ADS Usage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Why is so little use made of Alternate Data Streams for things like EXIF,
IPTC and other metadata, and why don't things like desktop search tools use
ADS's to leave calling cards in an object to record indexing status - instead
of recording it in a database.

If s/w developers used ADS's then there would be more tools pertaining to
such, and other s/w such as backup/restore programs would be forced to take
them into consideration.

Just having an end of day bitch after struggling for much of it with
Hardlinks, wormholes (sorry junction or is it reparse points) and ADS's.

I'm coming to the conclusion that NTFS might be the most under utilised
resource available on XP (or is it NT 5.1) - took much time is being spent on
look and feel and not enough on function - ie, form over substance.
 
Philip wrote:
| Why is so little use made of Alternate Data Streams for things like EXIF,
| IPTC and other metadata, and why don't things like desktop search tools
| use ADS's to leave calling cards in an object to record indexing status -
| instead of recording it in a database.
|
| If s/w developers used ADS's then there would be more tools pertaining to
| such, and other s/w such as backup/restore programs would be forced to
| take them into consideration.
|
| Just having an end of day bitch after struggling for much of it with
| Hardlinks, wormholes (sorry junction or is it reparse points) and ADS's.
|
| I'm coming to the conclusion that NTFS might be the most under utilised
| resource available on XP (or is it NT 5.1) - took much time is being
| spent on look and feel and not enough on function - ie, form over
| substance.

Thank you, Philip, for your forensic analysis.
 
Newbie said:
Philip wrote:
| Why is so little use made of Alternate Data Streams for things like
| EXIF, IPTC and other metadata, and why don't things like desktop search
| tools use ADS's to leave calling cards in an object to record indexing
| status - instead of recording it in a database.
|
| If s/w developers used ADS's then there would be more tools pertaining
| to such, and other s/w such as backup/restore programs would be forced
| to take them into consideration.
|
| Just having an end of day bitch after struggling for much of it with
| Hardlinks, wormholes (sorry junction or is it reparse points) and ADS's.
|
| I'm coming to the conclusion that NTFS might be the most under utilised
| resource available on XP (or is it NT 5.1) - took much time is being
| spent on look and feel and not enough on function - ie, form over
| substance.

Thank you, Philip, for your forensic analysis.
Click to expand...

Most modern computing resources offer far more potential functionality, than
is ever fully utilised.

Jon
 
Jon said:
Most modern computing resources offer far more potential functionality, than
is ever fully utilised.

Jon
Click to expand...

Yeah but my gripe is that whilst XP may run in an NTFS environment, putting
fsutil and notepad aside, it don't offer much in the way of support for NTFS

Like where's the property sheet for AltDataStreams, and what about another
one for Object Ids, and another for one Hardlinks (listing the paths of other
instances) and another for the two ends of Junction Points.

I've found the one for AltDataStreams, it comes from JS Ware - Thanks Joe if
you're listening.

And I suspect it's because of the paucity of support for NTFS functinality
within XP that so few of the s/w tools vendors offer much in the way of
support, like where's the backup utilty that will backup and restore
AltDataStreams - given that most backup utilties encapsulate the multiple
user-objects into compressed mega-objects there is no reason not to include
NTFS specific information into the package - it's a bit like an ordering a
pizza siciliana and getting a pizza neapolitana - excuse me where's the
olives, pepperoni, capsicum and onions.

And some software I'm starting to discover trips over itself if "advanced"
features of NTFS are utilised - e.g what used to be my favourite text editor
don't like files that have ObjectIds - what'da ... I've reverted to Notepad!

It might have been better NTFS was not backward compatibility for the FAT
file system in NTFS and support for FAT32 in XP - then the world might have
gone forward, instead of living in the past.
 
Philip said:
Yeah but my gripe is that whilst XP may run in an NTFS environment,
putting
fsutil and notepad aside, it don't offer much in the way of support for
NTFS

Like where's the property sheet for AltDataStreams, and what about another
one for Object Ids, and another for one Hardlinks (listing the paths of
other
instances) and another for the two ends of Junction Points.

I've found the one for AltDataStreams, it comes from JS Ware - Thanks Joe
if
you're listening.

And I suspect it's because of the paucity of support for NTFS functinality
within XP that so few of the s/w tools vendors offer much in the way of
support, like where's the backup utilty that will backup and restore
AltDataStreams - given that most backup utilties encapsulate the multiple
user-objects into compressed mega-objects there is no reason not to
include
NTFS specific information into the package - it's a bit like an ordering a
pizza siciliana and getting a pizza neapolitana - excuse me where's the
olives, pepperoni, capsicum and onions.

