Messages in this thread | | | From | "Kevin M. Bealer" <> | Subject | Re: Capabilities | Date | Sat, 22 May 1999 19:14:27 -0400 |
| |
Bill Spitzak wrote: ... > >If in fact Linux goes with file-system capabilities, it seems to me >that this means that information that is only useful for executable >files is stored with *every* file (granted the likely implementation >will take no space). This would seem to imply that we should look >into a system where every file is executable. This would match the >Windoze or Mac idea where you can double-click anything and >(supposedly) it does something useful. Building the linking of what >running a file does into the system (well, probably the exec call in >the library) could make shell scripting much more powerful, and remove >the need for incompatable and complex code in the UI. >
In my experience, Windows doesn't really allow you to "execute" these files from the command line, per se. You have a file manager (explorer) which does a look up and determines which program to run on the file. This would be easy to do for linux, but is not a kernel issue.
As for macintosh, I've never seen the command line interface, although I assume there is some emergency mode somewhere that has a prompt, so the GUI is the UI. It seemed to me (last time I used a Mac), that the "resource forks" must have the executable name in them somewhere. (Or maybe all of the data files start with "#!/bin/MacPaint" ......)
-----kbealier.at.stny.lrun.com------------------------------------- Any sufficiently advanced operating system is indistinguishable from Un*x.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |