MAC users?

[singhals]

Would one of you MAC users be kind enough to tell me how to do this, so
I can tell someone else!

On a webpage, if you want to view an image independently of the rest of
the page, how do you do that? On PC, you right click and select View Image.

Thanks.

Cheryl

[Jeff Wiseman]

singhals wrote:

Would one of you MAC users be kind enough to tell me how to do this, so
I can tell someone else!

On a webpage, if you want to view an image independently of the rest of
the page, how do you do that? On PC, you right click and select View
Image.

Thanks.

Cheryl

The "right click" on a PC produces what it referred to as a
"contextual menu". I.e., a menu that is specific to the item
being pointed at. On the Mac, this is typically done with a
Ctrl-click. (hold down the Control key and then click on the item
of interest).

Note that depending on how it is embedded in the web page, an
image may or may not be available for viewing, but this would be
the same (or very similar) regardless of using a PC or Mac.

Hope this helps.


--
Jeff Wiseman
to reply, just remove ALLTHESPAM

[Dave Hinz]

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:02:19 GMT, Jeff Wiseman <[email protected]> wrote:

singhals wrote:
Would one of you MAC users be kind enough to tell me how to do this, so
I can tell someone else!
On a webpage, if you want to view an image independently of the rest of
the page, how do you do that? On PC, you right click and select View
Image.

The "right click" on a PC produces what it referred to as a
"contextual menu". I.e., a menu that is specific to the item
being pointed at. On the Mac, this is typically done with a
Ctrl-click. (hold down the Control key and then click on the item
of interest).

Or, they can buy a 3-button mouse and plug it in, and it'll just work,
then they can right-click. Or, they could click on the image, drag it
to the built-in image viewer or desktop to save it. or, or, or or.
Like so much on the Mac, if you're having trouble doing something,
you're going out of your way to overlook the obvious.

[singhals]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:02:19 GMT, Jeff Wiseman <[email protected]> wrote:

singhals wrote:

Would one of you MAC users be kind enough to tell me how to do this, so
I can tell someone else!
On a webpage, if you want to view an image independently of the rest of
the page, how do you do that? On PC, you right click and select View
Image.


The "right click" on a PC produces what it referred to as a
"contextual menu". I.e., a menu that is specific to the item
being pointed at. On the Mac, this is typically done with a
Ctrl-click. (hold down the Control key and then click on the item
of interest).


Or, they can buy a 3-button mouse and plug it in, and it'll just work,
then they can right-click. Or, they could click on the image, drag it
to the built-in image viewer or desktop to save it. or, or, or or.
Like so much on the Mac, if you're having trouble doing something,
you're going out of your way to overlook the obvious.

(G)

Well, I'm in the process of sending a bunch of photos with an html
index/explanation to a MAC'er of considerable experience. Are you
saying I don't need to tell him how to find the full-size image? If so,
great!!

Cheryl

[Joe Makowiec]

On 14 May 2006 in soc.genealogy.computing, singhals wrote:

Well, I'm in the process of sending a bunch of photos with an html
index/explanation to a MAC'er of considerable experience. Are you
saying I don't need to tell him how to find the full-size image? If
so, great!!

<a href="myimage_large.jpg"><img src="myimage_thumb.jpg"></a> ?

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Sun, 14 May 2006 21:09:03 -0400, singhals <[email protected]>
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:

Well, I'm in the process of sending a bunch of photos with an html
index/explanation to a MAC'er of considerable experience. Are you
saying I don't need to tell him how to find the full-size image? If so,
great!!

If someone is skilled on a Mac, I don't see why you even ask the
question ! You are probably not the first to send him photos.

The only thing you have to care of, in Mac and Linux/Unix, is
about the case of letters.

Under an MS-Windows environment, 12345.JPG and 12345.jpg are the
same file. Under Mac or Linux, they are 2 different files and could
even be in the same directory.


Denis

[Hugh Watkins]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:02:19 GMT, Jeff Wiseman <[email protected]> wrote:

singhals wrote:

Would one of you MAC users be kind enough to tell me how to do this, so
I can tell someone else!
On a webpage, if you want to view an image independently of the rest of
the page, how do you do that? On PC, you right click and select View
Image.


The "right click" on a PC produces what it referred to as a
"contextual menu". I.e., a menu that is specific to the item
being pointed at. On the Mac, this is typically done with a
Ctrl-click. (hold down the Control key and then click on the item
of interest).


Or, they can buy a 3-button mouse and plug it in, and it'll just work,
then they can right-click. Or, they could click on the image, drag it
to the built-in image viewer or desktop to save it. or, or, or or.
Like so much on the Mac, if you're having trouble doing something,
you're going out of your way to overlook the obvious.

on the older macs just holding the mouse button down produced a menu

Hugh W

[singhals]

Denis Beauregard wrote:

Le Sun, 14 May 2006 21:09:03 -0400, singhals <[email protected]
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:


Well, I'm in the process of sending a bunch of photos with an html
index/explanation to a MAC'er of considerable experience. Are you
saying I don't need to tell him how to find the full-size image? If so,
great!!


If someone is skilled on a Mac, I don't see why you even ask the
question ! You are probably not the first to send him photos.

Because (1) I'm not skilled on the MAC; and (2)I've put this project off
long enough and I want it off my desk by Friday. Then I don't want to
think about it for a few more months. If I answer the most-likely
questions before he asks 'em, I win. And that's one of the questions I
get asked by PCers.

The only thing you have to care of, in Mac and Linux/Unix, is
about the case of letters.

