std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Guest Moderator, John B. Chambers) (10/06/86)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 23:09:29 EDT From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> Subject: so-called "case sensitive" file names It seems some people either have forgotten what UNIX is about or never knew in the first place. Pathname components are simply strings of byte-chunked bit patterns. It is not the operating system's business to second-guess the user's intentions and interpret the strings he has chosen to use for filenames in order to "fix them" on his behalf. (Some *applications* may elect to impose restrictions on formats of filenames for files that they deal with, when appropriate.) I know several experienced UNIX users who rely on the freedom to choose meaningful (*to them*) filenames, frequently using both upper- and lower-case versions of a name concurrently for different purposes (I do this myself). If somebody can't cope with names that are distinguished only by case, then of course he is free to adopt his own naming procedures. Automatic enforcement of unnecessary restrictions by the kernel is not desirable; that's the sort of thing UNIX was a rebellion against. I also think this discussion was based on a misconception: although we removed the note that some implementations may fold cases in filenames, I can't find anything in the current draft of the POSIX standard that prohibits this or other constraints on filenames imposed by an implementation. Presumably only a layered implementation on a system that doesn't support arbitrary characters in filenames would impose any such restriction, but that's a marketing matter, not a technical one. Volume-Number: Volume 7, Number 21