And some software I'm starting to discover trips over itself if "advanced"
features of NTFS are utilised - e.g what used to be my favourite text
editor
don't like files that have ObjectIds - what'da ... I've reverted to
Notepad!

It might have been better NTFS was not backward compatibility for the FAT
file system in NTFS and support for FAT32 in XP - then the world might
have
gone forward, instead of living in the past.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it falls into that category of knowledge that 'we would rather you
didn't know too much about it'.

Keeping certain areas of knowledge for yourself helps you to sell / promote
your latest products that make use of such knowledge, with that added air of
mystique about them.

Why would anyone regard the virtual folders feature of the forthcoming Vista
as anything special, and be keen to rush out and buy it, if writing explorer
shell extensions in Windows XP had been common knowledge and there was a
nice little interface for it?

Why would anyone regard the new Vista themes as anything special, if
uxtheme.dll in XP had been had been set up to make using 3rd party visual
themes in XP as easy as pie?

Why was the processor pack removed from Visual C++, if not to discourage the
writing of programs in assembly for the 'litte guys' and make it the reserve
of the big boys and girls?

Why does the "open command window here" 'powertoy' (*cough* *cough*) not
allow command line access to certain folders, when adding 2 registry keys
could easily achieve that functionality, if not to discourage people from
viewing the true contents of certain folders?

[cf http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/13571/13571.html ]

Ok, I've had my little rant of the day, too :-)


Jon
 
Jon you must be psychic too

For reasons i'll not go into I'm "working" from an internet cafe today. At
home/work my context menu has "Open a Command Processor from here" in it, I
don't recall how I got it there in the first place. The article to which you
referred me was unbelievably appropriate, I wanted to open up a command
processor about 10 minutes ago - had to resort to run command and navigating
at prompt level to where I wanted to be.

Are you telling me that you can't drop into assembler from C++, I needed to
do that quite often when I programmed in C.

I don't know that I agree with your conspiracy theory, I think its because
so few write in assembler - and they're all writing device drivers I guess or
working for the military/security conglomerates.

Rgds PhilD

Jon said:
Philip said:
Yeah but my gripe is that whilst XP may run in an NTFS environment,
putting
fsutil and notepad aside, it don't offer much in the way of support for
NTFS

Like where's the property sheet for AltDataStreams, and what about another
one for Object Ids, and another for one Hardlinks (listing the paths of
other
instances) and another for the two ends of Junction Points.

I've found the one for AltDataStreams, it comes from JS Ware - Thanks Joe
if
you're listening.

And I suspect it's because of the paucity of support for NTFS functinality
within XP that so few of the s/w tools vendors offer much in the way of
support, like where's the backup utilty that will backup and restore
AltDataStreams - given that most backup utilties encapsulate the multiple
user-objects into compressed mega-objects there is no reason not to
include
NTFS specific information into the package - it's a bit like an ordering a
pizza siciliana and getting a pizza neapolitana - excuse me where's the
olives, pepperoni, capsicum and onions.

And some software I'm starting to discover trips over itself if "advanced"
features of NTFS are utilised - e.g what used to be my favourite text
editor
don't like files that have ObjectIds - what'da ... I've reverted to
Notepad!

It might have been better NTFS was not backward compatibility for the FAT
file system in NTFS and support for FAT32 in XP - then the world might
have
gone forward, instead of living in the past.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it falls into that category of knowledge that 'we would rather you
didn't know too much about it'.

Keeping certain areas of knowledge for yourself helps you to sell / promote
your latest products that make use of such knowledge, with that added air of
mystique about them.

Why would anyone regard the virtual folders feature of the forthcoming Vista
as anything special, and be keen to rush out and buy it, if writing explorer
shell extensions in Windows XP had been common knowledge and there was a
nice little interface for it?

Why would anyone regard the new Vista themes as anything special, if
uxtheme.dll in XP had been had been set up to make using 3rd party visual
themes in XP as easy as pie?

Why was the processor pack removed from Visual C++, if not to discourage the
writing of programs in assembly for the 'litte guys' and make it the reserve
of the big boys and girls?

Why does the "open command window here" 'powertoy' (*cough* *cough*) not
allow command line access to certain folders, when adding 2 registry keys
could easily achieve that functionality, if not to discourage people from
viewing the true contents of certain folders?

[cf http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/13571/13571.html ]

Ok, I've had my little rant of the day, too :-)


Jon
Click to expand...
 
Well, I'm glad I did actually manage to benefit you in some small way in
this thread, with the 'command prompt here' link.