Under an MS-Windows environment, 12345.JPG and 12345.jpg are the
same file. Under Mac or Linux, they are 2 different files and could
even be in the same directory.

Actually, I've had HTML choke on the case-issue. I KNOW the specs say
it doesn't matter, but it sometimes does.

Merci, Denis.

Cheryl

[Tehenne]

Denis Beauregard <[email protected]>
wrote:

Under an MS-Windows environment, 12345.JPG and 12345.jpg are the
same file. Under Mac or Linux, they are 2 different files and could
even be in the same directory.

Under MacOS X (and classic), 12345.jpg = 12345.JPG and they not could be
in the same folder.

Regards,


--
Téhenne Saint-Denis de la Réunion

Comparatif Import-Export Gedcom : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cajun/
Logiciel de généalogie ohmiGene : http://www.nauze.com/

[Dave Hinz]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:43:05 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:

Denis Beauregard <[email protected]
wrote:

Under an MS-Windows environment, 12345.JPG and 12345.jpg are the
same file. Under Mac or Linux, they are 2 different files and could
even be in the same directory.

Under MacOS X (and classic), 12345.jpg = 12345.JPG and they not could be
in the same folder.

I'm sorry, but that's completely inaccurate. If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:

touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls

You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?

[Tehenne]

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:43:05 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:
Denis Beauregard <[email protected]
wrote:

Under an MS-Windows environment, 12345.JPG and 12345.jpg are the
same file. Under Mac or Linux, they are 2 different files and could
even be in the same directory.

Under MacOS X (and classic), 12345.jpg = 12345.JPG and they not could be
in the same folder.

I'm sorry, but that's completely inaccurate. If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:

touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls

You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?

I am sorry.
I work with Mac since 1884. And under MacOS X (finder), it is the same
file.
It is impossible to put 12345.jpg and 12345.JPG in the same folder. A
message ask you to 'Cancel' or 'Replace' the file.

I don't speak Unix, I speak MacOS X (Finder), MacOS 9 ...

Regards,

--
Téhenne Saint-Denis de la Réunion

Comparatif Import-Export Gedcom : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/cajun/
Logiciel de généalogie ohmiGene : http://www.nauze.com/

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 16 May 2006 05:51:32 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:
touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls
You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?

I am sorry.
I work with Mac since 1884. And under MacOS X (finder), it is the same
file.

Ah. Perhaps you and I have different types of filesystems.

It is impossible to put 12345.jpg and 12345.JPG in the same folder. A
message ask you to 'Cancel' or 'Replace' the file.

Yes, definately not what I'm seeing here.

I don't speak Unix, I speak MacOS X (Finder), MacOS 9 ...

I use several OS's with this mac, so perhaps it's because of my choice
of file system type. I'd find case munging to be pretty intrusive,
personally.

[Jeff Wiseman]

Warning: technical stuff to follow:



Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2006 05:51:32 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:


If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:
touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls
You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?

Darwin (OS X's Unix subsystem) is case-sensitive. However, many
things in the GUI for the Mac are attempting to simplify the
operations of a very complex system. The earlier versions of Mac
OS (i.e., pre OS X) didn't need suffixes at all since the file
type and it's creator were all embedded in the file's meta data.
However, in order to store things that way, the special pre-Mac
OS X file system was needed.

When OS X was introduced with its Unix subsystem, they needed to
migrate toward the Unix world's view of files. This created a bit
of an evolutionary problem that has the Mac OS actually migrating
back toward the use of suffixes in some areas. That is why like
on the PC, you can now tell the mac to hide suffixes on the
desktop. Finder has to do some of these things now that they've
lost some of the Data Fork/Resource Fork file concept. Although
it is being mimicked in OS X, there are some unavoidable issues

In any event, these "functional" presentations must be filtered
by the finder into the underlying Unix file system so yes, it is
possible to do things with file names from the terminal window
that cannot be done from the finder. A primary example of this is
all of the Unix directories that the finder normally doesn't let
you see (because apparently it would just confuse the novice user
with stuff they don't need to know about anyway). Conversly, you
might assign suffix cases in the Unix system that the Finder
won't properly handle because it doesn't know how.

I am sorry.
I work with Mac since 1884. And under MacOS X (finder), it is the same
file.

If you are really that old, you must use 74 point screen fonts

It is impossible to put 12345.jpg and 12345.JPG in the same folder. A
message ask you to 'Cancel' or 'Replace' the file.


Yes, definately not what I'm seeing here.

It seems to me that what you would find is that regardless of
whether it's entered as a .JPG or .jpg through the finder, it is
stored as .jpg on the Unix volume with the Finder handling the
translation in the file's meta data.

I use several OS's with this mac, so perhaps it's because of my choice
of file system type. I'd find case munging to be pretty intrusive,
personally.

I can understand that. Although if you do everything through the
finder (the way Apple assumes you will it can actually
simplify things. The problem is that the translation rules can be
fairly complex and are not structural. As a result, bugs and
security issues can crop up where the consistancy of the Unix
interface (although more complicated) wouldn't have those issues.
However, Unix filesystems by themselves do not normally require
meta data where finder operations on the Mac do.

Again though, the issue is that Mac OS X now uses suffixes to
identify file types where it never did before. Adding a ".jpg" to
the end of a filename originally was no different than adding a
".sdf.er.4r5.rrr" to it. They were just characters. The file type
was stored as a 4 character code in the Resource fork of the
file. Unix never had a notion of file types. It just had names so
..jpg and .JPG are different names. The finder, on the other hand,
needs to know file types and in OS X it has to be done with
suffixes now, and since it would be a real problem having to
handle all case permutations of .jpg, it solves the problem by
mapping them all to the same thing in the underlying file system
but keeping the user assigned values in the file's meta data for
presentation on the desktop with its icon.



