On 4/24/21 1:28 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:07:22 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/23/21 1:16 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:51:59 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/23/21 8:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2021 4:48 PM, Snowshed. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/21 5:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>>>>> I still don't know what a "library" is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They can be useful if used differently than what I think MS expected
>>>>>>> from users. And can be emulated on all systems with
>>>>>>> shortcuts/aliases/???????.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I won't bore you with the details. <G>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A library is essentially just a collection of shortcuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't. See Char Jackson's excellent description of what it is [1].
>>>>
>>>> With all due respect to Char, a library is a simple file with a list of
>>>> shortcuts.
>>>
>>> That's not the case, but I think we've covered that already.
>>>
>>>> Follow the hierarchy down to the library file, and open in List view, if
>>>> you can.
>>>
>>> Why? Why not enter and view the Library the way it's intended to be used?
>>> Simply open your favorite file manager and click on Libraries.
>>
>> Because it can be a clue to the inner workings of the "mine". :-)
>
> I suppose it can be, but in this case it has only confused you immensely.
> Frank was right, the best way to see what a Library is and how it works is
> to actually try to use it.

How many times do I have to say it, I did use Libraries.

How many times to I have to say it, they don't do what I want.

How many times do I have to say it, I found a way to make them do what
I*I* want.

> It should be very quickly evident that you're not dealing exclusively with
> shortcuts. You're dealing with actual files and folders, just as you would
> if you were interacting with your files and folders outside of the Library
> system.

Did you read Paul's "projection" message?

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Windows 10 20H2
Firefox 87.0
Thunderbird 60.9.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:52:05 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:

>On 4/24/21 1:28 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:07:22 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/23/21 1:16 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:51:59 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/23/21 8:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2021 4:48 PM, Snowshed. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/21 5:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I still don't know what a "library" is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They can be useful if used differently than what I think MS expected
>>>>>>>> from users. And can be emulated on all systems with
>>>>>>>> shortcuts/aliases/???????.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I won't bore you with the details. <G>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A library is essentially just a collection of shortcuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't. See Char Jackson's excellent description of what it is [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> With all due respect to Char, a library is a simple file with a list of
>>>>> shortcuts.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the case, but I think we've covered that already.
>>>>
>>>>> Follow the hierarchy down to the library file, and open in List view, if
>>>>> you can.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Why not enter and view the Library the way it's intended to be used?
>>>> Simply open your favorite file manager and click on Libraries.
>>>
>>> Because it can be a clue to the inner workings of the "mine". :-)
>>
>> I suppose it can be, but in this case it has only confused you immensely.
>> Frank was right, the best way to see what a Library is and how it works is
>> to actually try to use it.
>
>How many times do I have to say it, I did use Libraries.
>
>How many times to I have to say it, they don't do what I want.
>
>How many times do I have to say it, I found a way to make them do what
>I*I* want.

When you make a series of incorrect claims like we've seen here with the
repeated claims of shortcuts, I think it's good to remind us/me that you've
actually used Libraries at some point. It's easy for me to forget that, so
thank you.

>> It should be very quickly evident that you're not dealing exclusively with
>> shortcuts. You're dealing with actual files and folders, just as you would
>> if you were interacting with your files and folders outside of the Library
>> system.
>
>Did you read Paul's "projection" message?

Was that the one where he went into some detail about how Libraries don't
use shortcuts?

Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:52:05 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:

>> Did you read Paul's "projection" message?
>
> Was that the one where he went into some detail about how Libraries don't
> use shortcuts?

The documentation isn't very good, and I can find one
developer complaining about that aspect.

It's just a bit too terse, "like they're hiding something".
Which probably is not true.

<simpleLocation>
<url>knownfolder:{33E28130-4E1E-4676-835A-98395C3BC3BB}</url> <=== "%USERPROFILE%\Pictures"
<serialized>MBAAAEAFCAAAAAA...3N58erCAAAAA</serialized>
</simpleLocation>

For the "knownfolder", I had to consult two sources, to get
enough entries to do some work. The more complete set, wasn't
a Microsoft webpage.

