Hello :),
I came here today because I asked for an increase of PATH_MAX on the ubuntu-motu emailing list there:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2025-April/008415.html 1
And Simon Quigley emailed me that it was much more appropriate to ask on discourse.ubuntu.com since the ubuntu-motu emailing list is “deprecated” (my word to simplify what he said).
Here is my original email:

Hello :),

I know this is a tricky feature request but I need to ask it,
even if it is flamed during flight.
I helped my mother to switch from Windows to Ubuntu.
She used Firefox and Thunderbird for years.
But there is one limitation that is inconvenient.
She was working in (paper) administration,
and, in "normal computer use",
she is able to nest directories and subdirectories, etc.
and use long distinct sentences for basenames,
so that she doesn't need to open the documents to find the right one
(like invoices etc.).
She's very organized in her use of a computer,
much more than I.
But she doesn't know CamelCase and other tricks
to shorten basenames or folders names.
PATH_MAX (MAX_PATH) and NAME_MAX limits on Windows
were removed years ago (the limit is not significant for "normal computer use").
Since Ubuntu is a mainstream Linux distribution system,
and nowadays computers are able to handle it,
I think it would help to double current constants
in the Linux kernel versions for Ubuntu,
and in other Ubuntu packages where it would be redefined
instead of using the right C definition or pathconf.
I know it may be a lot of work,
and I definitely think that the first step would be to verify that
all other (main) packages use pathconf.
Then increase.
I don't ask for it for today, but I hope it is something that can be planned for 2030.
Because the need for it is real.

Thank you for your attention, best regards,
      Laurent Lyaudet

Best regards,
Laurent Lyaudet

Hello g-schick :),

Thanks for taking the time to answer me.
Unfortunately, this is not what I’m looking for.
My mother is retired, she will turn 76 years old later in 2025 and has habits.
I don’t want her to be confused between a Calc document and her folders.
The structure of a Calc document is not nested.
She will not be able to browse it like she does with Nautilus.
Of course, she could have a main Calc document that has hyperlinks for nested Calc documents XD, very wrong idea for usability (where is the back button ? Why do I have all these windows opened ? XD). I would have to ask her to create a Calc document for each directory (she has gigabytes of data, pdfs, libre office documents, etc. already).

I don’t know Tellico, it may be a better idea.
Is it able to load a complete tree structure of directories and fill default attributes of each file automatically ?
It reminds me of an old attempt to have an OS with a database as the root of the filesystem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS
(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_File_System
(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS_file_system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_system#Database_file_systems
Sorry, but I think the cognition gap is too high for my mother.
Moreover, metadata needs to be filled by someone,
the entry cost is too high for most users.

ExFAT limitations in USB keys and external SSDs can be bypassed by making a .tar.gz archive with 7-zip on Windows, then copying.
Then trying to untar on the Linux computer.
Then look at the error messages for too long filenames.
Then use command line to edit/shorten filenames inside tar archive in-place.
Then untar again.

It is a cumbersome process that slows adoption of Linux for mere mortals.
I still think that the KISS answer to this is to follow the same path than Windows and to adapt limitations in Linux to be irrelevant to “normal computer use”.

Best regards,
Laurent Lyaudet

Rehello @g-schick

The ‘nesting’ can be replicated with using fields in the spreadsheet.

Ok, I don’t see what you mean. If you care to explain, otherwise don’t bother :).

Your actual meta data exists in folder names and file names - just perfect to extract them automatically. After extracting the meta data real folder names and file names may be shortened to fit OS limits.

Using AI ? I think that it’s not that simple. Take as an example an invoice, the basename could contain “Facture <SOME_COMPANY_NAME> du 9 avril 2025 d’un montant de 120 €” to say that the invoice date is 2025/04/09 and amount is 120 €. Easy for humans, even with typos, but otherwise we enter the field of NLP, and we have to use AI with human feedback/validation. AI can be a big help, but the entry cost is still high for people like my mother. I already paid the entry cost by using the tar trick and editing filenames inside tar archive for her. I care also about people who are not able to look Internet to learn how to a edit a tar archive in-place ;).

I agree with you to keep it simple but I do not agree with you that your solution is technically as simple as using a spreadsheet …

We both know I used KISS for the user and you replied KISS for the dev ;).