--
Jeff Wiseman
to reply, just remove ALLTHESPAM

[Hugh Watkins]

Jeff Wiseman wrote:

Warning: technical stuff to follow:



Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2006 05:51:32 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:



If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:
touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls
You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?



Darwin (OS X's Unix subsystem) is case-sensitive. However, many things
in the GUI for the Mac are attempting to simplify the operations of a
very complex system. The earlier versions of Mac OS (i.e., pre OS X)
didn't need suffixes at all since the file type and it's creator were
all embedded in the file's meta data. However, in order to store things
that way, the special pre-Mac OS X file system was needed.

the new OS X is effectively simultaneously dual boot
you can install OS 9 to run legacy applications
and it auto configures

WIn XP is in beta on the latest Intel macs
but I don't know if it runs in a window too

my next machine may be a mini mas with winxp too for the genealogy apps
I use daily

When OS X was introduced with its Unix subsystem, they needed to migrate
toward the Unix world's view of files.

historically UNIX has been on macs for about 8 or 9 years ?? I think

This created a bit of an
evolutionary problem that has the Mac OS actually migrating back toward
the use of suffixes in some areas. That is why like on the PC, you can
now tell the mac to hide suffixes on the desktop. Finder has to do some
of these things now that they've lost some of the Data Fork/Resource
Fork file concept.

this was always an illusion
the mac is just another turing machine

the so called fork was just another kind of header in the string

Although it is being mimicked in OS X, there are some
unavoidable issues

In any event, these "functional" presentations must be filtered by the
finder into the underlying Unix file system so yes, it is possible to do
things with file names from the terminal window that cannot be done from
the finder. A primary example of this is all of the Unix directories
that the finder normally doesn't let you see (because apparently it
would just confuse the novice user with stuff they don't need to know
about anyway).

back in dos days I opted for the GUI
before windows really got going

I like automated configuration of my machines
which works fairly well on the lates WinXP machines

advanced memory management and an end to most blue screens
has made WinXP as comfortable to use as the mac

Conversly, you might assign suffix cases in the Unix
system that the Finder won't properly handle because it doesn't know how.


I am sorry.
I work with Mac since 1884. And under MacOS X (finder), it is the same
file.



If you are really that old, you must use 74 point screen fonts


It is impossible to put 12345.jpg and 12345.JPG in the same folder. A
message ask you to 'Cancel' or 'Replace' the file.



Yes, definately not what I'm seeing here.



It seems to me that what you would find is that regardless of whether
it's entered as a .JPG or .jpg through the finder, it is stored as .jpg
on the Unix volume with the Finder handling the translation in the
file's meta data.


I use several OS's with this mac, so perhaps it's because of my choice
of file system type. I'd find case munging to be pretty intrusive,
personally.



I can understand that. Although if you do everything through the finder
(the way Apple assumes you will it can actually simplify things. The
problem is that the translation rules can be fairly complex and are not
structural. As a result, bugs and security issues can crop up where the
consistancy of the Unix interface (although more complicated) wouldn't
have those issues. However, Unix filesystems by themselves do not
normally require meta data where finder operations on the Mac do.

Again though, the issue is that Mac OS X now uses suffixes to identify
file types where it never did before. Adding a ".jpg" to the end of a
filename originally was no different than adding a ".sdf.er.4r5.rrr" to
it. They were just characters. The file type was stored as a 4 character
code in the Resource fork of the file. Unix never had a notion of file
types. It just had names so .jpg and .JPG are different names. The
finder, on the other hand, needs to know file types and in OS X it has
to be done with suffixes now, and since it would be a real problem
having to handle all case permutations of .jpg, it solves the problem by
mapping them all to the same thing in the underlying file system but
keeping the user assigned values in the file's meta data for
presentation on the desktop with its icon.

which is many users pay a little extra for the Mac gui
especially artists who want a reliable tool

I helped set up a new iMac last summer
to move the user from OS 9 machine you duplicate the existing hard disk
on to an external USB hard disk

(drag and drop from desktop and have a cup of tea)
plug the USB hd into teh iMac and it all works just as well as before

as soon as you install OS 9 under OS x

so a user gets a seamless update
Outlook Express is messy on the mac because it cant find its own
archived files but google mail seams to be working well

I hate it when a WinXP help line takes me into a dos window
it seems so primitive


Hugh W

[singhals]

Jeff Wiseman wrote:

Warning: technical stuff to follow:



Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2006 05:51:32 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:



If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:
touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls
You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?



Darwin (OS X's Unix subsystem) is case-sensitive. However, many things
in the GUI for the Mac are attempting to simplify the operations of a
very complex system. The earlier versions of Mac OS (i.e., pre OS X)
didn't need suffixes at all since the file type and it's creator were
all embedded in the file's meta data. However, in order to store things
that way, the special pre-Mac OS X file system was needed.

When OS X was introduced with its Unix subsystem, they needed to migrate
toward the Unix world's view of files. This created a bit of an
evolutionary problem that has the Mac OS actually migrating back toward
the use of suffixes in some areas. That is why like on the PC, you can
now tell the mac to hide suffixes on the desktop. Finder has to do some
of these things now that they've lost some of the Data Fork/Resource
Fork file concept. Although it is being mimicked in OS X, there are some
unavoidable issues

That missing extension is one of things I've always hated -- I tend to
keep my life simple, so I've got 1891.txt 1891.xls 1891.doc and 1891.htm
all with slightly different content and format; without the extension
how in the WORLD do I tell which one I want when I go looking for it?
Sitting here clicking first one and the t'other until I find it makes me
crazy.

