From: casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik)
Subject: Re: HP and windows NT
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:46:43 GMT

deanc@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Dean Cashen) writes:

>>This is my main problem with case insensitive filesystems. I've
>>used a number of them (DOS, VMS, AOS/VS and Macintosh). The only
>>implementation that remembered case is the Mac implementation.
>>The other implementations accept any case you type but when you
>>list the files THE SYSTEM SHOUTS THE NAMES BACK AT YOU. That is
>>not acceptable. (See how uppercase reads differently from lowercase)

>Well, it does "read" differently, but it still *means* the same as
>if you'd written "the system shouts the names back at you."  The
>argument against case-sensitive file systems isn't one of subtle
>"interpretations" of names, it's about *complete* differences in the
>way they are managed by the O/S.

>MS-DOS 5.0 supports the environment variable "DIRCMD" (or "dircmd,"
>same difference :-)) which allows you to, among others, specify the
>case for directory listings.  No "shouting."  DOS operations
>remain case-independent.

Maybe so. But I want it to preserve case, so that some files
(README, Makefile) come first in an alfabetical list.
Also, yous kilfully deleted my argument that there is no
way that you can specify a case mapping that will satisfy all
8bit locales.

>This discussion, like O/S and editor debates, borders on religion.
>Some people argue that case-sensitivity is in some ways "better."
>I haven't seen anyone really explain *why*, other than the
>over-used "flexibility" it offers.  Yeah, it's more flexible,
>but where's the ADVANTAGE? (caps used to indicate *emphasis*,
>not meaning ;-))

Religions start when people say ``our way is definitely better,
give is arguments/advantages for your way''. Real life is
case-senistive.  Filenames can be words, names, etc.
That the first computers weren't case-sensitive was
because they either lacked lowercase charsacters in the
character set or didn't have output devices able
to distinguish between lower and upper case. So, the case
insensitivity was not a choice by design but a choice made
because the cost of having two cases outweight the benefit AT THE TIME.

This is no longer true, so the default choice now should be:
``we have case, we allow case in filenames, and filenames
with different case are different''.

The problem with not distinguishing between cases are twofold:

The system either talk back to you in monocase (so you can type
in anycase but the system will list in monocase, usually uppercase,
but hey, MS-DOS 5.0 now allows you to list in lower case, what a
big step) or the system remembers case typed (Macintosh).

In the first case, you'll have users complaining, I named the file ``Frank''
but I now have a file called ``frank''.
In the second case, mysterious things will happen. ``I wrote the file
frank, but now the file Frank has gone''

The only users complaining about systems being case-sensitive are
those who previously worked with systems that weren't, this is an
artefact from old computers and operating systems. Should we maintain backward
compatibility with the past because of the backward users? I think not.

The only argument put forward for case-insensitivity is that
``real life is not case-sensitive''. That is obviously not true.
The only things on this earth that were not case-sensitive at
some point in time(*) are old fashioned computers and their operating
systems.

Now it is your turn to give the advantages of case-insensitivity.

This discussion, like O/S and editor debates, borders on religion.
Some people argue that case-insensitivity is in some ways "better."
I haven't seen anyone really explain *why*, other than the
over-used "inflexibility" it offers.  Yeah, it's less flexible,
but where's the ADVANTAGE? (caps used to indicate meaning, not
emphasis.)

(*) Since the invention of lowercase letters, of course.

Casper
-- 
						|	Casper H.S. Dik
						|	casper@fwi.uva.nl