Re: [cobalt-users] Re: Re: user default page shows username@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

["William Moore" <bmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Summers" <charlie@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "BT" <error404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:35 PM
Subject: [cobalt-users] Re: Re: user default page shows
username@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> At 7:42 PM -0500 11/21/01, BT is rumored to have typed:
>
> > and I had a mac that would only use 8.3
> > filenames....eg .htm
>
>    (*sigh*)
>
>    No, sir, you did not. The Macintosh has _never_ used extensions
natively
> (it used a four-character type and four-character creator code to link
> documents to applications through the invisible "Desktop" file, later
> "Desktop DF" and "Desktop DB" filepair, so any "." character in a filename
is
> just another character), and from the original Macintosh (128k) used 31
> characters for filenames and 27-characters for volume names (actually, as
> specified by MFS, filenames could be 255 characters, but the MFS Finder
only
> recognized filenames of 63 characters; it was the later HFS that further
> limited filename length to 31 characters), so it could _always_ use
".html"
> for web page extensions. This under a 16-bit 68000 processor, remember.
>
>    So it's apparent that 8.3 filenaming conventions have nothing
whatsoever
> to do with 16-bit processing, nor 8-bit processing for that matter (a la
> CP/M, where MS-DOS gets most of its underpinnings); you're mixing apples
and
> oranges. The only limitations when it comes to filenames are within the
> filesystems used, and the method by which the OS accesses those
filesystems
> (as an example, if a Mac running System 7.5 reads a RockRidge-compliant
> CD-ROM, it can only display 31 characters in a filename even if the
filename
> is longer as permitted by the standard).
>
>    And yes, you are welcomed to use ".xyz," ".k," or even ".gigglesnort"
as
> your web-page extension, so long as you properly set up your MIME types to
> send text/html for those extensions even on a 32-bit RaQ, but that
wouldn't
> make it the standard for web page extensions. MS was forced to use ".htm"
by
> its _own_ Win31 limitations (note even under Win31, third-party software
> allowed for long filenames, including four-character extensions), and
foisted
> them on the rest of the world as if it was the only way. Pretty much like
> everything else they do.
>
>          Charlie (who has a 128, a couple of 512, and some Mac Plus
>                    machines in the basement, and has worked with them
>                    since System 0.9 and programmed them since not too
>                    long after - and who promises to stop this off-topic
>                    discussion now with apologies to the rest of the list)
>

And I thought I was the only dual purpose geek on the list.  I run a 28
station macintosh network
and at 30 server ISP  plus 8 cobalts..  Sheesh,  and I have not even been
around since 0.9  but I have been
doing mac's since os 6.0    now 9.x gives me a headache !

btw :  I have a couple of Mac Plus's as doorstops,  they work quite well in
that capacity :)

Bill
http://www.biz-webhost.com