It also complicates things when I tell someone, "Find your .paf
files..." and they don't see any extensions ... Walking them through the
process of getting something USEFUL on their screen would drive Carrie
Nation into the arms of Jack Daniels.

Stupid little icons/thumbnails ... no way to tell how big a file is,
when it was created, or anything else, but here's a cute mini-pic of it!

Bah. Humbug. (Can you tell how I spent part of my afternoon?)

Cheryl

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:34:26 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

That missing extension is one of things I've always hated -- I tend to
keep my life simple, so I've got 1891.txt 1891.xls 1891.doc and 1891.htm
all with slightly different content and format; without the extension
how in the WORLD do I tell which one I want when I go looking for it?
Sitting here clicking first one and the t'other until I find it makes me
crazy.

Ah. Perhaps you've missed the point a bit. Unix (including Mac OSX)
doesn't particularly _care_ what extension you give it. But normally,
sure, you'll give it the right one.

It also complicates things when I tell someone, "Find your .paf
files..." and they don't see any extensions ... Walking them through the
process of getting something USEFUL on their screen would drive Carrie
Nation into the arms of Jack Daniels.

Yup.

Stupid little icons/thumbnails ... no way to tell how big a file is,
when it was created, or anything else, but here's a cute mini-pic of it!
Bah. Humbug. (Can you tell how I spent part of my afternoon?)

Please, please please tell me it wasn't Christmas shopping.

[Hugh Watkins]

singhals wrote:

Jeff Wiseman wrote:

Warning: technical stuff to follow:



Dave Hinz wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2006 05:51:32 +0400, Tehenne <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:




If you go to command line
you can see clearly by testing thusly:
touch 12345.jpg
touch 12345.JPG
ls
You'll see both. Unix is case-sensitive. Finder may not be?




Darwin (OS X's Unix subsystem) is case-sensitive. However, many things
in the GUI for the Mac are attempting to simplify the operations of a
very complex system. The earlier versions of Mac OS (i.e., pre OS X)
didn't need suffixes at all since the file type and it's creator were
all embedded in the file's meta data. However, in order to store
things that way, the special pre-Mac OS X file system was needed.

When OS X was introduced with its Unix subsystem, they needed to
migrate toward the Unix world's view of files. This created a bit of
an evolutionary problem that has the Mac OS actually migrating back
toward the use of suffixes in some areas. That is why like on the PC,
you can now tell the mac to hide suffixes on the desktop. Finder has
to do some of these things now that they've lost some of the Data
Fork/Resource Fork file concept. Although it is being mimicked in OS
X, there are some unavoidable issues



That missing extension is one of things I've always hated -- I tend to
keep my life simple, so I've got 1891.txt 1891.xls 1891.doc and 1891.htm
all with slightly different content and format; without the extension
how in the WORLD do I tell which one I want when I go looking for it?
Sitting here clicking first one and the t'other until I find it makes me
crazy.

It also complicates things when I tell someone, "Find your .paf
files..." and they don't see any extensions ... Walking them through the
process of getting something USEFUL on their screen would drive Carrie
Nation into the arms of Jack Daniels.

Stupid little icons/thumbnails ... no way to tell how big a file is,
when it was created, or anything else, but here's a cute mini-pic of it!

Bah. Humbug. (Can you tell how I spent part of my afternoon?)

advanced mac or winXp know how to chose to view as a detailed list
with file size and type

Hugh W

[Dave Hinz]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:04:41 +0000, Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> wrote:

singhals wrote:

It also complicates things when I tell someone, "Find your .paf
files..." and they don't see any extensions ... Walking them through the
process of getting something USEFUL on their screen would drive Carrie
Nation into the arms of Jack Daniels.

advanced mac or winXp know how to chose to view as a detailed list
with file size and type

If opening terminal, cd'ing to the directory you're looking at, and
typing "ls" is "advanced mac", then I guess so.

By the way, Cheryl, on a mac, have 'em click on the "spotlight" icon in
the upper-right corner of the screen. A search box opens and have 'em
ty'e in
..pdf

It'll show where all the pdfs on the system are. Or type the word
"Johanna" and it'll show any document, regardless of format, with that
name in it. All indexed, all quick. They need to be fairly current in
their updates to have spotlight, but it eliminates that whole "where did
I put that" problem. It even finds words within pdfs, I just found.

[singhals]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:34:26 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

That missing extension is one of things I've always hated -- I tend to
keep my life simple, so I've got 1891.txt 1891.xls 1891.doc and 1891.htm
all with slightly different content and format; without the extension
how in the WORLD do I tell which one I want when I go looking for it?
Sitting here clicking first one and the t'other until I find it makes me
crazy.


Ah. Perhaps you've missed the point a bit. Unix (including Mac OSX)
doesn't particularly _care_ what extension you give it. But normally,
sure, you'll give it the right one.

*ix might not care, but I do.

It also complicates things when I tell someone, "Find your .paf
files..." and they don't see any extensions ... Walking them through the
process of getting something USEFUL on their screen would drive Carrie
Nation into the arms of Jack Daniels.


Yup.


Stupid little icons/thumbnails ... no way to tell how big a file is,
when it was created, or anything else, but here's a cute mini-pic of it!
Bah. Humbug. (Can you tell how I spent part of my afternoon?)


