The magic of Linux, is you can try it yourself, run your own fork and submit patches.
Well it should probably go further and offer more of another kind of magic - where stuff works as user expects it to work.
As for submitting patches, it sounds like you suggest people play around and touch core parts responsible for file system operations. Such an advice is not going to work for everyone. Open source software is not ideal. It can be ideal in theory, but that's it.
LUKS is the one to talk about as the others aren't as good an approach in general. LUKS is the recommended approach.
It looks like there are enough use cases where some people would not prefer LUKS.
I have lived quite happily, on pretty much only open source for over 12 years now. Professionally and at home (longer at home). Debian I put with Wikipedia as an example of what humans can be.
There is no gate keepers in who can do what where. Only on who will accept the patches. Projects fork for all kinds of reasons, though even Google failed to fork the Linux kernel. If there is some good patch to extend the filename limit, it will get in. Enough pressure and maybe the core team of that subsystem will do it.
Open source already won I'm affriad. Most of the internet, IoT to super computers, runs open source. Has been that way for a while. If you use Windows, fine, but it is just a consumer end node OS for muggels. 😉
If you setup a new install, and say you want encryption, LUKS is what you get.
Does it look like I advocate for windows? Nah.
Open source is great when it works. "If there is some good patch..." and "Enough pressure and maybe..." is the sad reality of it. Why would people need to put pressure on order for Linux to start supporting features long available in file systems it supports? Why would I, specifically, should spend time on it? Does Linux want to become an os for everyone or only for people experimenting with dangerous stuff that make them lose data sometimes?
Don't get me wrong, Linux is good even now. But there is no need to actively deny points of possible improvement. When they ask you how great XFS is compared to others you shouldn't throw "exbibytes" word, you should first think what problems people might have with it, especially if they want to switch from windows.
If you setup a new install, and say you want encryption, LUKS is what you get.
And if I want to only encrypt some files? I need to create a volume specifically for that, right? Or I could just use something else.
Open source clearly works because of the scale and breath of it's use. That's the modern world and its use is only increasing. This a good thing for multiple reasons.
Unicode filename length clearly isn't as big an issue as you feel or it would be fixed. There is some BIG money that could be spent to fix this for countries and companies who need unicode.
How you encrypt depends on your aim. If you aim is limit your character available for filenames, there are ways. If it's read only, you do a GPG tar ball. LUKS if you want a live system. You can just create a file, LUKS format it.
But there are many ways. A good few filesystems offer folder/file encryption natively. Though I'd argue that's less secure.
clearly isn't as big an issue as you feel or it would be fixed.
I might have agreed with such statements 20 years ago. But not anymore. I can't count the times I've seen how certain software, game, system or a service literally brick themselves when a use case involves using non-ascii, non-english or non-unicode characters, paths or regions. Not Linux related only or specifically, but almost always it looks and feels embarrassing. I've seen some related global improvements in windows, NTFS, and some products, but all that is still not enough in my opinion. The thought that people shouldn't need >255 bytes (or symbols) sounds not different from that 640k ram quote.
I doubt the Linux kernel bricks itself when filename are too long, regardless of encoding. It doesn't do characters, but just bytes. If there is too maybe bytes, they just get trimmed. User level above I can certainly believe. On all platforms. Difference is you can fix it in the open world and throw a patch. It's an embarrassing crash, and will be a simple fix, so it will get in. Closed products, well maybe you can log it, maybe they will fix it, but your in serfdom unless you have real money and other options.
The other thing that makes me think this can't be as a big an issue as you say is, the example you gave, still looks bloody long. Seams like doing it wrong if the filename is a sentence. It filename, not filesentence.
This tiny, and seemingly silly, thing, doesn't make Windows and NTFS not laughablely in 2024.
You aren't getting it.
It's not about bricking, it's about relying on "standards" (limitations actually) that should be obsolete in 2024, in multinational technology world. About the fact that they are effectively limiting how people from all around the world can use characters, words, names etc. anywhere.
It's not about money, not about patches or developing them. It's about what users expect. They surely don't expect to be told "fix it yourself if you don't like".
This is by no means a "big" issue because it affects less than 1 percent of users, sure. Not many people hit the NTFS limit on windows either, yet you can see thousands places where people discuss that long paths setting, people who need to overcome it, people who maybe even grateful that such an option appeared in later windows versions.
It filename, not filesentence.
😒 Yep, that's useless. What's next, "hey Linux doesn't support .exe, those are games for windows so you play them on windows"?
You want unlimited filename length?? Yer... that's a bad idea. Everything has a limit set for good reason.
Yes with open source you can do it yourself, but you can also pay someone to do it. Skills+time, or money to pay someone with the skills, that's what is needed. There is nothing stopping what you want happening. Yet it doesn't. Not even talk of if it by looks of it
This a mountain out of mole hill.
