Short Names

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Short Names

  • But we are still limited - to a max path of 260 characters. At least in Windows 7 - maybe it has changed in Windows 10.

  • Firstly I take issue with being called "lazy"!

    I would presume that the reason you don't get longer file extensions is because you don't get auto-completion when saving a file, not at a command prompt at least.
    As FridayNightGiant states there is still an extremely limited max path length - and no this hasn't changed on Windows 10. When using an older version of gulp and SASS compiling module I'd regularly run into the situation where it had created so many sub-folders I could not delete them in Explorer because of the max path limit. The only way to get rid of them was using something like the 7-zip file manager and use it's option to delete files after zipping.

    Really though are mega long file extensions needed?
    If you have a SQL backup file in a C:\...\..\Backup\MyDB.bak file would it really make any difference if the extension was .backup? I assert it would make zero difference whatsoever, except more typing for no benefit.

  • There are still some poorly designed user interfaces that make handling long filenames difficult.  Apart from that there's nothing much apart from habit that keeps this going.
    The max length of a fully qualified file does cause problems.

  • Hi,
    Yes lets take full advantage of meaningful extension names; EXCEPT when there are long established conventions, e.g. txt, csv etc. I certainly would not want to see comma-separated-values as an extension!🙂

  • If you spend some time studying and working in various other operating systems and file systems, this is not a trivial problem. There are solutions, but they would require retooling of countless utilities and such and the current file systems are too entrenched.

    I personally think we should redo TSQL so it reads like Objective C or Smalltalk, the keywords are too short and not descriptive enough... 😛

  • On a personal note, my 200,000 or so image files are named with YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-imgXXXX.jpg

    I've had to use the dir /X command once in a while to figure out the 8.3 filename.

    412-977-3526 call/text

  • robert.sterbal 56890 - Monday, July 17, 2017 6:40 AM

    On a personal note, my 200,000 or so image files are named with YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-imgXXXX.jpg

    I've had to use the dir /X command once in a while to figure out the 8.3 filename.

    What kind of value is XXXX?

     I just created an empty text file called:
        2017-07-12-13-14-imgthis is a really long file name will this make it go weird in command prompt - nope that's not enough how about this will this make the command prompt go weird and all 8-3 on us.txt
    and in both standard cmd and powershell it displayed the filename in full on Win10 64bit Ent.

  • You say developers are lazy like it's a bad thing! Yeah, we're so lazy that it never occurred to any of us that we should totally re-engineer a longstanding and perfectly workable system that everyone knows. Spaces are allowed in the filenames but they don't work in all applications and situations; so I still see lots of files named things like This.Is.The.File.Name.txt. To me, knowing that the last three characters are the extension is great and I much prefer that to This.Is.The.File.Name.FileType. Does that file have an extension on it? Is "FileType" the name of the extension or were they trying to name the file and accidentally hit enter before they got to the end? If they extension could be anything there's no way to know!

    So in short, longer more descriptive file names would be useful for none technical folks like my Mom, but she doesn't even show extensions in the names anyways. It would be a lot harder for people who actually use extensions if we just obliterated all the conventions around them that we're used to.

  • What is really important is for them to stop making it easy for every new virus to spread by hiding file extensions by default!  The FIRT THING every intelligent person I know does, when building a new PC, is to go in to settings and turn on the ability to see file extensions.  Those who remember the Anna Kournikova virus know how long this has been an issue, and MS still refuses to fix it.

    Marketing and Development:  "Should we fix these security flaws, or add more spyware to the OS?  Spyware of course, nobody cares about our stupid customers!"

    Dave

  • djackson 22568 - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:27 AM

    What is really important is for them to stop making it easy for every new virus to spread by hiding file extensions by default!  The FIRT THING every intelligent person I know does, when building a new PC, is to go in to settings and turn on the ability to see file extensions.  Those who remember the Anna Kournikova virus know how long this has been an issue, and MS still refuses to fix it.

    Marketing and Development:  "Should we fix these security flaws, or add more spyware to the OS?  Spyware of course, nobody cares about our stupid customers!"

    Technical it's not a security flaw. What you said implies that the spyware virus is using a bug to do it's thing but it's not so there is nothing to "fix".
    What you really mean is they should change the default so that less tech savvy users who click anything put in front of them might possibly see the extension and know the difference between something that looks like an image/video file versus one that is an executable.

  • I would like slightly more verbose file names.  However as other have stated, we are still limited to 260 characters for the max path length in Windows.  I personally have ran into the max path length.  So saving some space in the file name is definitely worth it still in my opinion.

  • peter.row - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:33 AM

    djackson 22568 - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:27 AM

    What is really important is for them to stop making it easy for every new virus to spread by hiding file extensions by default!  The FIRT THING every intelligent person I know does, when building a new PC, is to go in to settings and turn on the ability to see file extensions.  Those who remember the Anna Kournikova virus know how long this has been an issue, and MS still refuses to fix it.

    Marketing and Development:  "Should we fix these security flaws, or add more spyware to the OS?  Spyware of course, nobody cares about our stupid customers!"

    Technical it's not a security flaw. What you said implies that the spyware virus is using a bug to do it's thing but it's not so there is nothing to "fix".
    What you really mean is they should change the default so that less tech savvy users who click anything put in front of them might possibly see the extension and know the difference between something that looks like an image/video file versus one that is an executable.

    Semantics, and really two separate points.  First, MS refuses to fix security flaws, we all know this.  How many times have others had to release information to force their hand?  They absolutely choose to put our data at risk (to make it "easier" for end users) rather than make things more secure.

    As to whether the "hide the extension" issue is a security flaw or not, according to at least one definition, a vulnerability (or flaw) is  "a weakness which allows an attacker to reduce a system's information assurance".  I think this fits that definition.  Even Microsoft's own definition makes this a security flaw, although they hide behind "does the system work as intended", which is of course their biggest issue.  They design and build flaws into the OS, choosing profit over security in every case.  IMO the only time MS is interested in fixing security is when they can show an ROI, not to say that is different than other companies, but certainly more prominent with them.

    Granted these are my opinions, but anyone who keeps up on the industry sees examples of this every day.

    Dave

  • djackson 22568 - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:56 AM

    peter.row - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:33 AM

    djackson 22568 - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:27 AM

    What is really important is for them to stop making it easy for every new virus to spread by hiding file extensions by default!  The FIRT THING every intelligent person I know does, when building a new PC, is to go in to settings and turn on the ability to see file extensions.  Those who remember the Anna Kournikova virus know how long this has been an issue, and MS still refuses to fix it.

    Marketing and Development:  "Should we fix these security flaws, or add more spyware to the OS?  Spyware of course, nobody cares about our stupid customers!"

    Technical it's not a security flaw. What you said implies that the spyware virus is using a bug to do it's thing but it's not so there is nothing to "fix".
    What you really mean is they should change the default so that less tech savvy users who click anything put in front of them might possibly see the extension and know the difference between something that looks like an image/video file versus one that is an executable.

    Semantics, and really two separate points.  First, MS refuses to fix security flaws, we all know this.  How many times have others had to release information to force their hand?  They absolutely choose to put our data at risk (to make it "easier" for end users) rather than make things more secure.

    As to whether the "hide the extension" issue is a security flaw or not, according to at least one definition, a vulnerability (or flaw) is  "a weakness which allows an attacker to reduce a system's information assurance".  I think this fits that definition.  Even Microsoft's own definition makes this a security flaw, although they hide behind "does the system work as intended", which is of course their biggest issue.  They design and build flaws into the OS, choosing profit over security in every case.  IMO the only time MS is interested in fixing security is when they can show an ROI, not to say that is different than other companies, but certainly more prominent with them.

    Granted these are my opinions, but anyone who keeps up on the industry sees examples of this every day.

    Sorry but that rant comes across as quite silly. MS now respond quicker than they ever have done before with Windows 10.
    If MS are so useless at security and refuse to fix anything how do you explain how they issued a fix for **Windows XP** after the recent encryption malware attacks given that Windows XP has been out of **extended** support for 3 years! Further to that Windows 10 was immune to it in the first place.

    Could just be you are one of the old school people that like to use "M$" and refuse to acknowledge how things have changed.

  • peter.row - Monday, July 17, 2017 8:03 AM

    djackson 22568 - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:56 AM

    peter.row - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:33 AM

    djackson 22568 - Monday, July 17, 2017 7:27 AM

    What is really important is for them to stop making it easy for every new virus to spread by hiding file extensions by default!  The FIRT THING every intelligent person I know does, when building a new PC, is to go in to settings and turn on the ability to see file extensions.  Those who remember the Anna Kournikova virus know how long this has been an issue, and MS still refuses to fix it.

    Marketing and Development:  "Should we fix these security flaws, or add more spyware to the OS?  Spyware of course, nobody cares about our stupid customers!"

    Technical it's not a security flaw. What you said implies that the spyware virus is using a bug to do it's thing but it's not so there is nothing to "fix".
    What you really mean is they should change the default so that less tech savvy users who click anything put in front of them might possibly see the extension and know the difference between something that looks like an image/video file versus one that is an executable.

    Semantics, and really two separate points.  First, MS refuses to fix security flaws, we all know this.  How many times have others had to release information to force their hand?  They absolutely choose to put our data at risk (to make it "easier" for end users) rather than make things more secure.

    As to whether the "hide the extension" issue is a security flaw or not, according to at least one definition, a vulnerability (or flaw) is  "a weakness which allows an attacker to reduce a system's information assurance".  I think this fits that definition.  Even Microsoft's own definition makes this a security flaw, although they hide behind "does the system work as intended", which is of course their biggest issue.  They design and build flaws into the OS, choosing profit over security in every case.  IMO the only time MS is interested in fixing security is when they can show an ROI, not to say that is different than other companies, but certainly more prominent with them.

    Granted these are my opinions, but anyone who keeps up on the industry sees examples of this every day.

    Sorry but that rant comes across as quite silly. MS now respond quicker than they ever have done before with Windows 10.
    If MS are so useless at security and refuse to fix anything how do you explain how they issued a fix for **Windows XP** after the recent encryption malware attacks given that Windows XP has been out of **extended** support for 3 years! Further to that Windows 10 was immune to it in the first place.

    Could just be you are one of the old school people that like to use "M$" and refuse to acknowledge how things have changed.

    Ah, the argument of little brained people everywhere, when you can't dispute facts, start with personal attacks.

    Dave

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply