su` (lower case) is decidedly not `SU` upper case.
And if your system was using case insensitive files like you are
suggesting and I arranged to put `SU` in a directory earlier in your
path, you just ran a trojan when you mean to run `su`.
This is a first hand example of why case folding is a Bad Idea (TM).
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:02:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/02/2024 22:11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:42:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I once mistakenly added a case sensitive disk to an Apple OS/X
machine.
Applications promptly stopped working.
That’s the opposite of what we’re discussing here.
But it's the same issue, just the other way around. Either case matters
inside the code you are using or it doesn't. Switching that over makes
stuff break.
If your stuff is already written to be cross-platform-compatible with Apple’s or Microsoft’s platforms, then it will have already dealt with this.
If the code is written to not care whether the filesystem is case-
sensitive or not, then it will work either way.
Standard coreutils programs like cp, mv, ls etc already work fine.
On 09/02/2024 21:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Standard coreutils programs like cp, mv, ls etc already work fine.
They are linux utils.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 01:44:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/2024 21:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Standard coreutils programs like cp, mv, ls etc already work fine.
They are linux utils.
Wasn’t the argument made that there would be problems in both directions?
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:19:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Here’s what the OP said:
No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
On 2024-02-09 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:19:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Here’s what the OP said:
No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
There is only a single OP, which is always the parent post of the entire thread, which is yours in this case, a post in which you explained how
to make ext4 directories case insensitive, on 2024-02-08 02:48
If the thread then diverges in other branches, the OP remains being the
same, for ever. Even if the Subject line is changed.
On 2/8/24 18:39, Marc Olschok wrote:
I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
would desire case-insensitivity.
I used it in the late '90s to host files on a Linux web server that had
been written to be hosted on a Windows web server. There were WAY TOO
MANY mixed case references to the same file. index.html != INDEX.HTML
!= InDeX.hTmL.
Enabling the feature on the Document Root for that site allowed the
Linux box to serve that site without any modifications.
On 10/02/2024 09:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-09 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:I love the smell of semantics in the morning.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:19:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Here’s what the OP said:
No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
There is only a single OP, which is always the parent post of the
entire thread, which is yours in this case, a post in which you
explained how to make ext4 directories case insensitive, on 2024-02-08
02:48
If the thread then diverges in other branches, the OP remains being the
same, for ever. Even if the Subject line is changed.
Well, sanitizing the html files containing the references would have
been my first idea. But I see that this is a matter of the amount of
work involved. Nowadays one would problably use rewrite rules within
the server.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:21:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <uq7io1$34gg1$1@dont-email.me>:
On 10/02/2024 09:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-09 22:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:I love the smell of semantics in the morning.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 10:19:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
On 2/8/24 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Here’s what the OP said:
No ... that's not what the OP said, nor was that the OP.
You are referring to the wrong posting. Check what I said again.
There is only a single OP, which is always the parent post of the
entire thread, which is yours in this case, a post in which you
explained how to make ext4 directories case insensitive, on 2024-02-08
02:48
If the thread then diverges in other branches, the OP remains being the
same, for ever. Even if the Subject line is changed.
In any event, the only real complaint I've seen is when
a case-sensitive filesystem, with casefolded name collisions,
is switched to case-insensitive.
But you can't do that with Linux. The Linux scheme of doing
this: first, the filesystem has to be specially-formatted
to even support the casefolding. Then, the *empty*
directory needs to be set chattr +F. Since
the directory _must_ be empty, there won't be
any name collisions.
This approach appears to have been well thought-out,
and I imagine it might be useful for web
directory hierarchies.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 02:48:02 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive
file/directory names?[...]
I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
would desire case-insensitivity. But of course it helps to be aware
of this possibility just in case one runs into a system configured
this way. Thanks.
Den 2024-02-09 skrev Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid>:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 02:48:02 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option for case-insensitive >>> file/directory names?[...]
I did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
would desire case-insensitivity. But of course it helps to be aware
of this possibility just in case one runs into a system configured
this way. Thanks.
I would desire it for every day use, because there are practically no instances where I would want to differentiate two files only by
character casing. As an example, I will never create Report.tex and report.tex in the same directory as two separate reports.
I think Windows got this one right, but I also think that the
case-sensitive assumption has been prevalent in *nix for too long for
me to ever run my file systems case-insensitive.
I think Windows got this one right ...
Do you linux geeks EVER run applications that run outside the command line?
