On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 11:12:18PM -0500, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: > That sounds like the most, uh, powerful option. There probably would > be no need to reverse engineer MacOS9 applications' expressive but > quirky file structures. > > BTW: the resource fork / data fork thing in original MacOS seems odd to > we UNIX-types who think that a file is a bucket of bytes. But MacOS > got a lot of leverage out of that thing. "ResEdit" was a wonder to > behold. Essentially: the greatest common denominator for files in > MacOS was much higher than in UNIX so generic tools could do much > more. > > What MacOS could do on a machine with 128k of RAM (including the video > frame buffer) puts all mainstream GUI systems to shame. Part of this > was accomplished by using shared representations, some of which lived > in the resource fork.
Also putting the entire OS in ROM saves an awful lot of RAM. > That being said, I wish Linux didn't support forks. They make the > file abstraction more complicated with very little benefit or use. > The main benefit, as I understand it, is to embrace and extend NTFS. Linux supports resource forks in filesystems? -- MLen Sorensen --- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - [email protected] http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
