>Linux doesn't tend to use file extensions on directly executable files including binaries and shell scripts, instead identifying the executable type by inspecting the file.
great system guys
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>Linux doesn't tend to use file extensions on directly executable files including binaries and shell scripts, instead identifying the executab...
It's really cool.
The file names have different colors depending on whether or not they are executable, though I am unsure which terminal emulators do this by default. I know xfce4-terminal makes them green, light blue for symbolic/hardlinks, and plain white for simple files that are not executable.
I believe it's a shell thing, not a terminal one, since it happens with every terminal.
>happens with every terminal.
Well, I haven't used every terminal so I didn't know that. >:P
Ideal filesystem would use extensions but have a header checker redundancy.
wrong again homosexual, the colors of files are determined by the LSCOLORS and LS_COLORS environment variables, not your terminal.
That's what I said, a shell thing, not a terminal one.
dunning kruger
>different colors
that's so moronic
As opposed to .exe instead of .txt?
hey man please download megalovania.mp3.exe and listen to it
windows strips the extension by default so normies will actually do this shit
Not going to lie, the first thing I do with almost every .exe file I encounter is try to uncompress it using 7zip.
cool, but I doubt the normal braindead user knows that most windows executables are just self extracting archives
I agree.
Here is an example case that just happened, btw
To simulate a fraction of our power, you need to have an extra dedicated feature ~ "hide file extension".
Why is it necessary? Because people don't name things with extensions, that's not how naming works.
Or are you gonna name your child bob.human??
it makes sense if you get how the file works, the first part of the file is a header, it tells you what kind of file it is.
file ./yourfile
will tell you what kind of file it is
That's how it works on Windows too. Windows just checks either or both? the extension and the header of the file.
No it isn't. Windows does support files with no extension but It cannot distinguish between files with no extensions, the program you are using might be able to do so. but windows itself cannot.
sounds-moronic.sneed
Yeah, it is. Extensions mean absolutely nothing anyways.
add to this that a programms files are installed all over the place, now good luck finding the executable to run the prog
Pretty much every program I've used that wasn't just a click to use one had a section in their readme specifying
>to run this execute the "[scriptname].sh" file
And most times it was just named run.sh so seeing that I didnt need to bother readin the readme
>trannies think changing your name to Doreen makes you a woman
>Windows thinks adding .exe to a file's name makes it a program
executables have the executable bit and files are identified by their header. you don't need extensions on anything. I've always thought it makes more sense, especially switching over around 20 years ago now, back when windows was full of malware that used that one simple trick - file extensions - to be for example a jpeg that was actually an scr file with a jpg icon embedded. Technically the executable extension could be said to be .o but that would be even more ambiguous, and you'd have to add the extension to every command, or have a shell that tries to automatically add it, leading to more ambiguity.
thanks we're proud of it