A folder and a file with the same name in the same location [duplicate]
![Creative The name of the picture](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO9GURib1T8z7lCwjOGLQaGtrueEthgQ8LO42ZX8cOfTqDK4jvDDpKkLFwf2J49kYCMNW7d4ABih_XCb_2UXdq5fPJDkoyg7-8g_YfRUot-XnaXkNYycsNp7lA5_TW9td0FFpLQ2APzKcZ/s1600/1.jpg)
![Creative The name of the picture](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYQ0N5W1qAOxLP7t7iOM6O6AzbZnkXUy16s7P_CWfOb5UbTQY_aDsc727chyphenhyphen5W4IppVNernMMQeaUFTB_rFzAd95_CDt-tnwN-nBx6JyUp2duGjPaL5-VgNO41AVsA_vu30EJcipdDG409/s400/Clash+Royale+CLAN+TAG%2523URR8PPP.png)
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Same folder and file name in same location
4 answers
I'm on 14.04 about to move up to 18.04. In that version of Ubuntu can I have a folder and a file in the same location with the same name?
My use case is that I have html files without the .html extension, that I push up to AWS S3, where I serve a few websites. Leaving off the .html extension enables me to have clean urls for the websites. And S3 is perfectly happy to have directories and files with the same name, and thankfully they serve the html file rather than a folder if you navigate to the URL that is a file and a folder.
This would be a nice to have in Ubuntu. I could have an html file called 'articles' and a folder called articles, and then my URLs would be "RESTful."
example.com/articles/title
would give you the article with that title, and example.com/articles
would serve up a list of articles.
Anyhow, AWS already does this, I was just hoping Nautilus, or Ubuntu could handle this so I don't have to go through an awkward coding nightmare where my local directories have different names from my server directories.
Does this work in 18.04 or can anyone think of a good work-around?
nautilus files directory 18.04
marked as duplicate by Eliah Kagan, Zanna, pomsky, Fabby, Eric Carvalho Apr 23 at 0:01
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Same folder and file name in same location
4 answers
I'm on 14.04 about to move up to 18.04. In that version of Ubuntu can I have a folder and a file in the same location with the same name?
My use case is that I have html files without the .html extension, that I push up to AWS S3, where I serve a few websites. Leaving off the .html extension enables me to have clean urls for the websites. And S3 is perfectly happy to have directories and files with the same name, and thankfully they serve the html file rather than a folder if you navigate to the URL that is a file and a folder.
This would be a nice to have in Ubuntu. I could have an html file called 'articles' and a folder called articles, and then my URLs would be "RESTful."
example.com/articles/title
would give you the article with that title, and example.com/articles
would serve up a list of articles.
Anyhow, AWS already does this, I was just hoping Nautilus, or Ubuntu could handle this so I don't have to go through an awkward coding nightmare where my local directories have different names from my server directories.
Does this work in 18.04 or can anyone think of a good work-around?
nautilus files directory 18.04
marked as duplicate by Eliah Kagan, Zanna, pomsky, Fabby, Eric Carvalho Apr 23 at 0:01
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
There's some sort of mistake in the question. What you're asking is dependent on the filesystem, not the type of GNU/Linux distro -- but the standard GNU/Linux filesystems (ext3, ext4, etc.) all don't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory. Also, naming your HTML fileindex.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g.example.com/title
, so the full path isexample.com/title/index.html
, is one common way to accomplish what you're asking, because browsers won't show theindex.html
if you just go tohttps://example.com/title
then.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:44
1
@Harry These are good points. Would you mind if I use them in my answer?
â user68186
Apr 13 at 20:46
1
@user68186 Go ahead, thanks for asking.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:47
1
@Harry This is not dependent on the filesystem. (You're right that it doesn't depend on the distro, either, though.) See Same folder and file name in same location and Why can't I have a folder and a file with the same name?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:05
2
@JörgWMittag I think distinguishing between "directory" and "folder" is irrelevant to this. Are there OSes that let you have a file and folder with the same name--actually with the same name, not just displaying as though they do in some graphical browser that trims suffixes or hides some characters--in the same place? Some people claim "directory" and "folder" don't mean the same thing, but the distinction is not that some OSes have one and others the other. It is no more wrong to call directories folders on Ubuntu than Windows. It is not wrong at all.
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 11:38
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Same folder and file name in same location
4 answers
I'm on 14.04 about to move up to 18.04. In that version of Ubuntu can I have a folder and a file in the same location with the same name?
My use case is that I have html files without the .html extension, that I push up to AWS S3, where I serve a few websites. Leaving off the .html extension enables me to have clean urls for the websites. And S3 is perfectly happy to have directories and files with the same name, and thankfully they serve the html file rather than a folder if you navigate to the URL that is a file and a folder.
This would be a nice to have in Ubuntu. I could have an html file called 'articles' and a folder called articles, and then my URLs would be "RESTful."
example.com/articles/title
would give you the article with that title, and example.com/articles
would serve up a list of articles.
Anyhow, AWS already does this, I was just hoping Nautilus, or Ubuntu could handle this so I don't have to go through an awkward coding nightmare where my local directories have different names from my server directories.
Does this work in 18.04 or can anyone think of a good work-around?
nautilus files directory 18.04
This question already has an answer here:
Same folder and file name in same location
4 answers
I'm on 14.04 about to move up to 18.04. In that version of Ubuntu can I have a folder and a file in the same location with the same name?
My use case is that I have html files without the .html extension, that I push up to AWS S3, where I serve a few websites. Leaving off the .html extension enables me to have clean urls for the websites. And S3 is perfectly happy to have directories and files with the same name, and thankfully they serve the html file rather than a folder if you navigate to the URL that is a file and a folder.
This would be a nice to have in Ubuntu. I could have an html file called 'articles' and a folder called articles, and then my URLs would be "RESTful."
example.com/articles/title
would give you the article with that title, and example.com/articles
would serve up a list of articles.
Anyhow, AWS already does this, I was just hoping Nautilus, or Ubuntu could handle this so I don't have to go through an awkward coding nightmare where my local directories have different names from my server directories.
Does this work in 18.04 or can anyone think of a good work-around?
This question already has an answer here:
Same folder and file name in same location
4 answers
nautilus files directory 18.04
nautilus files directory 18.04
edited Apr 13 at 20:44
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h5FrU.png?s=32&g=1)
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h5FrU.png?s=32&g=1)
anonymous2
3,14541746
3,14541746
asked Apr 13 at 20:20
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fwOId.jpg?s=32&g=1)
![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fwOId.jpg?s=32&g=1)
Costa
5082725
5082725
marked as duplicate by Eliah Kagan, Zanna, pomsky, Fabby, Eric Carvalho Apr 23 at 0:01
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Eliah Kagan, Zanna, pomsky, Fabby, Eric Carvalho Apr 23 at 0:01
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
There's some sort of mistake in the question. What you're asking is dependent on the filesystem, not the type of GNU/Linux distro -- but the standard GNU/Linux filesystems (ext3, ext4, etc.) all don't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory. Also, naming your HTML fileindex.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g.example.com/title
, so the full path isexample.com/title/index.html
, is one common way to accomplish what you're asking, because browsers won't show theindex.html
if you just go tohttps://example.com/title
then.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:44
1
@Harry These are good points. Would you mind if I use them in my answer?
â user68186
Apr 13 at 20:46
1
@user68186 Go ahead, thanks for asking.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:47
1
@Harry This is not dependent on the filesystem. (You're right that it doesn't depend on the distro, either, though.) See Same folder and file name in same location and Why can't I have a folder and a file with the same name?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:05
2
@JörgWMittag I think distinguishing between "directory" and "folder" is irrelevant to this. Are there OSes that let you have a file and folder with the same name--actually with the same name, not just displaying as though they do in some graphical browser that trims suffixes or hides some characters--in the same place? Some people claim "directory" and "folder" don't mean the same thing, but the distinction is not that some OSes have one and others the other. It is no more wrong to call directories folders on Ubuntu than Windows. It is not wrong at all.
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 11:38
 |Â
show 2 more comments
5
There's some sort of mistake in the question. What you're asking is dependent on the filesystem, not the type of GNU/Linux distro -- but the standard GNU/Linux filesystems (ext3, ext4, etc.) all don't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory. Also, naming your HTML fileindex.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g.example.com/title
, so the full path isexample.com/title/index.html
, is one common way to accomplish what you're asking, because browsers won't show theindex.html
if you just go tohttps://example.com/title
then.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:44
1
@Harry These are good points. Would you mind if I use them in my answer?
â user68186
Apr 13 at 20:46
1
@user68186 Go ahead, thanks for asking.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:47
1
@Harry This is not dependent on the filesystem. (You're right that it doesn't depend on the distro, either, though.) See Same folder and file name in same location and Why can't I have a folder and a file with the same name?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:05
2
@JörgWMittag I think distinguishing between "directory" and "folder" is irrelevant to this. Are there OSes that let you have a file and folder with the same name--actually with the same name, not just displaying as though they do in some graphical browser that trims suffixes or hides some characters--in the same place? Some people claim "directory" and "folder" don't mean the same thing, but the distinction is not that some OSes have one and others the other. It is no more wrong to call directories folders on Ubuntu than Windows. It is not wrong at all.
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 11:38
5
5
There's some sort of mistake in the question. What you're asking is dependent on the filesystem, not the type of GNU/Linux distro -- but the standard GNU/Linux filesystems (ext3, ext4, etc.) all don't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory. Also, naming your HTML file
index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/title
, so the full path is example.com/title/index.html
, is one common way to accomplish what you're asking, because browsers won't show the index.html
if you just go to https://example.com/title
then.â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:44
There's some sort of mistake in the question. What you're asking is dependent on the filesystem, not the type of GNU/Linux distro -- but the standard GNU/Linux filesystems (ext3, ext4, etc.) all don't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory. Also, naming your HTML file
index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/title
, so the full path is example.com/title/index.html
, is one common way to accomplish what you're asking, because browsers won't show the index.html
if you just go to https://example.com/title
then.â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:44
1
1
@Harry These are good points. Would you mind if I use them in my answer?
â user68186
Apr 13 at 20:46
@Harry These are good points. Would you mind if I use them in my answer?
â user68186
Apr 13 at 20:46
1
1
@user68186 Go ahead, thanks for asking.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:47
@user68186 Go ahead, thanks for asking.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:47
1
1
@Harry This is not dependent on the filesystem. (You're right that it doesn't depend on the distro, either, though.) See Same folder and file name in same location and Why can't I have a folder and a file with the same name?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:05
@Harry This is not dependent on the filesystem. (You're right that it doesn't depend on the distro, either, though.) See Same folder and file name in same location and Why can't I have a folder and a file with the same name?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:05
2
2
@JörgWMittag I think distinguishing between "directory" and "folder" is irrelevant to this. Are there OSes that let you have a file and folder with the same name--actually with the same name, not just displaying as though they do in some graphical browser that trims suffixes or hides some characters--in the same place? Some people claim "directory" and "folder" don't mean the same thing, but the distinction is not that some OSes have one and others the other. It is no more wrong to call directories folders on Ubuntu than Windows. It is not wrong at all.
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 11:38
@JörgWMittag I think distinguishing between "directory" and "folder" is irrelevant to this. Are there OSes that let you have a file and folder with the same name--actually with the same name, not just displaying as though they do in some graphical browser that trims suffixes or hides some characters--in the same place? Some people claim "directory" and "folder" don't mean the same thing, but the distinction is not that some OSes have one and others the other. It is no more wrong to call directories folders on Ubuntu than Windows. It is not wrong at all.