Please, please please tell me it wasn't Christmas shopping.

You flatter me; if it's not Dec 15 or later, I'm not Christmas shopping. (G)

Cheryl

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
singhals <[email protected]> writes:

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:34:26 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

That missing extension is one of things I've always hated -- I tend to
keep my life simple, so I've got 1891.txt 1891.xls 1891.doc and 1891.htm
all with slightly different content and format; without the extension
how in the WORLD do I tell which one I want when I go looking for it?
Sitting here clicking first one and the t'other until I find it makes me
crazy.


Ah. Perhaps you've missed the point a bit. Unix (including Mac OSX)
doesn't particularly _care_ what extension you give it. But normally,
sure, you'll give it the right one.

*ix might not care, but I do.

*ix and, I suppose, OS-X have had for years a concept of "magic numbers" which
identify file type when a user types the command "file <filename>" at the
command line. Without going into unwanted detail about the mechanism, for most
binary files, including images, a unique magic number identifying the file type
is stored at a known offset from the beginning of the file, making it possible
to call the file anything you damn well please because the system doesn't have
to rely on a file extension for information.

More'n you ever wanted to know about *ix file naming conventions.

SysAdmin Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the
other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are right." ---H. L. Mencken

[Dave Hinz]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:20:08 GMT, Robert Melson <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
singhals <[email protected]> writes:

*ix might not care, but I do.

*ix and, I suppose, OS-X have had for years a concept of "magic numbers" which
identify file type when a user types the command "file <filename>" at the
command line.

Sir, loathe as I am to contradict you, I believe you're thinking "magic
cookie" here, rather than "magic number". "magic number" in a unix
context is, far as I know, reserved for filesystem creation and spare
header blocks within those filesystems?

Without going into unwanted detail about the mechanism, for most
binary files, including images, a unique magic number identifying the file type
is stored at a known offset from the beginning of the file, making it possible
to call the file anything you damn well please because the system doesn't have
to rely on a file extension for information.

Right. If the first characters are %PDF then the file will be processed
as a .pdf file, even if it's called a .gif, .doc, or .html in the
filename. The names are just names, nothing more. Some assumtions are
made (by sloppy programmers) that filenames are to be trusted, but
that's the sort of thinking that among other problems, has windows in
the mess it has.

More'n you ever wanted to know about *ix file naming conventions.

Oh, c'mon, let me talk about regexp and how you can manipulate these
quite creatively.

SysAdmin Ol' Bob

I knew you were going to say that.

Dave

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2006-05-18, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:20:08 GMT, Robert Melson <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
singhals <[email protected]> writes:

*ix might not care, but I do.

*ix and, I suppose, OS-X have had for years a concept of "magic numbers" which
identify file type when a user types the command "file <filename>" at the
command line.

Sir, loathe as I am to contradict you, I believe you're thinking "magic
cookie" here, rather than "magic number". "magic number" in a unix
context is, far as I know, reserved for filesystem creation and spare
header blocks within those filesystems?

Sir, with great reluctance, I need to inform that I had
heard the term "magic number" to refer to special values in
the first few characters of a file as early as around the
mid 1980s. Maybe there are some differences in usage of
terminology.

--
Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert M. Riches Jr." <[email protected]> writes:

On 2006-05-18, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:20:08 GMT, Robert Melson <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
singhals <[email protected]> writes:

*ix might not care, but I do.

*ix and, I suppose, OS-X have had for years a concept of "magic numbers" which
identify file type when a user types the command "file <filename>" at the
command line.

Sir, loathe as I am to contradict you, I believe you're thinking "magic
cookie" here, rather than "magic number". "magic number" in a unix
context is, far as I know, reserved for filesystem creation and spare
header blocks within those filesystems?

Sir, with great reluctance, I need to inform that I had
heard the term "magic number" to refer to special values in
the first few characters of a file as early as around the
mid 1980s. Maybe there are some differences in usage of
terminology.

Gentlemen,

The concept of the "magic number" (note: number NOT cookie) has been around
since about 1973. I refer you to the manpage for the "file" command on
FreeBSD for a more detailed description of how the system works and for some
of the history of the command.

Dave, you're confusing the %PS/%PDF header in a (largely) text file with what
I'm talking about - what you're speaking of here is very much like the
"shebang" line in a script and, while it can be and is used by "file" to get
some file information, it's use is neither widespread nor reliable.

(p)Sychotic Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that
the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are right."
---H. L. Mencken

[singhals]

Robert Melson wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert M. Riches Jr." <[email protected]> writes:

On 2006-05-18, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:20:08 GMT, Robert Melson <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
singhals <[email protected]> writes:

*ix might not care, but I do.

*ix and, I suppose, OS-X have had for years a concept of "magic numbers" which
identify file type when a user types the command "file <filename>" at the
command line.

Sir, loathe as I am to contradict you, I believe you're thinking "magic
cookie" here, rather than "magic number". "magic number" in a unix
context is, far as I know, reserved for filesystem creation and spare
header blocks within those filesystems?

Sir, with great reluctance, I need to inform that I had
heard the term "magic number" to refer to special values in
the first few characters of a file as early as around the
mid 1980s. Maybe there are some differences in usage of
terminology.



Gentlemen,

The concept of the "magic number" (note: number NOT cookie) has been around
since about 1973. I refer you to the manpage for the "file" command on
FreeBSD for a more detailed description of how the system works and for some
of the history of the command.