Of course. But only if something actually needs graphics.
For all the rest, (even this news reader), there is the Xterm.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
I think Windows got this one right ...
I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
remarks like
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
I think Windows got this one right ...
I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
remarks like
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?
Regardless of Microsoft's implementation possibly being buggy, I stand
by my opinion of a case-insensitive file system being a good idea.
On 12/02/2024 12:43, Andreas Kempe wrote:
Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
I think Windows got this one right ...
I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
remarks like
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?
Regardless of Microsoft's implementation possibly being buggy, I stand
by my opinion of a case-insensitive file system being a good idea.
Whatever floats your boat.
I see it, in a linux contezt, as YANF - yet another needless feature
that will break the *expected* behaviour of a file system.
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
As with deciding that it's OK to drive on any side of the road you feel
like, I see trouble, ahead...:-)
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g. Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case- insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.
On 10/02/2024 02:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 01:44:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/2024 21:20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Standard coreutils programs like cp, mv, ls etc already work fine.
They are linux utils.
Wasn’t the argument made that there would be problems in both directions?
Probably. What has that got to do with anything?
Do you linux geeks EVER run applications that run outside the command line?
On 2024-02-12 21:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently
case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g.
Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case-
insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.
As data store, not for the system itself.
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been case insensitive all along.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 22:41:19 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-12 21:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:20:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
Linux, in particular, has long had the capacity to cope with inherently
case-insensitive filesystems proprietary to other platforms: e.g.
Microsoft’s NTFS and FAT family, Apple’s HFS and HFS-Plus. So case-
insensitivity on Linux is nothing really new.
As data store, not for the system itself.
Not sure a) what that means, or b) what its relevance is to anything.
Then I will not explain.
And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself “Unix”.
XTerm supports (at least) three types of graphics;
Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal.
And not forgetting (n)curses-based
Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen
or so virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text
terminals open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)
Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal.
Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen or so virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text terminals
open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)
On 2/12/24 17:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself
“Unix”.
Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, OpenMVS, OpenServer, and UnixWare question the
veracity of /the/ /one/.
There's even a Linux distribution that has permission to call itself
"Unix".
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
Linux and Unix have *never been* cause insensitive with respect to
filenames.
macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been case insensitive all along.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:HP UX and IRIX were used woith SUNOS and Solaris as powerful desktop environments back in the day. Half the City ran on SUNOS on SPARC
On 2/12/24 17:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself
“Unix”.
I don’t think TNP was talking about the trademark users so much as the wider set of things which provide a reasonably faithful implementation
of the normal Unix interfaces.
Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, OpenMVS, OpenServer, and UnixWare question the
veracity of /the/ /one/.
The context was ‘desktop Unix’, and most of those only made any sense as server deployments. Solaris certainly qualified in the past but it’d be
a weird choice today. I can’t remember if Unixware ever had pretences to desktop use, I only used it as a server (until Linux matured enough to replace it).
There's even a Linux distribution that has permission to call itself
"Unix".
So I’ve heard.
Den 2024-02-09 skrev Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid>:*SKIP* [ 7 lines 2 levels deep]
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 02:48:02 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that the ext4 filesystem has the option forI did not know and in fact I cannot think of a situation where I
case-insensitive file/directory names?[...]
would desire case-insensitivity. But of course it helps to be aware
of this possibility just in case one runs into a system configured
this way. Thanks.
I think Windows got this one right, but I also think that the
case-sensitive assumption has been prevalent in *nix for too long for
me to ever run my file systems case-insensitive.
And I don't class OS/X as Unix, any more than I class Android as Linux.
OS/X simply took a short cut to its development by using BSAD kernel -
almost none of that operating system's normal utilities are left. All is replaced by a veneer of sophistication that is the GUI. ]
Which doesn't even run X windows.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 03:20:17 -0000 (UTC), Jack Strangio wrote:
Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal.
Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen or so
virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text terminals
open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)
And copy-and-paste, that great innovation of the GUI paradigm, works
really well between text (editor and terminal) windows. Very useful for automating command sequences.
Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of actions (keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI widgets, between windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.
Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
I think Windows got this one right ...
I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
remarks like
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?
On 12/02/2024 12:43, Andreas Kempe wrote:
Den 2024-02-11 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:06:50 -0000 (UTC), Andreas Kempe wrote:
I think Windows got this one right ...
I would be careful about jumping to that conclusion, judging from
remarks like
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20181505/unicode-case-folding-to-upper-case>.
I had never heard of the Compound File Binary format this question
pertains to and fail to see an obvious connection to their file
systems being case-insensitive. Does NTFS also have the issue that
they upper-case everything, making some file names ambiguous?
NTFS is case-sensitive. Windows OS is case-preserving.
macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been case insensitive all along.
On 2/13/24 03:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Which doesn't even run X windows.
I am fairly certain that you can /add/ X11 server capability to macOS
with optional components from Apple /without/ much effort.
On 13/02/2024 08:31, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:HP UX and IRIX were used woith SUNOS and Solaris as powerful desktop environments back in the day. Half the City ran on SUNOS on SPARC workstations.
On 2/12/24 17:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
And it is the one system that is officially entitled to call itself
“Unix”.
I don’t think TNP was talking about the trademark users so much as the
wider set of things which provide a reasonably faithful implementation
of the normal Unix interfaces.
Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, OpenMVS, OpenServer, and UnixWare question the
veracity of /the/ /one/.
The context was ‘desktop Unix’, and most of those only made any sense as >> server deployments. Solaris certainly qualified in the past but it’d be
a weird choice today. I can’t remember if Unixware ever had pretences to >> desktop use, I only used it as a server (until Linux matured enough to
replace it).
And I don't class OS/X as Unix ...
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been
case insensitive all along.
It's configurable (per file system I believe).
In order to pass the UNIX conformance tests, Apple must be running the
tests on a case sensitive file system.
On 2024-02-13 07:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of actions
(keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI widgets, between
windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.
Right! Interesting idea.
So it seems The Industry(TM) is about to snap on caseless filesystems
any moment now. Because windows-does-it is reason good enough.
NTFS is case-sensitive. Windows OS is case-preserving.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:52:11 +0000, Pancho wrote:
NTFS is case-sensitive. Windows OS is case-preserving.
There is no real distinction between “NTFS” and “Windows OS”. Windows has
no equivalent of the Linux generic VFS layer: most of the Windows
filesystem features are intimately tied specifically into NTFS.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:06:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And I don't class OS/X as Unix ...
They are legally allowed to use the trademark. They are just about the
only platform left standing that does.
On 13/02/2024 20:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:06:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And I don't class OS/X as Unix ...
They are legally allowed to use the trademark.
Legals status and technical content are rather different concepts.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2024 20:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:06:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And I don't class OS/X as Unix ...
They are legally allowed to use the trademark.
Legals status and technical content are rather different concepts.
In general that is true, but in the specific case of UNIX® the
trademark owner (The Open Group) explicitly ties them together.
They will only licence the trademark to an OS vendor if the OS
passes many tens of thousands of tests. And to cover any
non-conformances not identified by the test suites, the licensee
has to sign a TMLA (trademark licence agreement) in which they commit
to fixing any non-conformances that are brought to their attention
with a given time period. For details see
https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIXV7_Certification_Guide.html
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:25:10 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been
case insensitive all along.
It's configurable (per file system I believe).
In order to pass the UNIX conformance tests, Apple must be running the
tests on a case sensitive file system.
Is this end-user-settable, at all?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:25:10 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
macOS (almost certainly the most widely used desktop Unix) has been
case insensitive all along.
It's configurable (per file system I believe).
In order to pass the UNIX conformance tests, Apple must be running the
tests on a case sensitive file system.
Is this end-user-settable, at all?
Depends what you mean by "end user". The way I remember doing it
years ago was with a terminal command, using sudo to obtain privilege.
So in a typical personal-computer situation, it is do-able by the
computer's owner/user. I don't know if there is a GUI way.
On 2024-02-13 07:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 03:20:17 -0000 (UTC), Jack Strangio wrote:
Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal. >>>Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen or so
virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text terminals
open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)
And copy-and-paste, that great innovation of the GUI paradigm, works
really well between text (editor and terminal) windows. Very useful for
automating command sequences.
Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of actions
(keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI widgets, between
windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.
Right! Interesting idea.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:25:10 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
In order to pass the UNIX conformance tests, Apple must be running the
tests on a case sensitive file system.
Is this end-user-settable, at all?
Depends what you mean by "end user". The way I remember doing it
years ago was with a terminal command, using sudo to obtain privilege.
So in a typical personal-computer situation, it is do-able by the
computer's owner/user. I don't know if there is a GUI way.
On 2/13/24 06:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2024-02-13 07:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 03:20:17 -0000 (UTC), Jack Strangio wrote:
Also, XTerm is in and of itself a GUI application emulating a terminal. >>>>Yeah. Isn't it great? Instead of being restricted to 7 or 8 pure
text-only virtual terminals, I can take advantage of half a dozen or so >>>> virtual desktops and XTerm and have literally dozens of text terminals >>>> open at the same time. (I tend to do that.)
And copy-and-paste, that great innovation of the GUI paradigm, works
really well between text (editor and terminal) windows. Very useful for
automating command sequences.
Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of actions
(keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI widgets, between
windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.
Right! Interesting idea.
If only there was a Linux equivalent to AutoHotKey.
Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> writes:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:25:10 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
In order to pass the UNIX conformance tests, Apple must be running the >>>> tests on a case sensitive file system.
Is this end-user-settable, at all?
Depends what you mean by "end user". The way I remember doing it
years ago was with a terminal command, using sudo to obtain privilege.
So in a typical personal-computer situation, it is do-able by the
computer's owner/user. I don't know if there is a GUI way.
(Based on screenshots online) there is an option you can choose in Disk Utility when creating a filesystem. i.e. yes, user settable in the GUI.
Do you mind if I don't bother?
I don't believe MAC OS/X is UNIX conformant.
If only there was a Linux equivalent to AutoHotKey.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:04:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Do you mind if I don't bother?
This is why some of us use the term “*nix”.
On 2024-02-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This is why some of us use the term “*nix”.
Or *n*x, to make sure we get the "u" in "Linux".
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 06:03:34 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2024-02-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This is why some of us use the term “*nix”.
Or *n*x, to make sure we get the "u" in "Linux".
That’s a separate question: does “*nix” really matter any more? Is in fact
Linux the new standard? Not only is Microsoft desperately trying to make Windows more Linux-compatible, but even the BSDs are going down that path, too. Did you know they are working on their own systemd-lookalike? It’s called “InitWare”.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:25:10 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
In order to pass the UNIX conformance tests, Apple must be running the >>>>> tests on a case sensitive file system.
At what level it acts, is conjecture as far as I am concerned.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't believe MAC OS/X is UNIX conformant.
It is conformant enough to have been granted permission to call itself “Unix”. Legally, that’s all that counts.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:04:18 +0000, Eric Pozharski wrote:
So it seems The Industry(TM) is about to snap on caseless filesystemsLinux has had this for years <https://lwn.net/Articles/784041/>.
any moment now. Because windows-does-it is reason good enough.
All that’s happened is you just noticed because I mentioned it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't believe MAC OS/X is UNIX conformant.
It is conformant enough to have been granted permission to call itself
“Unix”. Legally, that’s all that counts.
There’s more to life than ‘legally’, even when it comes to conformance questions.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:13:36 -0600, candycanearter07 wrote:
If only there was a Linux equivalent to AutoHotKey.
None of that stuff ever works reliably.
Who cares how it is implemented internally, as long as it obeys the
POSIX requirement for case sensitivity?
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't believe MAC OS/X is UNIX conformant.
It is conformant enough to have been granted permission to call itself
“Unix”. Legally, that’s all that counts.
There’s more to life than ‘legally’, even when it comes to conformance >> questions.
Without “legally”, you have no trademark.
On 2/14/24 14:26, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:13:36 -0600, candycanearter07 wrote:
If only there was a Linux equivalent to AutoHotKey.
None of that stuff ever works reliably.
It works pretty well for simple operations, at least.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't believe MAC OS/X is UNIX conformant.
It is conformant enough to have been granted permission to call itself >>>> “Unix”. Legally, that’s all that counts.
There’s more to life than ‘legally’, even when it comes to conformance
questions.
Without “legally”, you have no trademark.
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
4.6 Filenames
Uppercase and lowercase letters shall retain their unique
identities between conforming implementations.
Does that mean that filenames have to be case-sensitive?
Also section 4.12, “Pathname Resolution”, goes into details of how
to handle symbolic links and “.” and “..”, but says nothing
about case sensitivity.
Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of
actions (keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI
widgets, between windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.
For instance it will happily copy the details of a bank
transaction going on in one window (a secure instance of a web browser)
to an accounting program running in another window (another secure
instance of a different web browser). A script using xdotool will also
auto fill the payment/money transfer online form of a bank (why, oh why,
do they all have incompatible user interfaces and APIs?) using the
merchant's payment info found in another window, even generating the
needed OTP code itself (using oathtool).
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't believe MAC OS/X is UNIX conformant.
It is conformant enough to have been granted permission to call
itself “Unix”. Legally, that’s all that counts.
There’s more to life than ‘legally’, even when it comes to
conformance questions.
Without “legally”, you have no trademark.
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
Then don’t use them.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <...@nz.invalid> [LD]:
Paradoxically, GUIs do not let you copy-and-paste sequences of
actions (keystrokes and mouse clicks), or even settings of GUI
widgets, between windows. So they force you to repeat all the settings/actions again.
'xdotool' can replay/automate keystrokes/mouse clicks (but
unfortunately cannot record them).
I use it regularly to eliminate some (error prone) manual copy/paste
actions. For instance it will happily copy the details of a bank
transaction going on in one window (a secure instance of a web
browser) to an accounting program running in another window (another
secure instance of a different web browser). A script using xdotool
will also auto fill the payment/money transfer online form of a bank
(why, oh why, do they all have incompatible user interfaces and APIs?)
using the merchant's payment info found in another window, even generating the needed OTP code itself (using oathtool). It certainly makes those recurring end of the month invoice/bill payments a bit less of a pain
in the arse.
If you limit yourself to one window/one application, iMacros can both
record and programmatically replay your actions in the browser. I also
use it regularly for automating the filing of certain tax forms.
The same of course applies to selenium and its little cousins.
In the browser environment one can also automate actions by using bookmarklets. Watch what a web application is doing in the browser's development tab and then write a (javascript) program to mimic it,
(fetch() is your friend here), finally convert it to a bookmarklet
and run it whenever needed (possibly asking the user to enter some
variable or confidential data). One can even go wild and have a father bookmarklet present the user with a menu selection and then download
the appropriate child bookmarklet from, say, a git repository and
execute it, using eval(), ie. dynamic bookmarklets. Most bookmarklet
users write and then rewrite (in-situ) their bookmarlets in the
bookmarks tab of their browser, which is both a pain and offers no way
of code versioning. Editing them in your favourite IDE/CVS and then downloading them off a server whenever needed solves both these problems.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
There’s more to life than ‘legally’, even when it comes to
conformance questions.
Without “legally”, you have no trademark.
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
Then don’t use them.
??? I’ll use whatever words I like. If a trademark owner doesn’t like it they are welcome to get in touch. Hasn’t happened yet.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:02:10 -0600, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 2/14/24 14:26, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:13:36 -0600, candycanearter07 wrote:
If only there was a Linux equivalent to AutoHotKey.
None of that stuff ever works reliably.
It works pretty well for simple operations, at least.
Things you can do manually, anyway?
It’s the complex cases where automation is needed most.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
Then don’t use them.
??? I’ll use whatever words I like.
Oh. That's a very curious usage.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:01:25 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
Then don’t use them.
??? I’ll use whatever words I like.
Then you won’t object if other people use different words.
Until my banks get a new web designer (who changes the UI once again
for no apparent reason)
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 05:54:56 +0100, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
Doesnt the bank offer data export/import in standard formats,
like CSV or QIF?
Until my banks get a new web designer (who changes the UI once again
for no apparent reason) or get merged/acquired with/by another bank,
xdotool will do.
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202402.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
Until my banks get a new web designer (who changes the UI once again
for no apparent reason) or get merged/acquired with/by another bank,
xdotool will do.
This occurs for two reasons:
1) The web designer has to make changes in order to show supposed
/value/ to their employer, therefore they make changes for no reason
other than to ensure their continued employment.
2) They change the UI around because in their world, no one is
automating anything, everyone is manually clicking, reading and
retyping, etc.
#1 is the largest reason for the changes that occur periodically. #2
is a consequence of the fact that their short-sightedness does not
extend to "people out there might have automated this".
On 16/02/2024 21:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:01:25 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
Then don’t use them.
??? I’ll use whatever words I like.
Then you won’t object if other people use different words.
I think cataclysm is a nice word.
You could use that.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 10:04:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/2024 21:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:01:25 +0000, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
There’s more to life than trademarks too.
Then don’t use them.
??? I’ll use whatever words I like.
Then you won’t object if other people use different words.
I think cataclysm is a nice word.
You could use that.
It would be a cataclysm if I did. Unless it was an upheaval.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 490 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 75:57:30 |
| Calls: | 9,678 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,722 |
| Messages: | 6,172,684 |