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 11:38
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
The OS and file system do not allow this
Ubuntu and its file systems (ext3, ext4, etc.) doesn't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory.
Therefore, nautilus
does not allow renaming a folder to an existing file name.
However, Ubuntu (GNU/Linux in general) file systems are case sensitive. You can have a folder called Articles and a file called articles in the same location. Note the folder name starts with a capital A
, while the file name starts with a small a
.
You can use any CaPiTaLiZaTion conventions you want for your folders and files.
An alternative
An alternative is to create a file called index.html
inside each folder where you want the folder and the file to have the same name. Naming your HTML file index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/articles/title
, so the full path is example.com/articles/title/index.html
, will also accomplish what you're asking.
When one types https://example.com/articles/title
the web server will serve the index.html
page and browsers won't show the index.html
. It will show only https://example.com/articles/title
.
Similarly, you can have a file called https://example.com/article/index.html
to show what you want when one types https://example.com/article
.
Thanks to Harry for the alternative and some other points.
1
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
1
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose/foo
contained a regular filebar
and also a separate directorybar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would thestat
system call return information about when the path/foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
1
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
2
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Question is a possible duplicate of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34550299/aws-s3-hosting-url-rewrite. If you look in the comments, you'll even see that his precise use case is removing the .html from his URLs.
While the accepted answer provides a valid, working solution, I think this is a case of the XY problem. In this case, what you really need is a URL Rewriting system, which dispenses with the naming convention problem altogether. While the previous article does not apply to AWS S3, it explains the concept fairly well. Unfortunately, since S3 is not a web server per se, it doesn't have URL Rewrite functionality, but it does have Webpage Redirects which, as stated in the duplicate question's answer, might be able to do this.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
The OS and file system do not allow this
Ubuntu and its file systems (ext3, ext4, etc.) doesn't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory.
Therefore, nautilus
does not allow renaming a folder to an existing file name.
However, Ubuntu (GNU/Linux in general) file systems are case sensitive. You can have a folder called Articles and a file called articles in the same location. Note the folder name starts with a capital A
, while the file name starts with a small a
.
You can use any CaPiTaLiZaTion conventions you want for your folders and files.
An alternative
An alternative is to create a file called index.html
inside each folder where you want the folder and the file to have the same name. Naming your HTML file index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/articles/title
, so the full path is example.com/articles/title/index.html
, will also accomplish what you're asking.
When one types https://example.com/articles/title
the web server will serve the index.html
page and browsers won't show the index.html
. It will show only https://example.com/articles/title
.
Similarly, you can have a file called https://example.com/article/index.html
to show what you want when one types https://example.com/article
.
Thanks to Harry for the alternative and some other points.
1
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
1
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose/foo
contained a regular filebar
and also a separate directorybar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would thestat
system call return information about when the path/foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
1
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
2
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
The OS and file system do not allow this
Ubuntu and its file systems (ext3, ext4, etc.) doesn't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory.
Therefore, nautilus
does not allow renaming a folder to an existing file name.
However, Ubuntu (GNU/Linux in general) file systems are case sensitive. You can have a folder called Articles and a file called articles in the same location. Note the folder name starts with a capital A
, while the file name starts with a small a
.
You can use any CaPiTaLiZaTion conventions you want for your folders and files.
An alternative
An alternative is to create a file called index.html
inside each folder where you want the folder and the file to have the same name. Naming your HTML file index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/articles/title
, so the full path is example.com/articles/title/index.html
, will also accomplish what you're asking.
When one types https://example.com/articles/title
the web server will serve the index.html
page and browsers won't show the index.html
. It will show only https://example.com/articles/title
.
Similarly, you can have a file called https://example.com/article/index.html
to show what you want when one types https://example.com/article
.
Thanks to Harry for the alternative and some other points.
