Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [NH] Dumb question time again

Expand Messages
  • Wayland_B_Fowler@Raytheon.com
    Jim wrote: So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS.
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim wrote:
      So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web
      servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS.
      Or
      software ported to Unix from those platforms? In other words, why do some
      web servers get cranky about the extensions and others don't, when they're
      running on Unix?

      Jim,
      I wish I could say I was a real expert on this, but that would be
      stretching things, more than just a little. With regard to how these OSs
      deal with files, DOS and Win3.x (and I think 95, 98) are extension
      dependent whereas Unix is attribute dependent. That is, unlike Unix, DOS
      (and its Windows pals) do not know what to do with most files without its
      extension. Same goes for its server software, for example Apache. On
      newer versions of Windows the mime settings can be set to recognize either
      .htm or .html (or if someone is daring enough, any other extension).
      Chances are that, on the newer versions, it already defaults to both. The
      older Windows versions (3.x) would not allow more than the three character
      extension. As far as software ported to unix is concerned, most of its
      servers should be able to handle either extension, if it doesn't then
      perhaps the mime settings (or perhaps a .ini file) for the server software
      should be set to handle both. I think this is correct, if it is not quite
      right, I apologize.

      Harvey wrote:
      Long filenames aside, wouldn't it be difficult to run about any
      version of Windows without booting into some sort of DOS system
      first?

      Harvey,
      Yes, at least versions 3.x, 95, and 98. For version 2000 and for NT, I am
      not sure.

      Regards,

      Wayland Fowler
      Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
      (281) 280-4446
    • Jim Beidle
      Thanks for the explanation, Wayland. What you re saying makes sense, along with what I already knew and what Don related in his posting. As to WinNT 4.0 and
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the explanation, Wayland. What you're saying makes sense, along
        with what I already knew and what Don related in his posting.

        As to WinNT 4.0 and Win2K, they were developed independently from DOS as
        true 32 bit Operating systems. While they have a "command line" mode that
        emulates DOS in some ways, it isn't DOS and was built from scratch. NT4 goes
        through a non-gui phase during start up as it loads various drivers, but
        this is not directly accessible by "Joe User". That's part of what makes NT
        more secure than its DOS/WIN cousins. A good reference on NT4 structure is
        the _Windows NT Workstation Resource Kit_; Another is _Running Windows NT
        Workstation 4.0_. NoteTab Pro works great on NT, BTW because Eric built it
        as a true 32-bit application. The 16-bit versions of NoteTab or any
        application may periodically fail since they may make DOS calls that aren't
        part of the NT structure. Hope all that helps.. . .

        Jim

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Wayland_B_Fowler@...
        [mailto:Wayland_B_Fowler@...]
        Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:04 PM
        To: ntb-html@egroups.com
        Subject: RE: [NH] Dumb question time again


        Jim wrote:
        So, if I understand correctly Wayland, the limitations were because of web
        servers running on DOS or older windows (e.g., NT 3.51) or some other OS.
        Or
        software ported to Unix from those platforms? In other words, why do some
        web servers get cranky about the extensions and others don't, when they're
        running on Unix?

        Jim,
        I wish I could say I was a real expert on this, but that would be
        stretching things, more than just a little. With regard to how these OSs
        deal with files, DOS and Win3.x (and I think 95, 98) are extension
        dependent whereas Unix is attribute dependent. That is, unlike Unix, DOS
        (and its Windows pals) do not know what to do with most files without its
        extension. Same goes for its server software, for example Apache. On
        newer versions of Windows the mime settings can be set to recognize either
        .htm or .html (or if someone is daring enough, any other extension).
        Chances are that, on the newer versions, it already defaults to both. The
        older Windows versions (3.x) would not allow more than the three character
        extension. As far as software ported to unix is concerned, most of its
        servers should be able to handle either extension, if it doesn't then
        perhaps the mime settings (or perhaps a .ini file) for the server software
        should be set to handle both. I think this is correct, if it is not quite
        right, I apologize.

        Harvey wrote:
        Long filenames aside, wouldn't it be difficult to run about any
        version of Windows without booting into some sort of DOS system
        first?

        Harvey,
        Yes, at least versions 3.x, 95, and 98. For version 2000 and for NT, I am
        not sure.

        Regards,

        Wayland Fowler
        Software Engineer (and all around nice guy!)
        (281) 280-4446
      • Toby Scott
        Larry and all, I think all servers can be configured to handle any extension you care to add -- as long as you are the system administrator. In NT and Win2000,
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 8, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Larry and all,

          I think all servers can be configured to handle any extension you care to
          add -- as long as you are the system administrator.

          In NT and Win2000, I can add as many default file name and extensions for
          the initial page as I want. If that isn't clear, my default extensions on
          the server I administer are:

          index.htm
          index.html
          index.cfm
          default.htm
          default.html

          If there is an index.htm file in the default directory for a URL, it is
          automatically displayed when someone types www.xyz.com (or whatever). If
          there is no index.htm then index.html will display, etc.

          These are fairly easily configured, but if you are an administrator and
          start setting each URL differently, doing tech support when a client has a
          problem is murder. Therefore, most administrators attempt to keep a fairly
          uniform list. If a customer asks for the default to be set to index.shtml
          for example, I will add it after my standard 5.

          For those of you who wonder, .cfm is Cold Fusion, which is what I mainly
          use.

          Toby Scott
          Ventura County Computers
          2175 Goodyear Avenue
          Suite 117
          Ventura, CA 93003

          (805) 289-3960
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.