Dave, you're confusing the %PS/%PDF header in a (largely) text file with what
I'm talking about - what you're speaking of here is very much like the
"shebang" line in a script and, while it can be and is used by "file" to get
some file information, it's use is neither widespread nor reliable.

(p)Sychotic Ol' Bob

Yes, wonderful, but. You're all either missing or ignoring my point. (g)

You open a desk drawer, and in it are 7 white envelopes all with the
word April written on the front. Which one of the 7 has the password
inside, which one has the travel voucher, and which one has the list of
tolls? The fact that the WRITER knows what order they're stacked
doesn't do you any good.

If I have 7 files named 1891, *I* need to know which one has the
password so I can open it on the first click. Otherwise, I keep opening
and closing files looking for the one I want.

Cheryl

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
singhals <[email protected]> writes:

Robert Melson wrote:

snip
Gentlemen,

The concept of the "magic number" (note: number NOT cookie) has been around
since about 1973. I refer you to the manpage for the "file" command on
FreeBSD for a more detailed description of how the system works and for some
of the history of the command.

Dave, you're confusing the %PS/%PDF header in a (largely) text file with what
I'm talking about - what you're speaking of here is very much like the
"shebang" line in a script and, while it can be and is used by "file" to get
some file information, it's use is neither widespread nor reliable.

(p)Sychotic Ol' Bob


Yes, wonderful, but. You're all either missing or ignoring my point. (g)

You open a desk drawer, and in it are 7 white envelopes all with the
word April written on the front. Which one of the 7 has the password
inside, which one has the travel voucher, and which one has the list of
tolls? The fact that the WRITER knows what order they're stacked
doesn't do you any good.

If I have 7 files named 1891, *I* need to know which one has the
password so I can open it on the first click. Otherwise, I keep opening
and closing files looking for the one I want.

Cheryl

Cheryl,

Of course, you're right. I was addressing something Dave (and another poster,
whose name I am too lazy to look up) had said about file information on *ix.
The whole idea of the filetype extension (.gif, etc.) is to give us mere
mortals a fighting chance of figuring out what the dickens a file might be.
I know things have changed marginally for the better with Micro$oft since they
introed the NTFS and the ability to have longer, more descriptive filenames -
I assume the same is true of OS-X and MACs in general, though I seem to recall
they've (Apple) been light years ahead of gatesware in that and other UI
issues..

Using your analogy above, my inclination would be to name the files/envelopes
something like "april-travel", "april-password", "april-tolls", etc, with an
appropriate extension to signify a spreadsheet, a wordprocessor and a text
file.

As I truly know little about MACs and their UI over the base operating system,
I tried to avoid hand-waving and the usual tapdance of the uninformed and, I
thought, addressed only the comments about how *ix identifies files - that was,
after all, my bread'n'butter for mumble years. I'd say, however, that IF you
have the ability to give files meaningful names, with or without extensions,
that'd be more likely than anything else to resolve your problem.

Slippery Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are
right." ---H. L. Mencken

[Dave Hinz]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:23:26 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes, wonderful, but. You're all either missing or ignoring my point. (g)

What? A bunch of techies getting lost in the weeds? Never, I say, dear
lady, Never, does that happen.

You open a desk drawer, and in it are 7 white envelopes all with the
word April written on the front. Which one of the 7 has the password
inside, which one has the travel voucher, and which one has the list of
tolls? The fact that the WRITER knows what order they're stacked
doesn't do you any good.

At the command line, type:
file April
and it'll make a best guess based on the internals of the file. Or on a
Mac, search for "travel voucher" in spotlight. Or
grep voucher April
....to see if the word appears in the file. Or, or, oror ororororor...

If I have 7 files named 1891, *I* need to know which one has the
password so I can open it on the first click. Otherwise, I keep opening
and closing files looking for the one I want.

Well, you couldn't have 'em all with the same name in the same
directory, so hopefully you'll have _some_ organizational clues. but
searching them for known or likely content is a good way to go. You can
search files & folders on Windows also but it's not nearly as fast.

[Nicholas Shanks]

On 18 May 2006, at 23:23, singhals wrote:

You open a desk drawer, and in it are 7 white envelopes all with
the word April written on the front. Which one of the 7 has the
password inside, which one has the travel voucher, and which one
has the list of tolls? The fact that the WRITER knows what order
they're stacked doesn't do you any good.
If I have 7 files named 1891, *I* need to know which one has the
password so I can open it on the first click. Otherwise, I keep
opening and closing files looking for the one I want.

The problem is you're thinking like a PC user.
When a Mac user opens that drawer, he sees a bright yellow envelope
with a picture of an aeroplane and the words April Travel Voucher
underneath, and six other equally unique envelopes all graphically
distinguishable and identiÞable.

Ignoring the case issue for a moment, you cannot have two Þles in the
same folder with the same name under HFS+ or NTFS. So either you have
the Windows way:
Windows Filename: Smith Figures.xsl DOS Filename: SMITHF~1.XSL
Windows Filename: Smith Logo.psd DOS Filename: SMITHL~1.PSD
Windows Filename: Smith Finished.pdf DOS Filename: SMITHF~2.PDF
Or you have the classical Mac way:
Filename: Smith Figures Type/Creator: Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet
Filename: Smith Logo Type/Creator: Adobe Photoshop Image
Filename: Smith Finished Type/Creator: Adobe Portable Document

Just as with Windows, the MacÑthus capitalised; MAC is something
completely different to do with networking cardsÑthe Mac displays a
different icon for each, and assuming you know whether you want the
spreadsheet or the image or the laid-out page, either method is Þne,
as the brain uses the visual cue of the icon in preference to reading
and processing the text beneath it. If you don't know which type of
Þle has your password in it, then you're screwed either way
And as you would say to a PC user "open your dot ex el es Þles", you
would say to a Mac user "open your excel Þles".

