On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:38:53PM +1000, Jeremy Visser wrote:
> Solution to what? I?m arguing *for* the status quo, not against it.
>
> I?m arguing against the arguments against the status quo. That makes
> sense, right?

the status quo is that users who create filenames with spaces on unix
systems deserve a severe and vicious larting.

Then I welcome your patch to your filesystem of choice that restricts filenames to not include spaces.

Personally, I think rants like this about what should and shouldn't be in filenames are pretty immature.

If the filename is permitted, then the character in question is fine.

brett@capsid:~$ stat fo*

File: ‘foo\nbar’

Size: 3 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 regular file

Device: fc01h/64513d Inode: 57920 Links: 1

Access: (0664/-rw-rw-r--) Uid: ( 1000/ brett) Gid: ( 1000/ brett)

Access: 2013-09-20 19:34:39.291570671 +1000

Modify: 2013-09-20 19:34:39.291570671 +1000

Change: 2013-09-20 19:34:39.291570671 +1000

Birth: -

Look, a newline in a filename, I bet you're frothing at the mouth.

Yet it's fine. XFS allowed me to create it happily. And most programs are happy with it.

Because they're not so poorly written as to make stupid assumptions about the properties of a filename.

If your program is so badly coded that it mandates that certain characters can't be in a filename,

then I suggest it's that author that requires larting, not the user.

/ Brett