(walzr.com)

1570 points walz | 3 comments | 04 Dec 24 04:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

ChrisArchitect ◴[04 Dec 24 05:34 UTC] No.42314716[source]▶

Nice and all, but aside: just reminds of the ridiculous/lame design choice from the great Apple to use that filename. How many shared photos sent in emails to me from iPhones with subject IMG_0001. Classic Apple removing any kind of useful functionality because the users wouldn't need to interact with files or know more about the system. A date in the filename would have killed them? IMG_20070629 or whatever..sigh.

replies(2): >>42314812 #>>42314854 #

1. Twisell ◴[04 Dec 24 06:05 UTC] No.42314854[source]▶

>>42314716 #

It's pretty standard practice for all cameras manufacturers to use a basic incremental filename. Many more useful data are embedded in jpeg exif metadata.

On the contrary including a date in the filename could be perceived as user hostile because none of the multiple iso representations (or non iso) is universally used and understood by the general public.

Eg : 20241112, 1112024, 1211024, 131208, 081213 and so on...

replies(1): >>42315449 #

2. bux93 ◴[04 Dec 24 08:11 UTC] No.42315449[source]▶

>>42314854 (TP) #

I think the issue is more that the battery runs out and now it's 2007 again and you start overwriting img_20070101_01.jpg ; last-directory-entry++ is a bit more robust.

replies(1): >>42315677 #

3. Twisell ◴[04 Dec 24 08:53 UTC] No.42315677[source]▶

>>42315449 #

One upside is that it hopefully prevented developer to ship half-baked software that rely on filename and can't handle duplicate name gracefully.

You can't prevent collisions (multiples sources/counter reset/date reset, etc). So it's actually nice to have an unforgiving standard that will bite you if you make unfounded assumptions.

↑