"File types"

[Chuck Guzis]

On 8/28/2006 at 4:08 PM Don wrote:

>I've still not heard any comment on *why* (hysterically)
>this scheme was (apparently) replaced by one in which
>names convey file type information (e.g. foo.sea.hqx).
>Is it simply a "lowest common denominator" -- i.e. every
>file system (on "every" OS) supports the concept of a file
>NAME so that's where it *has* to go?  Yet, why does it
>*have* to go there at all?  (i.e. why does file type
>*need* to be part of the name -- is it just something
>that users have grown accustomed to?)

If I understand you...

Unix was the first system that I'd ever seen where the file name implied a
type.

There are very old systems that differentiate between 'data" and
"executable" files outside of the file name; it can be via attribute or
"type" not part of the file.  Unix is one such system--you can have a
"Can't read or write, only execute" file.

Cheers,
Chuck