I have no idea what you are on about with Windows games exes. I assume you know of Stream's Proton and just Wine.
You want unlimited filename length??
No. But a limit at least better than Windows has to offer would help a lot (already because switching is a common thing and should be made breeze for everyone). And 256 bytes is bad no matter how you look at it.
Skills+time, or money to pay someone with the skills, that's what is needed.
No, that's not needed I think. Some file systems supported by Linux already support longer names, it's Linux VFS that is limiting them. This is an artificial limit basically. It will be changed eventually, I only say that it's long overdue already.
I assume you know of Stream's Proton and just Wine.
I assume you know it wasn't always like that. Surely a lot of Linux developers never thought it was a good idea to support many more windows-related systems (one could say it would be implemented if it was a big issue), but here we are.
Come on.
'Welcome to the Exile Guild ~The incompetent S-rank party will banish more and more talented adventurers, so collect the weakest and create the strongest guild~ 1 (Dragon Comics Age) - Yusuke Araki'
I don't see this limit changing any time soon because in hitting it, you're naming files unmanageablely. Pretty sure that is what the main devs will say and concentrate on more important stuff. If you present them with nice code for it, maybe they will take it. If not, it will mean carrying those patches on own folk. Though maybe you could get them to take bits of it making the carrying easier.
No, that’s not needed I think.
People doing it for themselves is very common. I've fixed bugs in all kinds of things, including the Linux kernel. People doing it for money is a world I don't know, but I know of. Example : https://console.algora.io/
You can also just hire a contractor, or team, to do open source. I've done that, at the developer end (Qt4 Windows port work).
Wine is, old. It's from 1993. The code is great though. Over 12 years ago, when stuck on Windows for work, I used to use it as a reference when the MSDN didn't cover stuff. But I wouldn't recommend it though as a way of living on a UNIX. If you are depent on Windows apps, you aren't ready to leave. Wine does not make a UNIX into Windows. Changing underlying implementation bring out bugs in software above. With closed shit, you can't fix them. Wine does however, give you a route to running a piece of Windows software, if you have the time to give that software the set of Windows bug it expects, "Bug for bug". Valve have basics lovingly wrapped Windows games with what each game needs.
You aren't addressing what I've said. But that's expected. No need to spend more of your time.
It does feel like we are talking past each other. Probably coming from very different places. All the best anyway.
Well it should probably go further and offer more of another kind of magic - where stuff works as user expects it to work.
As for submitting patches, it sounds like you suggest people play around and touch core parts responsible for file system operations. Such an advice is not going to work for everyone. Open source software is not ideal. It can be ideal in theory, but that's it.
It looks like there are enough use cases where some people would not prefer LUKS.
I have lived quite happily, on pretty much only open source for over 12 years now. Professionally and at home (longer at home). Debian I put with Wikipedia as an example of what humans can be.
There is no gate keepers in who can do what where. Only on who will accept the patches. Projects fork for all kinds of reasons, though even Google failed to fork the Linux kernel. If there is some good patch to extend the filename limit, it will get in. Enough pressure and maybe the core team of that subsystem will do it.
Open source already won I'm affriad. Most of the internet, IoT to super computers, runs open source. Has been that way for a while. If you use Windows, fine, but it is just a consumer end node OS for muggels. 😉
If you setup a new install, and say you want encryption, LUKS is what you get.
Does it look like I advocate for windows? Nah.
Open source is great when it works. "If there is some good patch..." and "Enough pressure and maybe..." is the sad reality of it. Why would people need to put pressure on order for Linux to start supporting features long available in file systems it supports? Why would I, specifically, should spend time on it? Does Linux want to become an os for everyone or only for people experimenting with dangerous stuff that make them lose data sometimes?
Don't get me wrong, Linux is good even now. But there is no need to actively deny points of possible improvement. When they ask you how great XFS is compared to others you shouldn't throw "exbibytes" word, you should first think what problems people might have with it, especially if they want to switch from windows.
And if I want to only encrypt some files? I need to create a volume specifically for that, right? Or I could just use something else.
Open source clearly works because of the scale and breath of it's use. That's the modern world and its use is only increasing. This a good thing for multiple reasons.
Unicode filename length clearly isn't as big an issue as you feel or it would be fixed. There is some BIG money that could be spent to fix this for countries and companies who need unicode.
How you encrypt depends on your aim. If you aim is limit your character available for filenames, there are ways. If it's read only, you do a GPG tar ball. LUKS if you want a live system. You can just create a file, LUKS format it.
Resetup
close
reopen
Basically the same as systemd-homed does for you: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd-homed
But there are many ways. A good few filesystems offer folder/file encryption natively. Though I'd argue that's less secure.