The "serialized" is the real puzzler.

I did a frequency analysis first, the string "MBA..." uses just 64 characters,
and uses the standard BASE64 two punctuation characters. It is likely plain
BASE64 and not a variant.

However, an attempt to decode, leaves you with a vaguely binary structure,
which looks like a series of records separated by left-over storage
space (zeros). It doesn't look encrypted particularly. It doesn't look
like LZ4 (a lightweight compressor). Attempts to correlate with other
MSFT materials of a similar ilk ("begins with the letter L"), didn't
get me anywhere. The decoded output doesn't begin with the letter "L".

Then, when you're staring at that, and not making any progress,
you're asking yourself "why is that line there". What is its
function. The knownfolder already contains information that
could be worked on, by a parser. What would an additional
record be for ? Something to solve an ambiguity, to make
the outcome more certain ?

I don't want to sit around, randomly trying Microsoft technologies
particularly, because there are several research projects that
might apply. But you'd think if that was the case, there'd be
an identifier at the beginning of the record, hinting at what
was used.

It still looks like a list of folders to me, but those "binary turds"
sitting in there, bother me. Why is there a binary turd ?
What could its purpose be, in the process ?

To decode the BASE64, I use a decoder off the web.

gawk --traditional -f b64dec.awk MBAAAEAF...AAA > some.bin

as the decoder expects the thing to be decoded, passed as
an item at the end of the command. This makes the input take
about seventeen lines in Command Prompt, when pasted in. I redirect
the output into a binary file, as if you redirect to the screen,
it makes the window beep from the control codes.

If it involved SHA256, you wouldn't see ay structure and it
would look "random" and full of entropy and not compressible.
As it stands the some.bin is compressible (the strings of
zeros would compress).

What serialization is supposed to do, is allow enumerating
things more efficiently

sex : male
age : 23
shoesize : 12

That's what the available un-related documentation says about
what a serialized output would look like. And using BASE64
certainly makes sense if the thing being transported, is
binary or Unicode or something.

Paul

On 4/28/21 10:17 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:52:05 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/21 1:28 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:07:22 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/23/21 1:16 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:51:59 -0600, "Snowshed." <kcomptutor@q.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/23/21 8:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2021 4:48 PM, Snowshed. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/21 5:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I still don't know what a "library" is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They can be useful if used differently than what I think MS expected
>>>>>>>>> from users. And can be emulated on all systems with
>>>>>>>>> shortcuts/aliases/???????.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I won't bore you with the details. <G>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A library is essentially just a collection of shortcuts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't. See Char Jackson's excellent description of what it is [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all due respect to Char, a library is a simple file with a list of
>>>>>> shortcuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not the case, but I think we've covered that already.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Follow the hierarchy down to the library file, and open in List view, if
>>>>>> you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Why not enter and view the Library the way it's intended to be used?
>>>>> Simply open your favorite file manager and click on Libraries.
>>>>
>>>> Because it can be a clue to the inner workings of the "mine". :-)
>>>
>>> I suppose it can be, but in this case it has only confused you immensely.
>>> Frank was right, the best way to see what a Library is and how it works is
>>> to actually try to use it.
>>
>> How many times do I have to say it, I did use Libraries.
>>
>> How many times to I have to say it, they don't do what I want.
>>
>> How many times do I have to say it, I found a way to make them do what
>> I*I* want.
>
> When you make a series of incorrect claims like we've seen here with the
> repeated claims of shortcuts, I think it's good to remind us/me that you've
> actually used Libraries at some point. It's easy for me to forget that, so
> thank you.

You're welcome. I do remember a lot of people back in W7 days using the
word "shortcut", but I never had any reason to doubt that.

>>> It should be very quickly evident that you're not dealing exclusively with
>>> shortcuts. You're dealing with actual files and folders, just as you would
>>> if you were interacting with your files and folders outside of the Library
>>> system.
>>
>> Did you read Paul's "projection" message?
>
> Was that the one where he went into some detail about how Libraries don't
> use shortcuts?

The way he worded the post, it may me think he is saying the code looks
at the original file, and "projects" it on the screen. I think
"displays" it may be a good synonym. I kind of asked that in a reply.

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Windows 10 20H2
Firefox 87.0
Thunderbird 60.9.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Snowshed. wrote:
> On 4/28/21 10:17 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

>>> Did you read Paul's "projection" message?
>>
>> Was that the one where he went into some detail about how Libraries don't
>> use shortcuts?
>
> The way he worded the post, it may me think he is saying the code looks
> at the original file, and "projects" it on the screen. I think
> "displays" it may be a good synonym. I kind of asked that in a reply.

I'm sure you can think of the myriad of ways
things are done on these systems.

There is the file system. A feature built in there, is visible
everywhere - File Manager, the Open Dialog, Command Prompt "dir"

If you buy a third party File Manager, it has the ability
to do things differently than the system File Manager, but the
Open Dialog and the Command Prompt "dir" are unaffected.

With the library feature, it's an intermediate situation. It's
an OS feature, it affects a view in File Manager, it affects
a view in Open Dialog. Since the view is "not real", is an
artificial arrangement (no record within the $MFT about it),
the process of doing this needs a name. Since no other
OS has defined a name for us, we have to make something up.

The library feature is not visible in Command Prompt "dir".
All you see in the default folder of the library, is just
the few files that have been deposited directly there,
not all the files collected via the .library-ms listing.

Environments such as Classic Shell, change the look of the
OS by using display routines (Legacy ones) that already
exist and just need to be called and harnessed. And such a
view of the system, only exists until the day that
Microsoft removes the code.

No matter what is going on, within the .library-ms file,
there is nothing planted in the $MFT itself, so at a guess,
terminology that belongs to the file system is likely
a stretch at describing what is going on. Something is
going on, but it's not a Junction Point, a Reparse Point,
and so on. The feature (unlike some opinions I was seeing
on web pages), is actually not scalable and has limits
as to how many folders can be shoved in there. But until
I can uncover some documentation, it's pretty hard to guess
where such limits would come from. There is probably a
performance limit (trying to scan too many directories to
build a view, might take a while). The view can be updated
instantly, because of the $USN Journal broadcasting events
to registered processes. As long as the display process
can read and parse and filter the events fast enough.
For example, 7ZIP could be unzipping your
photo collection into one of the folders, while you
have a library view open.

Paul

On 4/29/21 12:23 AM, Paul wrote:
> The feature (unlike some opinions I was seeing
> on web pages), is actually not scalable and has limits
> as to how many folders can be shoved in there.

Then, would my idea of having a folder of shortcuts to files in numerous
other folders could get around this limitation?

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Windows 10 20H2
Firefox 87.0
Thunderbird 60.9.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Snowshed. wrote:
> On 4/29/21 12:23 AM, Paul wrote:
>> The feature (unlike some opinions I was seeing
>> on web pages), is actually not scalable and has limits
>> as to how many folders can be shoved in there.
>
> Then, would my idea of having a folder of shortcuts to files in numerous
> other folders could get around this limitation?

Using shortcuts is not an MSFT library, but sure, you can do that,
and the Recent Items on your machine is an example of an
implementation.

Microsoft has worked hard, to try to duplicate the features
that other file systems have. You can do similar things
on other computer systems.

Even hardlinks works, and with those, there is no special
icon (tiny arrow) to throw off the aesthetic. WinSXS has
"copies" of System32 stuff, organized a certain way. You can
delete either file pointer, without losing anything, but
if both file pointers are deleted, then the associated
clusters are gone.

The problem with shortcuts, is additional disk accesses
when doing various things. Hardlinks cut accesses to
a minimum (one directory entry serves both locations
on the disk). And you can have multiple hardlinks
too - some files in Windows have more than two links
to them. You can see the number of links, by dumping
the file system with nfi.exe.

In Linux, if examining an NTFS file system, you can
detect hardlinks, when two files happen to have the same
inode number (ls -i). In Windows, you can use utilities
to get some extra info about files.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/findlinks
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/junction

Paul