From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 28 17: 3: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E3B15122 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:02:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from justin@rhapture.apple.com) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com ([17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA32824 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:01:24 -0700 Received: from scv4.apple.com (scv4.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (mailgate2.apple.com- SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:01:14 -0700 Received: from rhapture.apple.com (rhapture.apple.com [17.202.40.59]) by scv4.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA61014 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:59:42 -0700 Received: by rhapture.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA02855 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904290001.RAA02855@rhapture.apple.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding desktop support In-Reply-To: <19990429083638.B34373.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@gurney.reilly.home> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:01:11 -0700 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > From: Sean Eric Fagan > Date: 1999-04-28 15:45:03 -0700 > > In article > <19990429083638.B34373.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@gurney.reilly.home> > you write: > >On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 01:17:46PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > >> Since the overhead is minimal, and costs nothing at runtime, the > >> default would be to build _with_ them. Please focus your worry on > >> things that actually matter to the server application. 8) > >I have no argument about size costs. I have no argument about > >collecting per-program icons. My argument is that the > >executable is the wrong place to put them. > > Andrew is correct. > > For example... Apple Computer currently has a system like what was proposed. > Actually, it's a considerably better system, since it's general-purpose, > extensible, and user-modifiable if desired, but it's along the same lines. > > They're dropping it, and going with what NeXTStEP uses, for MacOS X -- each > "application" is a directory, and has certain files in the directory. These > files include the icons (multiple ones for multiple uses, of course -- how is > the original propronent of this bloat going to handle that?), the executable, > and all sorts of other metadata. I don't have much to add to the ongoing discussion in this thread, but I have to note that this is just wrong. We're not dropping any of the "general-purpose, extensible, user-modifiable" aspects of Mac OS X. We're changing how some of this is achieved, but Apple's goal is *not* to replace Mac OS with Unix. Our goal is to maintain and improve what's proven effective in Mac OS, by replacing some pieces of the system with others, with the aim of improving stability and performance. File forks, finder info, and other file system extensions under discussion here, are not slated for the slag heap. Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | Men are from Earth. Apple Computer, Inc. | Women are from Earth. 2 Infinite Loop | Deal with it. Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message