Two petitions Type/Creator vs. Suffix

[fryke]

The important one is at http://www.petitiononline.com/osxnomd/petition.html ... It's *against* the other.

It's important that you go subscribe the one mentioned in this post.

Type/Creator is a thing of the past in Mac OS X. It's still supported, but Apple's way is to get rid of it over time and use extensions instead. This is important, because it helps people using files in a cross platform environment. And what is the internet? That exactly. Ever heard of PC people that are unable your Word files that ARE in fact compatible? They just need to add a .doc extension, then it'll work. And I guess it'd be good to have that easy kind of compatibility.

 

[fryke]

yes. of course. dumb of me that i didn't even think of that. sure, i'll convert to windows. are you crazy?!

we have the ability to use 255 characters in a filename in Mac OS X. why should i lose that if the OS uses extensions instead of type/creator information?

of course the old system has its advantages. it's never just black and white. but to completely bring the old system back to os x (and that's what the 'other' petition wants) would include forking of the file system (again), which put all mac users in trouble in the past. often losing one fork while transmitting files over the internet means losing data. give pc people/unix people binhexed files and they don't know what to do with it. stuffit? they've never even heard of it and half of the time stuffit-files get corrupted when uploaded to a server that doesn't do mac.

the world's connected. and we mac users should know best that there isn't only one operating system.

 

[sveijk]

Originally posted by fryke
of course the old system has its advantages. it's never just black and white. but to completely bring the old system back to os x (and that's what the 'other' petition wants) would include forking of the file system (again), which put all mac users in trouble in the past. often losing one fork while transmitting files over the internet means losing data.

Exactly when did they remove forked file support from HFS? My memory is that HFS+ actually expanded it to n-forked files.

give pc people/unix people binhexed files and they don't know what to do with it. stuffit? they've never even heard of it and half of the time stuffit-files get corrupted when uploaded to a server that doesn't do mac.

So give them zips or gzipped tarballs.

the world's connected. and we mac users should know best that there isn't only one operating system.

This whole debate is just silly. OSX currently has the best metadata support of any OS on the market, via plists and forked files. Why should we retreat just when other OS's and file systems are starting to catch up? Check the Linux kernel lists and you'll see lively debate on how to best handle metadata, including proposals for n-forked file support. The way I see it the only adequate alternative to forked files is to make all (well, really just most) files bundles.

NTFS supports n-forked files, but Windows is too brain dead to use them.

 

[edX]

ok, i'm confused. the petition is so written in legaleese and geek garble that i have no idea what it is saying. like most such documents it seems to contradict itself and covers too many small points without clearly stating it's overall objective & results clearly. It reads like california law. I am for mac maintaining a user friendly environment. I am for good file translation. I am anti windows & M$. I am for positive changes taking place. I like osx even if i don't understand it as well as the old ways. It basically works the same and offers some advantages. I like having classic built in but seperate. Once they perfect classic so that it supports all older programs to the extent that true boot 9 does, then i will be thrilled. I like joining forces with unix users. We have long been brothers seperated at birth. this collaboration could only get better. On the other hand, i like being part of a smaller community that doesn't have to live in fear of every email containing a virus. We are still small enough that virus creators don't waste much time with us. I have had one virus in over 15 years on a mac and i killed it quickly. My sister's laptop pc was infected and reinfected in less than a month once. I don't mind putting file suffixes on things i send to my sister or post to the web. but i still like being able to name a file 'joe' if i want to.
as for trying to follow the 'standard', M$ has been stealing and corrupting the standard from the time they created windows and probably before that. We are already using the standard. Out comes X, out comes XP. I don't care if the mass followers do the pc thing. i just wish there were a few more people who think for themselves. If we could just get up to about 20% of the market share, we would be in the perfect place. but a quick look at the bell curve on intelligence testing will tell you that is not going to happen. ( i would love to see an iq comparison of mac and windows users).

so knowing this much of where i stand, can any of you tell me which side of the petition i am really on?

