Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:43:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>, Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> Subject: RE: Adding desktop support Message-ID: <XFMail.990428094308.jobaldwi@vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <55586E7391ACD211B9730000C11002761795F3@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28-Apr-99 Ladavac Marino wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley@clear.co.nz] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 12:20 PM >> To: John Birrell >> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; jabley@clear.co.nz >> Subject: Re: Adding desktop support >> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 04:47:35PM +1000, John Birrell wrote: >> > >> > [idea to imbed relevant .xpm icon data in ELF executables] >> > >> >> Every response so far has been pretty negative, so I thought I'd break >> the running theme and say, for what it's worth, I like the idea. >> > [ML] Seconded. > [ML] ... >> An application such as a file manager could then select an icon for >> display which is appropriate to the number of available colours. >> > [ML] would be a nice touch, yes. If .icon exists, a 4-bit > version is mandatory, the others are optional. Thirded. >> In fact, running amok with this idea, perhaps an xml section >> describing >> the command-line parameters of the executable with a known (minimal) >> DTD >> would be useful for applications for which an ability to pre-parse >> command-line syntaxes would be useful (like file managers, once >> again). > [ML] .usage is probably what you are thinking about. > .purpose is another one (what does this executable actually do). I think these are nice too. To the list: remember that these are simply *optional* data stored in the executable, no kernel hacks involved. The only change that might be made would be support in the bsd.*.mk Makefiles so you can have ICON=blah.xpm, or USAGE=blah.xml, etc. to make it easier for developers to use this feature, but it wouldn't be required, just a nice touch that desktops have the option of using. >> This all sounds very non-unixy. But I don't really know why. > [ML] Well, it sounds like MacOS, or OS/2 with their structured > files. It sounds like Windows, too. But these capabilities are not bad > (in fact, a colleague of mine has been recently complaining about > missing desktop support under X11--he is a OS/2 fan). Until ELF, UNIX > didn't really have support for structured executables; now it does, this > meta-info does not cost much, is completely backwardly compatible (image > loader ignores unknown ELF sections) and it opens a way for unified > executable desktop representation. > > Shortly, a GoodIdea John. > > /Marino > >> Joe --- John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> -- http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/ PGP Key: http://members.freedomnet.com/~jbaldwin/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.990428094308.jobaldwi>