XPost: alt.os.linux, comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: lpitcher@sympatico.ca
Roy Cohnhead wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote in
> news:rCMwb.6996$Eq1.838168@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>>Ivan Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:44:22 +0000, Support the War on Freedom wrote:
>>>
>>>>I like the BeOS demo of downloading a file, and saving it with an
>>>>incorrect extension, moving the target file as it downloads, etc.
>>>>BeOS always knows how to open every file, correctly named or not.
>>>>
>>>>Don't try that with Windows, of course. Linux is a bit rigid in this
>>>>regard as well.
>>>
>>>Why in the hell would you want your OS to do that?
>
> Why would I want some intelligence in my operating system?
Why the hell would you want your /Operating system/ to do that? That's
/not/ a job for the OS, especially if (as you later require) the user
should determine the default action. That's userland, not OS, behaviour.
>>If I change a file
>>
>>>extension, I'm doing it for a reason (usually because I DON'T want
>>>the file to open in the default manner).
>>
>>Agreed. And even more so without changing extensions.
>
> Well... some operating systems have better ways of handling this sort of
> thing. I'm pretty sure even Windows will let you decide how to open a
> file.
>
> Right?
So? So does Linux. For that matter, I'm sure both Amiga and BeOS do as
well. Your point being?
OTOH, Linux doesn't /impose/ a specific app or tool on the user. There
is no /one/ app to open any specific type of file, unlike MSWindows
default behaviour.
>>For instance, what should the "default action" be for a file that ends
>>with .C (as in Something.C)? Should it be to open it in a text editor?
>>Or should it be to compile it into a .O file using a C compiler? For
>>that matter, should it be to open it in your favourite archiving
>>program (because the first archive is .A, the second is .B, and the
>>third is .C)?
>
> Here's a thought: Why not let the user decide what the default action
> should be?
Where in my comment did you see me advocate that anyone /but/ the user
should decide the default action? Where did you see me advocate that
there should /be/ a _default_ action?
>>Why should this be an /operating system/ activity at all? I don't see
>>it as such, especially when you are talking about which /user
>>selected/ /application program/ should handle the file.
>>
> Wow. If either of you have used BeOS, I don't think we'd see so many
> silly statements flying around right now.
Non sequiter, and not relevant to the conversation.
And I'll thank you to keep your irrelevant and argumentative
observations to yourself.
> MIME-typing. Look into it. Start with the Amiga and BeOS.
MIME-typing - Look into it yourself. Start with the /etc/magic file.
FWIW, MIME-typing /started/ with Unix, so don't get on your high-horse
with me.
In any case,
1) MIME-typing can only go so far with identifying the type of data a
file contains. When the file doesn't contain data that can be assigned
to a unique MIME-type, then the depenance on MIME-type breaks down.
2) If MIME-type defines a /single/ unique tool to handle the file, then
it is broken. There is no /one single unique/ tool to handle data. There
are a multitude of tools, depending on what you want to do with the
data. What if the MIME-type for a file indicates that it is text? Will
the tool that acts on MIME-type restrict me to opening the file in a
text editor? What if I wanted to dump it in octal (od some.text.file)?
What if I wanted to compile it (cc -o some.program some.text.file)? Or
mail it (mail -s "Something I found" someone@some.host I'm guess neither of you have any inkling as to what the BeOS translator
> library does, either. Right?
Don't know and don't care. If it's part of the OS, then BeOS is broken.
If it's part of the userland, then BeOS /might/ have done something less
braindead than MSWindows.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