I would love to claim that I knew you were in need of it in the internet
cafe, when I sent it, but it wouldn't strictly be true, and my conscience
would (might??) haunt me if I did. My hacking / prophetic skills,
unfortunately, aren't quite up to that level right now.

Perhaps you're right. It still isn't that difficult to drop into assembler
from c++.
I suppose I was just wondering at the motivation, if any, behind the
processor pack withdrawal.
Not a major concern, anyhow. I don't lose much sleep over it.

Anyways, looks like I'm adding a few tangential 'alternate data streams' to
your original thread, so I'd best move on, while the going is good.


All the best.


Jon


Philip said:
Jon you must be psychic too

For reasons i'll not go into I'm "working" from an internet cafe today.
At
home/work my context menu has "Open a Command Processor from here" in it,
I
don't recall how I got it there in the first place. The article to which
you
referred me was unbelievably appropriate, I wanted to open up a command
processor about 10 minutes ago - had to resort to run command and
navigating
at prompt level to where I wanted to be.

Are you telling me that you can't drop into assembler from C++, I needed
to
do that quite often when I programmed in C.

I don't know that I agree with your conspiracy theory, I think its
because
so few write in assembler - and they're all writing device drivers I guess
or
working for the military/security conglomerates.

Rgds PhilD

Jon said:
Philip said:
:

Newbie wrote:

Philip wrote:
| Why is so little use made of Alternate Data Streams for things
like
| EXIF, IPTC and other metadata, and why don't things like desktop
search
| tools use ADS's to leave calling cards in an object to record
indexing
| status - instead of recording it in a database.
|
| If s/w developers used ADS's then there would be more tools
pertaining
| to such, and other s/w such as backup/restore programs would be
forced
| to take them into consideration.
|
| Just having an end of day bitch after struggling for much of it
with
| Hardlinks, wormholes (sorry junction or is it reparse points) and
ADS's.
|
| I'm coming to the conclusion that NTFS might be the most under
utilised
| resource available on XP (or is it NT 5.1) - took much time is
being
| spent on look and feel and not enough on function - ie, form over
| substance.

Thank you, Philip, for your forensic analysis.

----
Newbie

Most modern computing resources offer far more potential
functionality,
than
is ever fully utilised.

Jon


Yeah but my gripe is that whilst XP may run in an NTFS environment,
putting
fsutil and notepad aside, it don't offer much in the way of support
for
NTFS

Like where's the property sheet for AltDataStreams, and what about
another
one for Object Ids, and another for one Hardlinks (listing the paths of
other
instances) and another for the two ends of Junction Points.

I've found the one for AltDataStreams, it comes from JS Ware - Thanks
Joe
if
you're listening.

And I suspect it's because of the paucity of support for NTFS
functinality
within XP that so few of the s/w tools vendors offer much in the way of
support, like where's the backup utilty that will backup and restore
AltDataStreams - given that most backup utilties encapsulate the
multiple
user-objects into compressed mega-objects there is no reason not to
include
NTFS specific information into the package - it's a bit like an
ordering a
pizza siciliana and getting a pizza neapolitana - excuse me where's the
olives, pepperoni, capsicum and onions.

And some software I'm starting to discover trips over itself if
"advanced"
features of NTFS are utilised - e.g what used to be my favourite text
editor
don't like files that have ObjectIds - what'da ... I've reverted to
Notepad!

It might have been better NTFS was not backward compatibility for the
FAT
file system in NTFS and support for FAT32 in XP - then the world might
have
gone forward, instead of living in the past.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it falls into that category of knowledge that 'we would rather
you
didn't know too much about it'.

Keeping certain areas of knowledge for yourself helps you to sell /
promote
your latest products that make use of such knowledge, with that added air
of
mystique about them.

Why would anyone regard the virtual folders feature of the forthcoming
Vista
as anything special, and be keen to rush out and buy it, if writing
explorer
shell extensions in Windows XP had been common knowledge and there was a
nice little interface for it?

Why would anyone regard the new Vista themes as anything special, if
uxtheme.dll in XP had been had been set up to make using 3rd party visual
themes in XP as easy as pie?

Why was the processor pack removed from Visual C++, if not to discourage
the
writing of programs in assembly for the 'litte guys' and make it the
reserve
of the big boys and girls?

Why does the "open command window here" 'powertoy' (*cough* *cough*) not
allow command line access to certain folders, when adding 2 registry keys
could easily achieve that functionality, if not to discourage people from
viewing the true contents of certain folders?

[cf http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/13571/13571.html ]

Ok, I've had my little rant of the day, too :-)


Jon
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top