Poster | Thread |
wawa
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 12-Aug-2012 23:56:43
| | [ #61 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Jan-2008 Posts: 6259
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @vox
Quote:
Gladly, arms should never be widely avail in Europe. |
Yes, you are right, that was a just a joke. In the mentime i have a nice axe, and no, dont remember when i saw a zombie movie last time.
Btw, is that you reporting me for abuse all the time? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
amigadave
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 13-Aug-2012 0:07:50
| | [ #62 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 18-Jul-2005 Posts: 1732
From: Lake Shastina, Northern Calif. | | |
|
| @wawa & vox,
Take your disputes and off topic questions to PMail, or email and get back On Topic in this thread, or it might be locked and members ignoring warnings will receive posting restrictions. _________________ Amiga! The computer that inspired so many, to accomplish so much, but has ended up in the hands of . . . . . . . . . . |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
vox
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 13-Aug-2012 8:44:26
| | [ #63 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-Jun-2005 Posts: 3735
From: Belgrade, Serbia | | |
|
| @amigadave
I have no PMs, its clear who is in violation of what, there is not even a personal quarel with wawa: its just unclear what does he wants to tell us.
P.S. Nice invention "abusive usage of report button", Report button can be used just once per message, and I sometimes do report one or few, never all messages, so there is no excess. There are just laizy people.
Back on topic:
Amiga main article needs to be improved or not? AmigaOS article people say CAN be improved MorphOS and AROS article NEEDS an improvement.
Any other Amiga pages on Wiki?
Suggest improvements, I do have account and watch this pages, first will go to talk page and later will insert it into main. Last edited by vox on 13-Aug-2012 at 08:46 AM. Last edited by vox on 13-Aug-2012 at 08:45 AM.
_________________ Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 13-Aug-2012 15:25:12
| | [ #64 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Arko
Quote:
The Amiga is an Amiga without its OS. |
Human is still Human without heart, but certainly not alive. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 13-Aug-2012 15:25:56
| | [ #65 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @vox
Quote:
I do have account and watch this pages, first will go to talk page and later will insert it into main. |
Right approach! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 13-Aug-2012 16:19:35
| | [ #66 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11211
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| @Franko
Quote:
Sigh... life would been much simpler if only filenames of up to 107 characters WERE supported across the Amiga range... |
They were. That 107 + NUL is an AmigaDOS limit. The problem was the filesystem in use was lazy didn't fully use that amount. What's worse is that it was likely an official filesystem like FFS.
But, 31 chars was never a problem for me back in the day, and it was better than 8.3 capitals only, so where did it get you stuck?
But I am surprised as most people I knew ditched FFS in favor of PFS. Surely PFS didn't share this limit? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
vox
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 13-Aug-2012 20:04:17
| | [ #67 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-Jun-2005 Posts: 3735
From: Belgrade, Serbia | | |
|
| @pavlor
Quote:
Human is still Human without heart, but certainly not alive. |
So we do know who the zombies are ...
OK tommorow I will suggest whatever we CAN AGREE here.
@pavlor
Quote:
do have account and watch this pages, first will go to talk page and later will insert it into main.
Pavlor: Right approach! |
Last edited by vox on 13-Aug-2012 at 08:04 PM.
_________________ Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Franko
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 14-Aug-2012 0:26:34
| | [ #68 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Jun-2010 Posts: 2809
From: Unknown | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hypex
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 15-Aug-2012 15:59:20
| | [ #69 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 6-May-2007 Posts: 11211
From: Greensborough, Australia | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 15-Aug-2012 18:47:09
| | [ #70 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12818
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 8:05:46
| | [ #71 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Aug-2003 Posts: 2894
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @Franko
Quote:
Nope... right up to & including OS 3.9 long filenames were never supported as standard by AmigaOS. |
False.
107 has been supported all the way, dude. Filename lengths are not just "files on local spinning disk", it also includes handlers in various other device drivers (CON:, RAW:, PIPE: etc), and of course files in RAM: and network filesystems. The official AS-225 TCP/IP stack from Commodore included a client to mount remote NFS shares for example, it was standard._________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Arko
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 8:22:30
| | [ #72 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 17-Jan-2007 Posts: 1989
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @vox
Quote:
vox wrote: @Arko
Quote:
The Amiga is an Amiga without its OS |
Amiga in traditional Classic sense died with ESCOM.
|
That's absolute correct and that Wikipedia artikle is exactly about this computer and nothing else: I could only repeat it: Quote:
"The Amiga is a family of personal computers marketed by Commodore in the 1980s and 1990s."
|
Maybe they should inlude Amiga Technology, they to pruced sold Amigas.
@pavlor
Quote:
pavlor wrote: @Arko
Quote:
The Amiga is an Amiga without its OS. |
Human is still Human without heart, but certainly not alive. |
A heart is a blood pump, if you compare a body with a computer, the heart is nothing more than a part of the power suply system.
But an Amiga without OS is still an Amiga.Last edited by Arko on 16-Aug-2012 at 09:10 AM.
_________________ AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.
I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28): http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0 |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 15:38:33
| | [ #73 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12818
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Franko
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 16:23:58
| | [ #74 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Jun-2010 Posts: 2809
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @kolla
Quote:
kolla wrote: @Franko
False.
107 has been supported all the way, dude. Filename lengths are not just "files on local spinning disk", it also includes handlers in various other device drivers (CON:, RAW:, PIPE: etc), and of course files in RAM: and network filesystems. The official AS-225 TCP/IP stack from Commodore included a client to mount remote NFS shares for example, it was standard. |
Cobblers...
You try loading or saving a file in for example DPaint, PPaint, Aegis Sonix, Dirwork etc... etc... with a filename of over 30 characters and see how far you get...
De-compile the code for the above and about 98% of the software of the time and you'll find that the code written, whether it be for loading or saving a file will have been deliberately set to read / input no more than 30 characters in the file handle for the filename (despite 107 chars being available in the file handle) which is used by ALL Amiga file opening procedures both reads & writes...
Simple fact is, in order to make sure files were able to be seen by Workbench, programmers deliberately truncated the ability to read or enter filenames to 30 characters or under (depending on which file system the were using) because most folk used the file systems that came as standard with the Amiga OFS/ FFS...
Dunno why certain folk keep going on about "File in RAM:"...
Here's a simple task save/ rename for example an IFF Picture from the CLI/ Shell into RAM:, give it a really long filename greater than 30 characters, load up DPaint and try to load the file and tell me how far you get...
Unless the programmer actually had the foresight not to truncate or only read the first 30 characters from the file handle (which very, very few did) then reading filenames greater than 30 characters is impossible for the vast majority of Amiga software ever written. Filenames greater than 30 chars will for most software result in a file not found error, same goes for creating files with long filenames, if the programmer limits you to 30 chars or truncates your input to 30 chars then even using PFS or SFS you will still be limited to 30 chars and under... it's quite simple to understand really... _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Fab
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 16:36:31
| | [ #75 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 17-Mar-2004 Posts: 1178
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Franko
Quote:
Simple fact is, in order to make sure files were able to be seen by Workbench, programmers deliberately truncated the ability to read or enter filenames to 30 characters or under (depending on which file system the were using) because most folk used the file systems that came as standard with the Amiga OFS/ FFS...
|
Well, it only made sense to truncate for saving in that case, not for loading. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Franko
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 17:10:58
| | [ #76 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Jun-2010 Posts: 2809
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Fab
Quote:
Fab wrote: @Franko
Well, it only made sense to truncate for saving in that case, not for loading. |
It's all down to the fact we Are talking about the Amiga here and not PC's/ Macs or files created on other computer systems or hardware...
Back in the heyday of the Amiga most folk only used OFS/ FFS, Workbench could/ can only display and access filenames of up to 30 characters (Pre OS 4), most people only had 4 or 8 meg of extra memory (if they were lucky) and so it made sense for programmers to write their code with a limit of 30 chars for a filename to remain compatible across Workbench...
For example take something like DirWork, DOPus or even the custom file requester in something like DPaint. All those lists of filenames you see when using such a program eat up memory as each filename has to be stored in RAM to use it in such a list...
I know were only talking about 30 chars here but with such limited memory for most users at the time, then coders limited the structures for storing filenames to as small as possible so as not to eat up valuable RAM (I used to code that way myself)...
30 bytes eats up a lot less space than 107 when it comes to writing a file requester. It may seem ridiculous now but that's the way it was back in the day and with such limited resources every byte saved counted...
At the end of the day no matter what I or anyone else has to say here, nothing can change the fact that the vast majority of Amiga software ever written was done so in a way that 30 characters for the filename whether reading or writing is the limit...
Think I've explained it well enough so if anyone else want's to say different then be my guest, I'll just sit here quietly knowing that I am right on this trivial matter...
PS: Anyone wishing to "cure" this problem could of course spend the rest of their lives de-compiling all the old Amiga software and "fixing" the code to handle long filenames re-compiling it and using it them for themselves, as you won't be able to distribute most of it as it's still under copyright in most cases... _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 17:31:48
| | [ #77 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12818
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
itix
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 18:05:19
| | [ #78 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Dec-2004 Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world | | |
|
| @kolla
While system structures supported longer filenames than 30 characters the OS was not prepared to support it. System applications sometimes could truncate filenames. This was at least case with Workbench 1.3 and I think even the Workbench manual states you cant use filenames longer than that. _________________ Amiga Developer Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
kolla
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 16-Aug-2012 23:56:59
| | [ #79 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Aug-2003 Posts: 2894
From: Trondheim, Norway | | |
|
| @Franko
Just because there''s a lot of (badly written) software that makes assumptions, doesn't mean the OS doesn't support it. GP of DOpus also for a very long time tried to pretend that the H-flag in the filesystem was for "hidden", which is plain wrong. _________________ B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Franko
| |
Re: This is not right Posted on 17-Aug-2012 6:48:26
| | [ #80 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Jun-2010 Posts: 2809
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @kolla
Quote:
kolla wrote: @Franko
Just because there''s a lot of (badly written) software that makes assumptions, doesn't mean the OS doesn't support it. GP of DOpus also for a very long time tried to pretend that the H-flag in the filesystem was for "hidden", which is plain wrong. |
Badly written !!!
Was it really badly written, think about it...
The "OS" was written by Commodore and they for the most part stuck to the 30 char (and under) limit and probably with good reason. Imagine trying to display filenames under icons on a Workbench screen of 107 characters in length on a 640 x 256 standard screen and even worse on a TV set...
Reckon myself that's probably the main reason why we ended up with the 30 char limit and was it really so bad, can't say it ever really caused any major headaches in the everyday use of the Amiga to me...
From what I gather PC's of that era had a limit of far shorter filenames, they managed fine too. Even though I use SFS on most of my Amigas these days I still tend to stick within the 30 char limit for filenames (just a habit & for compatibility) and the only real use I ever have for longer filenames is for MP3's or accessing files that others have saved and given them long filenames (on a PC for example)...
SFS or PFS store files with long filenames, still doesn't solve the problem you have with old software hard coded to only read the first 30 chars, programmers obviously thought it best to stick within the 30 char limit so as to be compatible with Workbench, which was after all the main user interface for most...
So "Badly Written" nah... more down to the simple fact there was not much point in writing software to save very long filenames that would have caused all sorts of problems when used with the Amigas main user interface, Workbench...
Kinda make sense when you think about it... _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|