> ::Well, file extensions is questionable. In MS-DOS and relatives, these are
> ::very severely misused. On a Macintosh, they're hidden from the user, and all
> ::nice and neat. Until you want to change something, when you regret that it's
> ::all hidden. In Linux, there are no extensions as far as the system is
> ::concerned, and I must say, I don't miss them at all.
Shure, every Unix program starts with the riddle how to read a
file, and whats in it. This is maybe one of the reasons why it
took such a long time until some level has been reached. And
why a X configuration is still some kind of lotto game.
> That was one thing that seriously irked me about Apple DOS 3.3 was the
> differentiation between Applesoft, Integer BASIC and binary files. I could
> understand text files being a separate file type, but *binaries*?
Because the structure is different - one is a Integer programm, using
the Integer Basic structures and tokens, the other the Applesoft
> The Commodore's filetypes are silly. PRG, SEQ and USR are all just sequential.
> Only REL is truly different.
Same for Apple, but there is no difference between REL and SEQ from
the viewpoint of the system sins SEQ is just a special case of REL.
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Thu Dec 17 1998 - 08:02:15 GMT