grey checkmark in read-only checkbox

[F5ing]

Sorry for leading the OP down a useless path.

To be honest, I've not really been paying too much attention to that checkbox on folders (directories) for years. Maybe because that read-only attribute has been available for folders since the early DOS days, but I had never been able to observe any effective use for it. It had no effect on anything I could find except for displaying the fact that it was either marked as such or not: with read-only applied to the folder, you could do anything you wanted to do with the folder itself and the files it contained. IOW, delete folder, rename folder, add, delete, read, write, and execute files within, add/delete/rename subfolders.

I searched a bunch of drives, internal and ones that have been in other machines, and lo and behold, I see the same thing as the OP. So I too, went on a search, and found tons of articles/forums discussing this issue going back to 2002 or something. And although there were a few mentioning that it could cause problems, most were saying it was a non-issue.

I don't recall ever running across a problem that could be traced to this. I wonder if the OP, or anyone else here, has encountered any issues.

 

[HammerHead]

There Is More

Sibb: I don't think you misled anyone. The approach that the thread was taking under normal circustances was correct. I spent a couple of hours once fiddling with the same problem and discovered that it was not an issue.

I will offer an uninformed reason as to why it might be like it is. The file that is putting up the window for "properties" is same window that is used for files. I am trying to say that that particular window was used instead of writing code for a window just for folders.

I titled this "There Is More" because I know of some other instances in windows that are similiar.

 

[F5ing]

I wrote that previous post before seeing this one:

And in the same vein as going to the Start button to shut your computer down, they create a meaningless little checkbox that offers zero security AND slows down network traffic.

When I first saw that Start button in Win95, I thought the same as you (ridiculous that the user had to select "Start" in order to "stop"). But the more I thought about it, they must have been thinking it was intuitive in the sense that you want to "start" the shutdown process. Of course, I may be being a little lenient on my thoughts about MS.

As far as the useless checkbox is concerned, I think it's because a folder is really just a file. And every file created has the same attributes available to them (whether useful or not) to allow for maximum flexibility for the intended purpose of the "file".

As for security, it was never really secure even when applied to a normal file, as anyone with access could simply mark it as not read-only. More like a feature for usability rather than protection from maliciousness. Significant security was implemented with ownership/permissions.

Are you really seeing a slow down in network traffic because of this?

 

[F5ing]

Sibb: I don't think you misled anyone. The approach that the thread was taking under normal circustances was correct.

Yeah, appreciate that. It's just if I had thought more about which particular attribute the OP was concerned with I might not have continued with the successive posts leading down the same path. Oh, well.

But, don't you have to admit that it's odd? Why the heck is it set that way? Seems to me that since read-only has always been useless for a folder, why is it even checked? Or shaded?

I mean, I think all new entities start off with no attributes selected. Something has to be done to turn any attribute on, right?

 

[HammerHead]

So Kind

You are very kind to the software engineers. The explanation for the start -- stop thingy makes sense. I don't know if it slows file sharing down. It has never presented a problem to me but it might in the correct application.

That particular problem is probably on a "to do list" somewhere near the bottom and keeps getting shoved down.

Another ex: Word 2010 has had the interface to a scanner removed. When in reality the only thing that was removed was the menu options (shortcuts) etc. I haven't done this for awhile but I discovered If you do ctrl+I+S it will call up your twain interface and you can scan a single page into word. So the code is still there, its just not documented.

 

[F5ing]

You are very kind to the software engineers. The explanation for the start -- stop thingy makes sense.

You wouldn't believe how long it took me to justify that it in my mind by coming up with that conclusion! I have been assimilated! There is no perfect OS out there, all have faults. And I guess I feel that MS, like 'em or not, gets more than their fair share of criticism.

Another ex: Word 2010 has had the interface to a scanner removed. When in reality the only thing that was removed was the menu options (shortcuts) etc. I haven't done this for awhile but I discovered If you do ctrl+I+S it will call up your twain interface and you can scan a single page into word. So the code is still there, its just not documented.

So, a functional "easter egg" for newcomers!!!

 

[treddie2001]

sibbil > Don't beat up on yourself, you took the right tack. The only reason I ran into this issue myself (because I never had to worry about it before, either) is because I am writing an application that must check whether or not a folder or file is read-only. In order to test my code, it seemed that the easiest way to do so was to use that checkbox to change the status of a folder of file and see how my program reacted to it. Now it turns out you, me and obviously a zillion other people find out its a "vapor" switch...the Easy Button to nowhere.

As for its value as a security feature, I agree that my statement was erroneous...However, it WOULD have even a little bit of personal security status if you could use it to prevent YOURSELF from over-writing something you wanted to keep unchanged.

The explanation for the start -- stop thingy makes sense.

I have been on the road many times and ran that thing through my mind too many times than I can count.

 

[F5ing]

Yeah, it's cool, thanks. I just don't like the fact that I was leading you that way and wasting your time, when I could've easily taken note of the uselessnes of the particular attribute you were talking about. As usual, live and learn...

There must be something about it though. I think every disk entity originates with no attributes set, so something must be turning it on, whether intentionally or mistakenly.

 

[treddie2001]

I think it might be tied to the fact that the check mark isn't doing anything. So the fact that it is a gray check mark could just be that that was the state they left a flag set when they abandoned the idea of using the attribute.

 

[F5ing]

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. But the point is, whenever a new entity is created, all attributes are unchecked until something comes along and turns one on. For instance, when you create a folder, the OS tells NTFS to do the job. NTFS then creates a new file with the name you gave it, and turn on it's directory attribute. Because the directory attribute is turned on, that file entity is treated as a folder by NTFS and the OS. And the folder, which is really just a file, contains pointers to all the files it contains.

As far as I know, the read-only attribute, applied to a file that has its directory attribute turned on, has never been useful for anything (since the FAT days).

And because by default, when something is created all attributes are off, something must be coming along and saying, "hey! NTFS, turn on that read-only attribute". We may never know what that something is .

At least, that's the way I understand it.

 

[logicearth]

Why is the readonly property for folders so strange? - The Old New Thing - Site Home - MSDN Blogs

 

[F5ing]

Hey logicearth! Great find!

So apparently they found a use for that attribute when applied to a folder. Even though it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the name of the attribute (ie, nothing to do with being read-only based on how I read it). Nothing like making good use out of what you have available, even at the expense of confusing the heck out of most of the users!!!

And I guess the checkbox itself is shaded, representing inherited behavior?

 

[treddie2001]

sibbil > Looks like it just slipped through the cracks. Scary, when you think of how many lines of code are in a Windows OS, and you have stuff here and there that has been "left behind". Scary whenever the OS is used as the basis for some critical function that can endanger human lives! Nothing I would ever need to program, myself.

logicearth & sibbil > Yes interesting. I was thinking the same thing, too...Why not call it "Look further"?

 

[F5ing]

treddie2001, would you have ever believed your OP would've gone this route? Certainly has been enlightening.

 

[treddie2001]

Yep!

That darn junk DNA in Windows OS! Maybe that's why they have millions of lines of code.