I might have agreed with such statements 20 years ago. But not anymore. I can't count the times I've seen how certain software, game, system or a service literally brick themselves when a use case involves using non-ascii, non-english or non-unicode characters, paths or regions. Not Linux related only or specifically, but almost always it looks and feels embarrassing. I've seen some related global improvements in windows, NTFS, and some products, but all that is still not enough in my opinion. The thought that people shouldn't need >255 bytes (or symbols) sounds not different from that 640k ram quote.
I doubt the Linux kernel bricks itself when filename are too long, regardless of encoding. It doesn't do characters, but just bytes. If there is too maybe bytes, they just get trimmed. User level above I can certainly believe. On all platforms. Difference is you can fix it in the open world and throw a patch. It's an embarrassing crash, and will be a simple fix, so it will get in. Closed products, well maybe you can log it, maybe they will fix it, but your in serfdom unless you have real money and other options.
The other thing that makes me think this can't be as a big an issue as you say is, the example you gave, still looks bloody long. Seams like doing it wrong if the filename is a sentence. It filename, not filesentence.
This tiny, and seemingly silly, thing, doesn't make Windows and NTFS not laughablely in 2024.
You aren't getting it.
It's not about bricking, it's about relying on "standards" (limitations actually) that should be obsolete in 2024, in multinational technology world. About the fact that they are effectively limiting how people from all around the world can use characters, words, names etc. anywhere.
It's not about money, not about patches or developing them. It's about what users expect. They surely don't expect to be told "fix it yourself if you don't like".
This is by no means a "big" issue because it affects less than 1 percent of users, sure. Not many people hit the NTFS limit on windows either, yet you can see thousands places where people discuss that long paths setting, people who need to overcome it, people who maybe even grateful that such an option appeared in later windows versions.
😒 Yep, that's useless. What's next, "hey Linux doesn't support .exe, those are games for windows so you play them on windows"?
You want unlimited filename length?? Yer... that's a bad idea. Everything has a limit set for good reason.
Yes with open source you can do it yourself, but you can also pay someone to do it. Skills+time, or money to pay someone with the skills, that's what is needed. There is nothing stopping what you want happening. Yet it doesn't. Not even talk of if it by looks of it
This a mountain out of mole hill.
I have no idea what you are on about with Windows games exes. I assume you know of Stream's Proton and just Wine.
No. But a limit at least better than Windows has to offer would help a lot (already because switching is a common thing and should be made breeze for everyone). And 256 bytes is bad no matter how you look at it.
No, that's not needed I think. Some file systems supported by Linux already support longer names, it's Linux VFS that is limiting them. This is an artificial limit basically. It will be changed eventually, I only say that it's long overdue already.
I assume you know it wasn't always like that. Surely a lot of Linux developers never thought it was a good idea to support many more windows-related systems (one could say it would be implemented if it was a big issue), but here we are.
Come on.
'Welcome to the Exile Guild ~The incompetent S-rank party will banish more and more talented adventurers, so collect the weakest and create the strongest guild~ 1 (Dragon Comics Age) - Yusuke Araki'
Is not a reasonable name.
I get:
ようこそ『追放者ギルド』へ ～無能なＳランクパーティがどんどん有能な冒険者を追放するので、最弱を集めて最強ギルドを創ります～ 1 (ドラゴンコミックスエイジ) - 荒木 佑輔
As 87 Unicode characters and 241 bytes in UTF8.
So this unreasonable name does fit.
I don't see this limit changing any time soon because in hitting it, you're naming files unmanageablely. Pretty sure that is what the main devs will say and concentrate on more important stuff. If you present them with nice code for it, maybe they will take it. If not, it will mean carrying those patches on own folk. Though maybe you could get them to take bits of it making the carrying easier.
People doing it for themselves is very common. I've fixed bugs in all kinds of things, including the Linux kernel. People doing it for money is a world I don't know, but I know of. Example : https://console.algora.io/
You can also just hire a contractor, or team, to do open source. I've done that, at the developer end (Qt4 Windows port work).
Wine is, old. It's from 1993. The code is great though. Over 12 years ago, when stuck on Windows for work, I used to use it as a reference when the MSDN didn't cover stuff. But I wouldn't recommend it though as a way of living on a UNIX. If you are depent on Windows apps, you aren't ready to leave. Wine does not make a UNIX into Windows. Changing underlying implementation bring out bugs in software above. With closed shit, you can't fix them. Wine does however, give you a route to running a piece of Windows software, if you have the time to give that software the set of Windows bug it expects, "Bug for bug". Valve have basics lovingly wrapped Windows games with what each game needs.
You aren't addressing what I've said. But that's expected. No need to spend more of your time.
It does feel like we are talking past each other. Probably coming from very different places. All the best anyway.