Trying to design low level hard disk manipulation program
|
From: Benny Amorsen on 25 Sep 2006 08:46 >>>>> "BT" == Bill Todd <billtodd(a)metrocast.net> writes: BT> Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a good reason why file names BT> should *ever* be case-sensitive (aside from the fact that Unix BT> users and applications have become used to this)? Which language do you want to be case-insensitive in? What if two users of the same file system disagree on the choice? /Benny
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 25 Sep 2006 08:53 > BT> Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a good reason why file names > BT> should *ever* be case-sensitive (aside from the fact that Unix > BT> users and applications have become used to this)? > > Which language do you want to be case-insensitive in? What if two > users of the same file system disagree on the choice? That is not a matter of language. Or is there a character encoding that says for language A, "X" and "x" are a pair while for language B, "X" and "y" are a pair? Case-blind case-preserving is the only variant which is acceptable from the point of view of ergonomics, IMNSHO. Jan
From: Andrew Reilly on 25 Sep 2006 09:34 On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:52:48 +0200, Terje Mathisen wrote: > For every N MB of contiguous disk space, use an extra MB to store ECC > info for the current block. The block size needs to be large enough that > a local soft spot which straddles two sectors cannot overwhelm the ECC > coding. Isn't that just the same as having the drive manufacturer use longer reed-solomon (forward error correcting) codes? Errors at that level are something that can be dialed-in or out by the manufacturer. If it's too high for comfort, they'll start to lose sales, won't they? Alternative approach to ECC sectors: store files in a fountain code pattern? Cheers, -- Andrew
From: Andrew Reilly on 25 Sep 2006 09:40 On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:53:58 +0200, Jan Vorbr?ggen wrote: >> BT> Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a good reason why file names >> BT> should *ever* be case-sensitive (aside from the fact that Unix >> BT> users and applications have become used to this)? >> >> Which language do you want to be case-insensitive in? What if two >> users of the same file system disagree on the choice? > > That is not a matter of language. Or is there a character encoding that > says for language A, "X" and "x" are a pair while for language B, "X" and > "y" are a pair? > > Case-blind case-preserving is the only variant which is acceptable from the > point of view of ergonomics, IMNSHO. Case-blind file systems are a pox, if you've ever had to share code across filesystems, and your coleagues insist on saving headers in files with one case, but some different case appears in the source of the include statement... IMNSHO, of course :-) Just getting it right is better for all concerned. For ergonomics, just point to the one that you want with your mouse. :-) Cheers, -- Andrew
From: "Peter "Firefly" Lund" on 25 Sep 2006 09:58
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Jan Vorbr?ggen wrote: > That is not a matter of language. Or is there a character encoding that > says for language A, "X" and "x" are a pair while for language B, "X" and > "y" are a pair? Yes. There's also annoying things like ligatures and diacritics. And perhaps many different codepoints that (more or less) share a glyph. > Case-blind case-preserving is the only variant which is acceptable from the > point of view of ergonomics, IMNSHO. Take a serious look at the various unicode normalization forms and tell me if you still hold that opinion -- or if you at least downgrade that NSH to H ;) -Peter |