XPost: alt.os.linux, comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, alt.windows   
   From: SPAMjasonzc@yahoo.com   
      
   Lew Pitcher  wrote in   
   news:oqi3qb.d78.ln@merlin.l6s4x6-4.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.   
      
      
   You need to get out more. Use a few more user-friendly OSs.   
      
      
      
   >>>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.   
      
      
   Linux is a damn mess.   
      
      
   >>>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?   
      
      
   An OS without any default actions for files is a broken OS.   
      
      
      
   >>>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.   
      
      
      
   Right after you shove a watermelon up your mum's arse. Mate.   
      
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
      
   Ah, yes. The wonderful Unix experience everyone raves about...   
      
   A model for pleasant computing experiences the world over.   
      
      
   > 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  problem with the "one program to open a filetype" paradyme; the   
   > paradyme is incorrect, broken, restrictive and bad.   
   >   
      
   Please split more hairs for me. I have no idea if it's in Userland,   
   KernelLand, or FrontierLand. It works better than Linux or Windows, by a   
   long chalk. It *works*. And works well. You might want to try it before   
   you rant much more about something you've never used.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   You /are/ funny. BeOS provides 10x the user experience of /any/ Linux   
   distro. So does MacOS. So does the AmigaOS. You seem to be confused as to   
   what an Operating System is to begin with.   
      
      
      
   --   
   I am Jason Gortician   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)