fedora-list Digest, Vol 37, Issue 96

[Andrig T. Miller]

On 3/11/07, fedora-list-request at redhat.com <fedora-list-request at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:08:51 +0100
> From: Walter Garcia-Fontes <walter.garcia at upf.edu>
> Subject: Re: Problem with external USB hard drive
> To: For users of Fedora <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <20070312050851.GB10584 at upf.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> * Andrig T. Miller [12/03/07 04:00]:
> >    the automount to work?  Is there something with the disklabel that
> causes
> >    the automount to work and show it as a drive on the desktop?  I
> thought it
> >    would work regardless of the file system on it, but I guess not.
>
> Have you relabelled the disk with, for instance, e2label?


No, but I just did that, and everything worked like it did before.  Thanks
for the help.  As is often the case, the problem was a simple one.

--
> Walter Garcia-Fontes
> Barcelona
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:36:31 -0700
> From: Les <hlhowell at pacbell.net>
> Subject: Re: Curious Sunday Morning Linux File System Question ??
> To: For users of Fedora <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1173677792.8904.13.camel at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 17:35 +1300, Shams wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My question would be:
> >
> > Is it the kernel or the shell and other user land program eg. bash,
> > ls, rm responsible for hiding the dotted files?
> >
> > Historically:
> > Now why is this not just a attribute (like the evil OS Windows does)
> > or permission of the file instead of using obsure file names ie. the dot
> > prefix to hide the file?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Shams
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel at infinity-ltd.com> wrote in message
> > news:45F4229E.6050106 at infinity-ltd.com...
> > > William Case wrote:
> > >> Hi All;
> > >>
> > >> Just did some changes in my ~/.* ( dot files ) and started wondering
> why
> > >> Linux uses dot files for its 'user' data.  Its a small annoyance to
> have
> > >> to specify .* each time I use them.  The annoyance is primarily not
> > >> because it's difficult but because it is odd -- different from
> anything
> > >> else and data files get mixed (kinda) with my working documents.  Why
> > >> not just have a standard additional directory for 'config', or
> whatever
> > >> name, to hold all the user application type data.  Is the reason
> > >> historical or is there a pragmatic purpose?
> > >>
> > > This is the way Linux hides files and directories. You will notice
> > > that they do not show up in a normal ls listing, or in the file
> > > selection window of most programs. If you have your file manager set
> > > up not to show hidden files/directories, they will not show up there
> > > ether
>
> Originally Unix used teletypes for interface and paper tape for program
> loads.  Thus the ascii character set without lower case.  This is
> handled by 7 bits (and can be handled by 5 bits).  Thus a character
> would not have the bit 7.  The reason this is important is that in
> Microsoft, as in CPM, the msb of the first three characters of the file
> name stores the read only, archive and hidden attributes.  Since the
> character set didn't include extra bits, the period accomplished the job
> and was more visible to the root users who administered the system.
>
>         Other schemes have been used, one was a header that contained all
> kinds
> of attributes in a highly secure system.  Apple used to use a "fork"
> which had a short file that contained attribute and application
> information on each file but was stored separately for compatibility
> with main frame and minicomputer systems.  An old Cyber system used a
> list that followed the file.  I don't recall now how DG and DEC handled
> it, but they had their own systems as well, but almost everyone
> recognized that it was necessary to have files that the typical user
> didn't need to see, that had to have a convenient location on a per/user
> basis (the users home directory), and that could easily be recovered,
> moved copied and controlled by system administrators.
>
>         Of all the systems I have used the Unix form seems the least
> restrictive, simplest to implement, and sufficiently robust.  In other
> words, once you become familiar with it, you will prefer it to most
> other methods.  YMMV.
>
>         Unix also used to have a generally accepted practice that all user
> config files were to be in straight text, so they could be human
> readable.  I am happy to see that Linux seems to be retaining that
> philosophy.  Microsoft brought so much misery with their encoded classes
> and binary formats that I hated it whenever one of the people I worked
> with had a problem on their systems.  I admired grately the one
> administrator who had enough seniority to put a placard in her window
> that said, " I don't do windows!".  My personal opinion, but apparently
> shared.
>
> Regards,
> Les H
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
> End of fedora-list Digest, Vol 37, Issue 96
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070313/4a767e26/attachment-0001.htm>