|
|
|
re: Can't copy b/c ''filename or extension is too long''
Monday, April 11, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Lance
(1 messages posted)
"UR FUXORED MAKE SMALLER DIRECTORIES AND DONT USE LONG FILENAMES"
Did you really write that? And then copyright your response?
Using "leetspeak" and misspelled words (for example, I am guessing you meant to say
"ontological" and "a lot" not "ongological" and "ALLOT") while trying to show off
textbook-garnered knowledge is not as impressive as you believe.
Anyway, it was nice of you to respond even if it was not to my post. The purpose
of my post was to convey my confusion as to why it is possible to create a directory
structure on a Windows box that a Windows box cannot replicate. Your response seems
to suggest I should create an better operating system, and I agree. Real operating
systems should not have these kinds of problems. If the structure is too complex
to be recreated, it should not be createable in the first place.
Feel free to copy and distribute this post.
On Saturday, April 9, 2005 at 7:12 am, William Ashley wrote:
>Ok this is after the fact so it may not be much help however when planning your
structure
>you may like to have a better ongological hierarchy(directory system)
>
>I think what you are going to have to do in this case is to have those files moved
>up the directory tree. For instance if you have here/here2/here3/here4/here5/etc................................/etc......................................................................................................../thisismyfile.ext
>you will need to move it to a folder here 4 or here 5.. that totally messes up your
>directory tree. The other alternative of course is to change your here1 to h1 here
>to to h2 etc.. perhaps adding a text file to explain your nomenclature. It is a
huge
>limitation on large projects however I think linux and unix can get around this.
>
>The answer of course is to have a "datacore" this core has all you data on it. Either
>in one file or individually. This /core directory has all your real data. Your hierarchy
>is held in a "file.ref" file which is basically your directory tree. However the
>OS then goes to the file.ref and gets the location of the /root/filenom.ext Essentially
>using a directory tree in a directory.
>
>File names themselves could be listed as whatever. However due to dataprocessing
>speed graphics painting etc.. you may like to limit it to the first 8 or so.
>
>As far as your specific question, if the hierarchy is vital you are fuxored, for
>say html etc.. however you could just do a find replace option for all your largenamed
>files using "small names"
>
>Honestly the system I just described should be used for interface. Having a "tecnom"
>and a "usrnom" tecnom being used for techincal processes being a serial where as
>usrnom is housed in the file.ref. The usr nom is only displayed or "in session"
in
>ram process. Where as any other processes are housed behind.
>
>There should bo reason why the usrnom should extend beyond 256 characters unless
>there are ALLOT of files I.E. FOR 128character 8 bit as you would have to have 340,282,366,920,939,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
> posibilities for tecnom file names hence give or take a few filenames. The actual
>number of usrnom filenames would be effectively unlimited (to the size of your harddrive/ram
>etc... re: hardware) .
>
>The important thing to remember that files are chunked and scattered all across
a
>harddrive. Using "shortnames" for directories and making a explaining tree.nav file..
>even as an htm linking the files.. that is a "virtual directory". Is something that
>you can visually see. UR FUXORED MAKE SMALLER DIRECTORIES AND DONT USE LONG FILENAMES
>
>c.2005 William Ashley
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | | | |  | re: Can't copy b/c ''filename or extension is too long'' (Lance: Mon, Apr 11, 2005, 2:31 pm) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
