Re: [As-users] AfterStep 2.0 beta4 release

Graydon (
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:30:08 -0500

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 06:39:13PM +0100, Christer Th?rn scripsit:
> Graydon wrote:
> >The extensions are a dos-descended hack everyone thinks is normal due to
> >extensive familiarity.
> "extensive familiarity" sound like a pretty good definition of 
> "normal"... :)

That doesn't make it a good idea.

> Besides, isn't it better to look at it from an users perspective, rather 
> than a formal filesystems? And users _do_ have different tastes, unlike 
> formal filesystems, but there's not many of those using AS, me guess...

Of course not, but if you're going to have hand-editable configuration
files, you're going to have the question of what type they are.  Should
they be 'afterstep' files or 'XML' files or 'generic configuration'
files?  You can make a case for all of these; only the middle one has,
properly speaking, an extension.

This is one of the flaws with the idea of typing by extensions; overload
(think of all the things that have filetype 'XML') and limited numbers
of 'types' available.

> But if it's just about bashing Microsoft, ignore this msg and carry on.

The particular folly has crept into various linux apps, too; it's really
*not* a good idea.

-- | Uton we hycgan    hwaer we ham agen,
                 | ond thonne gedhencan    he we thider cumen.
                 |   -- The Seafarer, ll. 117-118.
As-users mailing list