1
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
1
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose/foo
contained a regular filebar
and also a separate directorybar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would thestat
system call return information about when the path/foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
1
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
2
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
The OS and file system do not allow this
Ubuntu and its file systems (ext3, ext4, etc.) doesn't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory.
Therefore, nautilus
does not allow renaming a folder to an existing file name.
However, Ubuntu (GNU/Linux in general) file systems are case sensitive. You can have a folder called Articles and a file called articles in the same location. Note the folder name starts with a capital A
, while the file name starts with a small a
.
You can use any CaPiTaLiZaTion conventions you want for your folders and files.
An alternative
An alternative is to create a file called index.html
inside each folder where you want the folder and the file to have the same name. Naming your HTML file index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/articles/title
, so the full path is example.com/articles/title/index.html
, will also accomplish what you're asking.
When one types https://example.com/articles/title
the web server will serve the index.html
page and browsers won't show the index.html
. It will show only https://example.com/articles/title
.
Similarly, you can have a file called https://example.com/article/index.html
to show what you want when one types https://example.com/article
.
Thanks to Harry for the alternative and some other points.
The OS and file system do not allow this
Ubuntu and its file systems (ext3, ext4, etc.) doesn't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory.
Therefore, nautilus
does not allow renaming a folder to an existing file name.
However, Ubuntu (GNU/Linux in general) file systems are case sensitive. You can have a folder called Articles and a file called articles in the same location. Note the folder name starts with a capital A
, while the file name starts with a small a
.
You can use any CaPiTaLiZaTion conventions you want for your folders and files.
An alternative
An alternative is to create a file called index.html
inside each folder where you want the folder and the file to have the same name. Naming your HTML file index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g. example.com/articles/title
, so the full path is example.com/articles/title/index.html
, will also accomplish what you're asking.
When one types https://example.com/articles/title
the web server will serve the index.html
page and browsers won't show the index.html
. It will show only https://example.com/articles/title
.
Similarly, you can have a file called https://example.com/article/index.html
to show what you want when one types https://example.com/article
.
Thanks to Harry for the alternative and some other points.
edited Apr 14 at 4:22
Eliah Kagan
79.5k20221359
79.5k20221359
answered Apr 13 at 20:43
user68186
14.3k84360
14.3k84360
1
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
1
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose/foo
contained a regular filebar
and also a separate directorybar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would thestat
system call return information about when the path/foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
1
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
2
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
1
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose/foo
contained a regular filebar
and also a separate directorybar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would thestat
system call return information about when the path/foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
1
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
2
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
1
1
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
Beat me to it, lol.
â anonymous2
Apr 13 at 20:43
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
If I'm going to write a work around, I'll probably just work around for the directories. There's far less of them, than files. It'll make navigating much easier. S3 supports my need, so I'll just need to work around for my local setup. Bah... work arounds suck : (
â Costa
Apr 13 at 21:22
1
1
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose
/foo
contained a regular file bar
and also a separate directory bar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would the stat
system call return information about when the path /foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
Much of this answer is okay, but the suggestion that it's just the filesystem, and not the OS, that prevents a directory and regular file with the same basename from residing in the same directory, makes little sense. Is there some filesystem, on any Unix-like OS, that really facilitates this? Suppose
/foo
contained a regular file bar
and also a separate directory bar
. How would they be distinguished? Which would the stat
system call return information about when the path /foo/bar
were passed as its first argument?â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:00
1
1
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
Thanks for editing! But I think this post still suggests that a combination of Ubuntu and some filesystem could allow this. I don't want to edit myself, as we may disagree, but I don't think it really depends on much. I don't think any OS or filesystem allows this (though some approach it with versioning semantics). The only reason I'm not saying this more definitively is there's a lot of weird stuff out there (but see this answer). I'd suggest saying "Neither the OS nor its filesystem allow it" instead of "It depends on..."
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:31
2
2
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
@user68186 I've edited. I went with the more neutral phrase "The OS and file system do not allow this." I believe this is sufficient to avoid giving the impression that the filesystem could facilitate it. As usual, please definitely feel free to edit this yourself to change it again, if you like (or to revert it altogether).
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 4:26
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Question is a possible duplicate of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34550299/aws-s3-hosting-url-rewrite. If you look in the comments, you'll even see that his precise use case is removing the .html from his URLs.
While the accepted answer provides a valid, working solution, I think this is a case of the XY problem. In this case, what you really need is a URL Rewriting system, which dispenses with the naming convention problem altogether. While the previous article does not apply to AWS S3, it explains the concept fairly well. Unfortunately, since S3 is not a web server per se, it doesn't have URL Rewrite functionality, but it does have Webpage Redirects which, as stated in the duplicate question's answer, might be able to do this.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Question is a possible duplicate of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34550299/aws-s3-hosting-url-rewrite. If you look in the comments, you'll even see that his precise use case is removing the .html from his URLs.
While the accepted answer provides a valid, working solution, I think this is a case of the XY problem. In this case, what you really need is a URL Rewriting system, which dispenses with the naming convention problem altogether. While the previous article does not apply to AWS S3, it explains the concept fairly well. Unfortunately, since S3 is not a web server per se, it doesn't have URL Rewrite functionality, but it does have Webpage Redirects which, as stated in the duplicate question's answer, might be able to do this.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Question is a possible duplicate of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34550299/aws-s3-hosting-url-rewrite. If you look in the comments, you'll even see that his precise use case is removing the .html from his URLs.
While the accepted answer provides a valid, working solution, I think this is a case of the XY problem. In this case, what you really need is a URL Rewriting system, which dispenses with the naming convention problem altogether. While the previous article does not apply to AWS S3, it explains the concept fairly well. Unfortunately, since S3 is not a web server per se, it doesn't have URL Rewrite functionality, but it does have Webpage Redirects which, as stated in the duplicate question's answer, might be able to do this.
Question is a possible duplicate of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34550299/aws-s3-hosting-url-rewrite. If you look in the comments, you'll even see that his precise use case is removing the .html from his URLs.
While the accepted answer provides a valid, working solution, I think this is a case of the XY problem. In this case, what you really need is a URL Rewriting system, which dispenses with the naming convention problem altogether. While the previous article does not apply to AWS S3, it explains the concept fairly well. Unfortunately, since S3 is not a web server per se, it doesn't have URL Rewrite functionality, but it does have Webpage Redirects which, as stated in the duplicate question's answer, might be able to do this.
edited Apr 14 at 8:22
answered Apr 14 at 8:15
Bjonnfesk
112
112
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
5
There's some sort of mistake in the question. What you're asking is dependent on the filesystem, not the type of GNU/Linux distro -- but the standard GNU/Linux filesystems (ext3, ext4, etc.) all don't allow an identically named file and folder in the same directory. Also, naming your HTML file
index.html
and putting them in a folder called e.g.example.com/title
, so the full path isexample.com/title/index.html
, is one common way to accomplish what you're asking, because browsers won't show theindex.html
if you just go tohttps://example.com/title
then.â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:44
1
@Harry These are good points. Would you mind if I use them in my answer?
â user68186
Apr 13 at 20:46
1
@user68186 Go ahead, thanks for asking.
â Harry
Apr 13 at 20:47
1
@Harry This is not dependent on the filesystem. (You're right that it doesn't depend on the distro, either, though.) See Same folder and file name in same location and Why can't I have a folder and a file with the same name?
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 3:05
2
@JörgWMittag I think distinguishing between "directory" and "folder" is irrelevant to this. Are there OSes that let you have a file and folder with the same name--actually with the same name, not just displaying as though they do in some graphical browser that trims suffixes or hides some characters--in the same place? Some people claim "directory" and "folder" don't mean the same thing, but the distinction is not that some OSes have one and others the other. It is no more wrong to call directories folders on Ubuntu than Windows. It is not wrong at all.
â Eliah Kagan
Apr 14 at 11:38