The new Mac system (OS X) supports both the above described methods,
and even a hybrid whereby you have both Þlename extensions and
separate type information (the type code takes priority). There's
also the recently introduced UTIs, which attempt to unify the above
with MIME types and other Þle type recognition methods, but these
aren't widely supported by third party software yet.

And I concur with the earlier poster, if your recipient has used a
computer for more than a week it ought to be obvious how to save an
image from a web page.
Personally, I usually right-click and choose Save to Desktop, but
sometimes I drag the image instead. By the way, Macs have always
supported multi-button miceÑI used a four-button Kensington Thinking
Mouse with System 7.1 over ten years ago. The Mac OS Finder has had
contextual menus since about the same time. I'm not sure why PC users
make assumptions to the contrary!

- Nicholas.

To the rootsweb/gencmp admin: why do signed emails to this list
bounce? This is a pretty serious ßaw, and should be rectified ASAP.
Thanks.

[Ernie Wright]

Robert Melson wrote:

*ix and, I suppose, OS-X have had for years a concept of "magic
numbers" which identify file type when a user types the command "file
filename>" at the command line. Without going into unwanted detail
about the mechanism, for most binary files, including images, a unique
magic number identifying the file type is stored at a known offset
from the beginning of the file,

This incorrectly implies that there's some kind of widely supported and
uniform convention or system involved, and that it's *nix-specific, when
in fact magic numbers are in file formats originating on every platform,
and they're only one of several file characteristics the *nix 'file'
command attempts to exploit.

All that's actually happening is that the 'file' command *guesses* the
type of the file based on what it finds in the first few bytes. This
might be a true magic number (a fixed byte sequence that appears at a
known offset in all files of a given type, specifically intended to ID
the file format) or something else (if 'file' finds "struct" in a text
file, it reports the file as C source code).

To get a sense of how ad hoc this is, you can look at the source code
for the free 'file' command, particularly the approximately 200 files
that contain the thousands of rules used to guess file types.

http://www.darwinsys.com/file/
ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/

Note that the 'file' source code archive itself is sensibly named with
the standard ".tar.gz" extension, indicating to both human readers and
programs running on *any* platform that the file is a gzipped tar file.
Files of particular types within the archive also use standard filename
extensions (.c and .h for C source, .sh for shell scripts, .man for man
pages).

making it possible to call the file anything you damn well please
because the system doesn't have to rely on a file extension for
information.

Or equivalently, because the system *can't* rely on a file extension.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ernie Wright <[email protected]> writes:

Answered off-group.

Surreptitious Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are
right." ---H. L. Mencken

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:15:28 -0400, Ernie Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

To get a sense of how ad hoc this is, you can look at the source code
for the free 'file' command, particularly the approximately 200 files
that contain the thousands of rules used to guess file types.

Or you can just view your /etc/magic file to see how the match rules are
built.

This is getting way afield of the original point which was "some systems
can be case-sensitive to filenames so watch for that".

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:09:37 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Nicholas Shanks) declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

distinguishable and identi?able.

You might want to check your client settings... It's converting

"f"/"i" sequences into a ligature character that is not printable in
many other clients. Shows up as U+F001/private use in the Windows
character map utility, when set for Unicode

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=MACINTOSH; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

ASCII and ISO-Latin-1 (ISO-8859-1) are the more common character
sets (with ISO-8859-15 cropping in for eastern europe)

To the rootsweb/gencmp admin: why do signed emails to this list
bounce? This is a pretty serious ?aw, and should be rectified ASAP.
Thanks.

Probably because they are appearing as binary attachments, and many
lists don't pass attachments?
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Denis Beauregard]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 17:17:53 GMT, Dennis Lee Bieber
<[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

ASCII and ISO-Latin-1 (ISO-8859-1) are the more common character
sets (with ISO-8859-15 cropping in for eastern europe)

8859-15 is the western european set (like the -1) but with the
Euro symbol.


Denis

[Ernie Wright]

Robert Melson wrote:

Answered off-group.

Dave Hinz wrote:

This is getting way afield of the original point which was "some
systems can be case-sensitive to filenames so watch for that".

I'm guessing my post made the music stop because it was interpreted as
a personal attack, which certainly isn't what I intended.

Bob's characterization of magic numbers and 'file' as some kind of Unix
design feature seemed pretty egregious to me.

The relevance, and the actual original point, is this: Differences in
areas as apparently simple as file naming conventions and metadata, and
how they are represented to the user, make it difficult for non-experts
to exchange data across platforms, or even to talk to each other. When
talking about how different platforms do things, it's therefore helpful
to get the story straight.

Dave, you wrote that reliance on filename extensions is "the sort of
thinking that...has windows in the mess it has." You and Bob have been
around long enough to know that extensions weren't Microsoft's idea.
They were a legacy inherited from CP/M and DEC and VM/CMS. I certainly
remember them being used on the VAX under VMS. And as I said, there's
a reason they're used all the time on Unix, too.

Windows is an easy target, but bashing it while praising Unix (for
something it never did!) doesn't help the OP tell her Mac friends where
to find their PAF files.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ernie Wright <[email protected]> writes:

I'm guessing my post made the music stop because it was interpreted as
a personal attack, which certainly isn't what I intended.

Understood. I certainly didn't take it personally. SysAdmins develop very
thick hides in a hurry or they don't last long in the racket. Twenty-something
years of the slings and arrows of outrage{d,ous} users ...

Bob's characterization of magic numbers and 'file' as some kind of Unix
design feature seemed pretty egregious to me.

I don't recall saying or implying "file" and magic numbers were a Unix design
feature - I _thought_ I said such had been around on Unix systems of all
flavors since about 1973, and I deliberately tried to avoid describing the
actual mechanism in order to avoid that glazed over look so common when
discussions become particularly technical or o/s-centric.

<snip>

Dave, you wrote that reliance on filename extensions is "the sort of
thinking that...has windows in the mess it has." You and Bob have been
around long enough to know that extensions weren't Microsoft's idea.
They were a legacy inherited from CP/M and DEC and VM/CMS. I certainly
remember them being used on the VAX under VMS. And as I said, there's
a reason they're used all the time on Unix, too.

It may well be that Dave was speaking of the 8.3 filename.extension
convention that has carried through Gatesware until the very recent past. That
has been a major, umm, failing of MS from the outset. There were - and are -
other considerations that, in my opinion, make Windows a less than optimal
operating system; the same can be said for every other o/s out there, but this
is not the place to cuss and discuss them. _I_ happen to like Unix and avoid
Windows when- and wherever I can. That doesn't necessarily make Unix better,
although I believe from experience that it is better, it just means I like
Unix and Unix-like systems.

<snip>

I think this sub-thread has now reached a point where it should be put out of
its misery - it surely isn't answering the OP's question and, while fun, really
doesn't add much to the overall discussion.

Truce?

Somnolent Ol' Bob


--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are
right." ---H. L. Mencken

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 14:45:24 -0400, Ernie Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

Dave, you wrote that reliance on filename extensions is "the sort of
thinking that...has windows in the mess it has." You and Bob have been
around long enough to know that extensions weren't Microsoft's idea.

Well, not so fast - my experience with Microsoft starts in 1980.

They were a legacy inherited from CP/M and DEC and VM/CMS. I certainly
remember them being used on the VAX under VMS. And as I said, there's
a reason they're used all the time on Unix, too.

Sure, but in Unix at least, it's just a name. In Windows, it's trusted
to be accurate. Any security schema which relies on trusting the
uncontrollable is doomed.

Windows is an easy target, but bashing it while praising Unix (for
something it never did!) doesn't help the OP tell her Mac friends where
to find their PAF files.

I don't think pointing out a fundamental design problem is bashing, but
OK.

[Ernie Wright]

Robert Melson wrote:

and I deliberately tried to avoid describing the actual mechanism in
order to avoid that glazed over look so common when discussions become
particularly technical or o/s-centric.

I suspect most people glaze over at the mere mention of Unix, so that
the issue of what's said afterward is moot.

Truce?

If that's the best we can do.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ernie Wright <[email protected]> writes:

Robert Melson wrote:

and I deliberately tried to avoid describing the actual mechanism in
order to avoid that glazed over look so common when discussions become
particularly technical or o/s-centric.

I suspect most people glaze over at the mere mention of Unix, so that
the issue of what's said afterward is moot.

Dunno. I rather think it's because of the myth of Unix's cryptic, unforgiving
and technical nature. People who are unfamiliar with Unix tend to suffer
panic attacks because they're intimidated by its reputation. To know Unix,
however, is to love it. (Stray thought: I just realized I've been in "like"
with Unix since a version of DEC Unix on an 11/30 (!) back in grad school.
That was in the days we still carved our books on stones or inscribed'em on mud
tablets and rode yellow dinosaurs to school, of course.)

Truce?

If that's the best we can do.

Well, I wuz gonna say we've got to quit meeting like this, but people might
take that the wrong way. Way I look at it, I think the OP's gotten her
answer somewhere on another sub-thread, so none of us - you, me, Dave - is
really contributing much at this stage beyond showing off that WE, by golly,
aren't slaves to the forces of evil headquartered in Redmond, WA.

Senescent Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are
right." ---H. L. Mencken

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 18:15:30 -0400, Ernie Wright <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

and I deliberately tried to avoid describing the actual mechanism in
order to avoid that glazed over look so common when discussions become
particularly technical or o/s-centric.

I suspect most people glaze over at the mere mention of Unix, so that
the issue of what's said afterward is moot.

Well, for the most part, if you have a home computer these days, it's
either running Windows, or it's running Unix.

Truce?

If that's the best we can do.

Aw, c'mon, it was just getting dynamic.

[Ernie Wright]

Robert Melson wrote:

I suspect most people glaze over at the mere mention of Unix, so that
the issue of what's said afterward is moot.

Dunno. I rather think it's because of the myth of Unix's cryptic,
unforgiving and technical nature. People who are unfamiliar with Unix
tend to suffer panic attacks because they're intimidated by its
reputation.

s/Unix/computers/.

Most people don't even know what Unix is. They're intimidated by every
operating system.

My pediatrician, who has both an MD and a PhD (in chemistry, I think),
confessed to me the other day that she was baffled when double clicking
on a data file failed to open it.

How do we send data to them?

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ernie Wright <[email protected]> writes:
<snip>

How do we send data to them?

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

Again, I just dunno. There are folks whose level of comfort is exceeded by

_anything_ electronic, others who have accomodated to Windoze on a PC, and
yet others who have given up on paper entirely. Guess it's incumbent on us to
try to make the right choice when dealing with them.

Solomon-like Ol' Bob


--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove
that the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed, and are
right." ---H. L. Mencken