Post by @david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)

@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange 4 hours ago

When I first used Linux, in the previous millennium, I remember being confused that it called executables ‘binaries’. I’m pretty sure everything on my disk was stored in binary (these days it’s probably base 4 or something, but it at least exposes binary at the interface).

It remains a stupid name. Please can we call executables executables? Shared libraries are also binaries. PDFs are also binaries. Text files are binaries (yes, ASCII is just a set of bytes mapping to characters, it’s not some magic non-binary format). Everything on your computer is binary (unless you have a quantum computer or some weird trinary-logic system, yes, I know you people, you don’t need to comment).

Zimmie

@bob_zim@infosec.exchange 4 minutes ago

@david_chisnall I am similarly bothered by the “digital-only” game consoles. Who knew PS5 and Xbox games were delivered on Laserdisc!

Arthur van der Harg

@ArtHarg@mastodon.nl 41 minutes ago

@david_chisnall The distinction being “Will this föq up my terminal when I cat it?” Text files don’t, binaries do. So yes, a PDF is a binary file, as is a TIFF.

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)

@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange 13 minutes ago

@ArtHarg

The distinction being “Will this föq up my terminal when I cat it?” Text files don’t, binaries do.

This is not true if the text file is not in an encoding that matches your terminal. Try cating a Big5-encoded text file on a UTF-8 terminal (or even a UTF-16 text file).

So yes, a PDF is a binary file, as is a TIFF.

You might want to look inside a PDF sometime. You might be surprised. Open one in vim and there's even syntax highlighting.

Sin Vega

@sinvega@mas.to 1 hour ago

@david_chisnall wait is THAT what "binaries" were this whole time? fucking hell I've been seeing them use it like that forever and it didn't even MEAN anything?

computer touchers need to stop this shit

Karl Pettersson

@KarlPettersson@mastodon.nu 3 hours ago

@david_chisnall As when people talk about “machine-readable” formats. Would a non machine-readable format really be useful? But they mean, of course, formats enforcing a certain structure on metadata and data content.

GrumpyDad 🇺🇦🇵🇸

@grumpydad@infosec.exchange 3 hours ago

@david_chisnall Well, not every binary is an executable and not every executable is a binary...

Alex

@o_O@mastodon.nu 4 hours ago

@david_chisnall In my usage, anything not a text or partially not text is a binary and only a subset of binaries are executable. The reason to differentiate between them is because most UNIX tools process text, so essentially it’s a way to say that a file is gibberish.

This is the understanding I’ve built up over the years and internalised to a degree that I thought it was how everyone thought about it. Funny how the brain works.

Andy Price

@andyprice@mastodon.social 4 hours ago

@david_chisnall I think we should use executables, linkables, greppables (text), presentables (.odp), readables (pdf), boopables (pet photos) and forgetables (calendar entries)