In my opinion discussed limits of linux are not heavily relevant to “normal computer use”.

I must agree. They are relevant but not heavily relevant since we both know that 2 or 3 levels depth of directories structures, Firefox (and everything accessible through it), Thunderbird, VLC, LibreOffice, GIMP and 95 % of users are fine like that.

I still think there are good reasons to improve Linux based on the 5 % remaining:

• The 95 % - 5 % rule always existed for one reason or another,
  and most improvements come from the minority who is not satisfied at some point in time.
• The code of Linux kernel and its ecosystem would be in better shape, if modifying PATH_MAX or other constants is a no-brainer and yields no regression. It would be a proof that this code doesn’t contain any magic numbers or incoherence anymore. It was part of my initial assumption that it was already the case for the kernel, and that it would be a nice work to make it so for main packages using pathconf. I will ask my request to Linux Kernel mailing list later this week to know if they feel the same regarding the kernel.

Best regards,
Laurent Lyaudet

Rehello @g-schick ,

Thanks for the clarification about nesting in Calc.
I think it will be quite tricky because your selector on head of column “Folder 2” will not be filtered according to selected “Folder 1” unless you do some BASIC scripting in Calc. Neither impossible, nor simple enough in my opinion.

No. Because of the structure (folders, files) a simple script may do this job.

Ok, unfortunately some of the metadata is not in the structure of folders, files, like the amount of the invoice in my example. Even people organized like my mother use some Blob text after some level of complexity :). That’s where Natural Language Processing comes into play.

I think you posted this in the right place. But I’m no Linux developer. Your title caught my attention and reading your first post I started thinking of other possible solutions.

No problem :). Thanks for trying to help :). When I’ll have an answer on Linux Kernel mailing list, we will have more elements to judge.

Best regards,
Laurent Lyaudet

Hello @g-schick :),

No scripting necessary.

Nice, the list of the selectors for “Folder n” are automatically filled by Calc when it reads the hyperlinks. I didn’t know how it worked, very nice :).

These blob texts will follow a structure

What I call blob are the basenames “à tout faire”, where my mother adds any relevant information into the basename of the file.
Trust me, with typos included, you don’t want to script data extraction from this,
there will always be slight errors.
And no matter if you use AI or a simple script, you will always need a loop on all the files with a prompt like:

From the basename "blabla", the following metadata were extracted:
document type: invoice (Type '1' to correct)
invoice date: 2025/04/09 (Type '2' to correct)
invoice amount: 120 € (Type '3' to correct)
Type '4' to add another metadata.
Type '0' to validate.
Whatever strictly positive number you type,
you will  see the same corrected prompt
to have the opportunity to make further corrections.

The script may be written in a few hours.
But it will take an huge amount of time to loop on all the files.
Around 50 000 files, I know why I talked about entry cost.
Fortunately, the number of basenames needing to be shortened was much less.

Best regards,
Laurent Lyaudet

Ok, we didn’t understood each other. In my mind the script was for metadata extraction (split, atomize, format, etc.), Tellico, extended attributes of a database filesystem, or precise columns for the Calc document as you prototyped in your first message (it had different columns suggestions in the Calc screen capture). I was arguing all the way that the blob way my mother uses had the smallest entry cost for her and me, compared to metadata extraction.

Your actual meta data exists in folder names and file names - just perfect to extract them automatically. After extracting the meta data real folder names and file names may be shortened to fit OS limits.

I replied:

Use AI

You replied:

No […] a simple script

You were thinking about filling the Calc document with a minimal number of columns as suggested in your second screen capture but since the conversation had the metadata common factor, I didn’t follow the same thought path than you. What you called metadata extraction is just blob copy in my opinion. Hopefully we understand each other now. Thanks for simplifying your Calc idea to make it simple with low entry cost. I don’t know if it will be used by my mother but it may help someone else :).

Best regards,
Laurent Lyaudet

Ok, tu m’as vu en premier et tu m’as aussi vu en deuxième. Sorry for the trouble.

Translation: Ok, you saw me first and you also saw me second.
It’s a reference to the movie “La classe américaine”.
I also have a question for you: Are you paid by Microsoft to torpedo a good demand made to Ubuntu?