 

[edX]

thank you testuser for giving an explanation i can pretty much understand and i think i agree with you. not that i am going to rush and sign a petition, but i still want to know which side of the debate this puts us on. the petition in this thread or the other? my instincts tell me neither - we agree a little with both.

i was confused about one statement you made -

* you can move the original of a file anywhere, and it's alias will not break (this trick amazes Windows users)

i've been having to fix app aliases all along. or are you referring to the alias a file has to it's launch app. - ie, you can click on a file from anywhere you move it and it will still bring up it's creator.

I had an unusual experience with the latter under osx/classic yesterday. I scanned a pic in classic and saved it in classic photodeluxe. I then opened it with graphic converter for osx and saved as a gif. I did not touch original file except to open it. now when i click on the original, it launches graphic converter, not photodeluxe. i assume this behavior is part of this debate from what you said. this doesn't really bother me, i still know how to launch original app and open the file from menu bar. And i figure this only happens because osx is the predominent system and once i associated the file with a native app, then it took posssession. i haven't tried it, but i assume the file would still launch original app if booted in 9. I still believe that osx/classic is the best of both worlds and i love being able to move between them so easily.

 

[chevy]

Windows is now (by default) hiding extensions. This is exactly the concept of the file type in MacOS: it exists but you don't see it as long as you don't want to see it.

The only problem: Windows and MacOS use different extensions. So we just need convergence to an unified set of extensions. And guess what ? They are more Windows machines than Macs. Therefore we will converge to Windows extensions... and hide these !

 

[gerbick]

windows may hide them, by default, but's due to not wanting to confuse the uninitiated user. however, the OS still requires them. that's a difference between Mac (9) and Windows.

anyway, metadata by definition is information, on information. having it as a subsystem would be a cinch to implement, and above all, would be a huge advantage. the OS would know which file would be owned by whom - almost like in a true versioning process, like WebDAV.

It would allow full-time journaling of the OS that would allow better file recovery in case of crashes, or something.

heck, even BeOS had a better file journaling system, and was making strides to file metadata before it died.

 

[chevy]

the old VAX VMS has multiple versions management.... very simple: it adds a number at the end of the file name to differentiate it.

As all files are time stamped, this could also be used to wrok on multiversions.

MacOS differentiates the owner of a file from the file type. And has 2 times 4 char, with upper-cose lower-case management, whereas Windows by its history only has 3 chars... now that Windows also uses long file names, both can really be equivalent. And I prefer the windows way to hide and reveal the extension as it is much easier to modify than the MacOS type.

What I still miss is an easy to access (and manager) table that shows which application goes with which owner ID and type ID.

 

[edX]

so testuser, that is exactly what i thought you meant. like i said, i have had this not work in previous mac systems. I was always fixing aliases if they were moved. hell, Spring cleaning went thru and reattatched about 20 or more aliases last time i ran it a couple of months ago. But i tried doing what you said just to experiment and moved ie out of the applications folder to the root level of harddrive. yes it worked. But then i went to move it back to applications and instead it copied it. anywhere i went to move it, it just copied. I tried to delete original and it told me no way, root owned it. is this normal or am i broken again. This never happened in the old way of doing it. And if i have to get in the terminal or do some loggin just to move a file, then i'm starting to feel like i've been moved to a windows' world i didn't want. I shouldn't have to ever do anything but click, drag and drop to move an app. I've always said that mac is the computer for idiots, its that easy. which is why very intelligent people who have more important things to learn and/or do than just using their computer, use macs. As much as i like osx, i don't ever want that to change.

Or did i just pick the worst possible piece of ____ software on my entire system to try this with? I know i have moved other things before but if they were aliased, i created a new one for the new location just out of habit. now i'm a little afraid to move any apps.

 

[Sargon]

To be honest - I'd be too lazy to write such a big petition text for a (in my opinion!) minor issue.

I see file extensions as... *drumbeat*.... visual types. The user changes the file-extension and the file can't be used now properly you say? Well.. you can change the type of the file and you also can't use it anymore. (ok you can switch back but so can I change the extension again, duh) Sounds about the same to me. Besides.. I think the file-extensions rather helpful too. My textfiles under MacOS had/have and will have .txt extensions. My tiff-images will always have .tiff entension. Why? Because it's helpful to me too! I can see the filename and the type of the file at the same time.. otherwise I'd need two columns.. doesn't sound too bad to me.

Really.. you have 255-1-3- characters to use as a filename. The guy who wrote the petition text could probably give extensions for the next 3 years to his files, would he have saved the keystrokes.

Sargon

 

[edX]

well, the sudo chmod 775 / is not working. first it gave me a lecture and then asked for a passwird. I gave my admin password ( i am only user on mac-chine) and it said 'sorry try again' so i did and it went back to opening setup. i put in command again. long story short, i just get [localhost:~] xxxx% like at start of program whenever i enter it. I guess i have read enough of these things by now to figure i must enable and set up password for root first. so i am off to search threads til i find this info. if i am still confused as to how to do so, i will report back here.

 

[edX]

I created a root password in netinfo manager as per another thread but now terminal won't accept it. damned ie is still on hd finder window and in app folder and who can remember where else i put it while playing around!! of all the programs i would want two of !!

really, the average, traditional mac owner is not going to like this. And they aren't going to know about this site to learn about what is really going on. we certainly don't have an easy grasp of what is going on. this is alien to the environment.

hey, if anybody gets here before testuser, feel free to help me out here. my mission is noble. get multiple copies of M$ off my HD and hide the original where only it's alias can find it.

which raises an interesting question, if i were to click on desktop alias now, how many copies of ie would it try to launch? only the original i hope!

 

[edX]

i hope nobody is busy typing directions to my problem right now as i found another thread that gave directions for enabling root and password in terminal and this worked eventually. got rid of extra ie and a few other HD space wasters at the same time. so another question is - will this stay like this when i reboot?
hmm, better question might be should it stay like this when i reboot?
I obviously haven't made enough mistakes yet to be anywhere close to really understanding most of osx. but i am getting there. i figure by valentine's day or St, Patrick's day, i should be developing some confidence with the terminal and other new (to me) osx utilities. I continue to thank everyone who helps.

so test user, how do we screw up my mac-chine next so i can learn more about all this?

 

[chevy]

Originally posted by testuser
Extensions simple map a certain files to open with a specific application:
pdf - by Acrobat
txt - by TextEdit
html - by Internet Explorer

What if you have more than one app that can handle such a file?

Because you can give all apps of a single type (e.g. "TEXT") different creator codes (e.g. "R*ch" or "MSWD"). This allows you to determine on a file by file basis whether:
a pdf is opened by Preview or Acrobat
a txt is opened by MSWord, BBEdit, or TextEdit
an html is opened by Explorer, or Navigator

You can have double extension: first owner, then type. So that if the owner exists: it opens the file, otherwise "anybody" able to open will open it. Of course we need a table of all "anybody" with the file types they can open, and a prioritiy order. And this table must be available for the user (or at least the administrator).

 

[edX]

You can have double extension: first owner, then type. So that if the owner exists: it opens the file, otherwise "anybody" able to open will open it. Of course we need a table of all "anybody" with the file types they can open, and a prioritiy order. And this table must be available for the user (or at least the administrator).

ok, hasn't mac always been able to do this? isn't that why i get a list of possible choices (open with....) when i would click on a file without a creator present in 9x or even 7x?

when i say always, i mostly mean from about 7x onwards. but i was a 1x user. first owned a 512kE. or was that a 512Ke? so if i get the evolution a little mixed up it's because i was using them, not reading about them. I just went "wow, cool" and started using the new improvement.

 

[edX]

testuser - the way you described enabling root thru netinfo manager was the way that wouldn't work for me as per instructions in this thread . Everything worked perfectly in netinfo but then terminal refused to accept the password. I got the 3 attempts and you are out dialogue. so i tried this advice. I found both ways described by doing a site search for 'root password". There are plenty of posts on this subject and one can find a variety of detail or lack there of among them. at any rate the second command, the 'tsch' was the one that worked for me. so which petition is it that asks apple to enable admin as default root on single user setup? Well actually, i think that's all the petition I want to sign right now would have to say!!

so what other aspect of this arguement should we illustrate next. You're not really telling me that whole garbled document that reads like it should be 'proposition 69' is just about alias id?

 

[chevy]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell


ok, hasn't mac always been able to do this? isn't that why i get a list of possible choices (open with....) when i would click on a file without a creator present in 9x or even 7x?

I agree with you. The only problem is that it is completely hidden. The main thing I would like to have easy access to is the table that crontrols the type-program, owner-program relations.

I agree with default more being hidden, but revealing the owner and the type should be easier.

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell

when i say always, i mostly mean from about 7x onwards. but i was a 1x user. first owned a 512kE. or was that a 512Ke? so if i get the evolution a little mixed up it's because i was using them, not reading about them. I just went "wow, cool" and started using the new improvement.

I started with an Apple II in 1981, since that time, I used lots of different machines (Mac, Rainbow, PC, VAX, Appolo, HP, Tektronix, Sun...).

Each one has its own advantages, Mac has a lot of advantages, and is the most innovative one (I never used a Next...), but it doesn't mean it has all advantages. And one drawback of the mac is that it is very difficult to manage it with scripts. And AppleScript is not to be compared with what can be done under DOS or Unix.

I expect MacOS X to be much better, bt for the time being, too many things remain out of the control of the user, even with administrator rights.

Try to create links under unix with ln -s, MacOS will destroy these. So you cannot change the way your machine is organized. And Apple's way of orginizing the files is far from perfect.

 

[sveijk]

Originally posted by chevy


And one drawback of the mac is that it is very difficult to manage it with scripts. And AppleScript is not to be compared with what can be done under DOS or Unix.

Exactly what scripting functionality did DOS have that was superior to Applescript? I don't use Applescript in my work, and am no expert, but it always struck me as a pretty impressive environment. Unbelievably easy to learn and reasonably powerful. I knew people who made a living writing CGI's in it. Can you say the same thing for DOS batch jobs? A friend of mine made a national name for himself among web nerds by writing an OSAX (the ParseCGI OSAX). He still thinks Applescript is pretty damn slick, particularly now that it is TCP/IP aware.

Besides whatever you couldn't do in it, you could do in PERL, or MPW, awk and sed. Macs were very, very scriptable.

I expect MacOS X to be much better, bt for the time being, too many things remain out of the control of the user, even with administrator rights.

OSX gives you more control than any other current proprietary *n*x. The give you the source to most of the OS for f**k's sake. How much more control do you want, manual interrupts?

Try to create links under unix with ln -s, MacOS will destroy these. So you cannot change the way your machine is organized. And Apple's way of orginizing the files is far from perfect.

They work for me. OSX uses symbolic links more or less like any other *n*x. Aqua/Finder report them the same way they report aliases. Except, since they aren't data-fork meta-data based, they break if you move them and don't work over networks, which is precisely the way they work under any other
*n*x.

 

[edX]

chevy -
i can't argue with any thing you have said. I think the fundamental difference in our perceptions all come down to the differences between users and programmers. I have never learned to program. I took a basic beginning theory class at jc about 20 yrs ago but that's it. mac has always provided the easiest control over the machine with the least amount of required keyboard entry of anything i have tried. I am not well rounded in lots of different types. My biggest exposures to dos thru windows have been on university computers which are always lagging behind the mass market. (I can only run dos with someone standing over my shoulder telling me exactly what to do and i hate it. ) I don't really want to have to use 'commands' to use my computer. I think it is great that they are there for those who do want/need them, but i also think a computer should run great without them. i want to choose and click for the most part. apple os has always led the way in this aspect. That being said, i realize it is always an option to go back to 9x and have the world remain the way it has always been. I think this is still the way the majority of mac users do it. but i like osx. i think there is very much a place for this hybrid system to sucede in ways that others never have. Transition will take time. this site and the people here like yourself who are much more educated in computer languages are helping me thru this. I am becoming more inspired to learn how to do more complicated things. I do find all the technical advice to "reformat" to solve a problem to be somewhat fightening. I haven't had to reformat a disk since the 512Ke. (knock on plastic). Reinstalling a system has never seemed so much like a pc experience before. I find that I know how to do simple things that other, more technical users seem to overthink and make more complicated than they really are. On the other hand, i find that some previously simple things are so completely different that i am lost without their technical knowhow of the new system organization. I am going to pick up a book sometime soon so i can start catching up more on my own, but mac users have never had to buy books just to make the system work reasonably right.
I'm going to break this here as i realize i am rambling and need to organize my own thoughts better before continuing.

i did notice your apple experience predates my own after my last post when i saw your specs sitting above my post. impressive. it helps to know that i am speaking with a longtime mac user and not just a linux convert who simply thinks this should work more like linux than apple. not that i am knocking linux converts. As i have said in other threads, i believe they are going to be the key to rapidly moving this whole new approach into something that is really impressive from all perspectives. And perhaps i am jumping into a discussion that is really more of a programmer level thing, but the original posts for these petitions suggested we just sign em for good reasons. but i will never sign anything without understanding it to an acceptable degree. I'm that guy who spends an hour reading the terms of a sales contract before he puts his john hancock down.

 

[Jorace]

Originally posted by chevy
Windows is now (by default) hiding extensions. This is exactly the concept of the file type in MacOS: it exists but you don't see it as long as you don't want to see it.

The only problem: Windows and MacOS use different extensions. So we just need convergence to an unified set of extensions. And guess what ? They are more Windows machines than Macs. Therefore we will converge to Windows extensions... and hide these !

You plainly do not understand what you say.

.jpg on a Windows system can only be maped to ONE app. So I install a new image browser. All of a suden, every .jpg on my system now opens in this new image browser. But I use Photoshop for editing my images... So now I cant just click on the .jpg file. I have to open Photoshop and then locate the file to open.

It gets worse... That same image browser has made EVERY image of any kind assigned to itself... (.tff, .gif, .psd..... the list goes on...)

So I remove it from my system... and now i get a criptic mesage that the file type is not maped to any application.. I have to re map it myself.

On a MAC system you have not only file type (.jpg) but you also have the creator... Photoshop, Fireworks, Explorer, GraphicConverter.... So now if an application CREATES a file that application ownes that file... On a file per file bases. Not on a type base.

And just for refrence, it would be posable to build a system to keep all this handy metadata without having a forked file!!! Have you ever heared of MP3?? Isnt it STRANGE how they can store all this info about the file in the file itself (Artist, album, year.....) Hey, and it works on a PC to!!!!

Imagine if there was no metadata in mp3 files??? iTunes would just show the file name, and mabe the size... Oh ya, and we know its a mp3!!!

MORE DATA IS BETTER!!!!!

Look at Window XP!!! you can view folders full of images as big huge previews COMPLEATE WITH ALL THE METADATA!!!! That metadata is in the file itself. Take a look at mac aps like iView they can read that data.

My Nikon Digital camera incudes Date, Shuterspeed, Fstop and other usfull metadata in images... (It all shows up in XP!!)

And what about file size? Date created? Date modified??? Where is this data?? It MUST be in a "FORK" ... WRONG even Windows systems know that METADATA about a file... It is not stored in the file, or in a Fork.. It is part of the filesystem.... That is where OSX should be going... Create a new filesytem that can suport more metadata (Or just buy BFS from palm...)


Sorry for the rant, but people that do not understand just drive me nuts....