Steven wrote:
>> and filename conventions. (or lack of) I really like
>> the organization and clues built into the old 8.3
>> filename system.
>
>Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this one. The 8.3
>filename system is a pain. Longer filenames provide more
>latitude for "clues".
Sorry I have to disagree with both of you ;-)
Longer names are good (if you can complete them with TAB or use a GUI), and
having the extension tell you what kind of file it is is very good. The
ability to have several dots in a Linux file-name is very good, thereby you
can see that file.tar.gz is a GZIPed TAR archive (well archive shouldn't be
there since it's in TAR).
However the file "file" says nothing of what kind of file it is, "file.exe"
for instance tell us that it's an executable so Linux isn't completly
logically built, and longer names will not help you if there's no extension
(although you can get "ls" to code the files/directories in color after
what they are which also is good (it's like hdir.exe))
