From owner-freebsd-fs Sun Dec 17 15:30:25 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA04951 for fs-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 15:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from seraglio.staidan.qld.edu.au (staidans.client.uq.edu.au [130.102.39.106]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA04921 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 15:30:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au (aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au [203.12.39.2]) by seraglio.staidan.qld.edu.au (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA00258 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:29:29 +1000 Received: from AIDAN/SpoolDir by aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au (Mercury 1.21); 18 Dec 95 09:29:57 -1000 Received: from SpoolDir by AIDAN (Mercury 1.21); 18 Dec 95 09:29:10 -1000 From: "Peter Stubbs" Organization: St Aidan's A.G.S. To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:29:02 -1000 Subject: Re: Macintosh filesystem features Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <12D197189@aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au> Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On 16 Dec 95 at 23:08, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > I don't know if this is patented > and why it has not been adopted by other filesystems. > Not even in Win95 (though this doesn't actually say much :) > you can find this feature. At least I believe it is not possible to > add an arbitrary resource to an arbitrary file (like a bitmap). (One > can link an .rbj to an .exe, though but that's all) At most to a > certain extension like .doc to Word files and so on. > Aren't OS/2's extended attributes like this? They tend to hold file type data, icons, and in the case of REXX scripts the object code for the script. But they can be used for whatever you want. It's a nice feature in OS/2, but I'd hate to see the FreeBSD fs go that way. It's a bit too un-unix. It's the sort of thing the Linux camp might do. BTW after playing for linux for a while, I've decided that linux stands for "Linux Is Not UniX", sort of like GNU's name. Cheers, Peter Peter Stubbs, St Aidan's AGS. ph +61-07-3379-9911, fax +61-07-3379-9432 From owner-freebsd-fs Sun Dec 17 23:46:10 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA09193 for fs-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA09188 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.31.2]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id XAA19623 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:45:39 -0800 Received: (from kuku@localhost) by gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (8.6.11/8.6.9) id IAA14393; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 08:42:38 +0100 Message-Id: <199512180742.IAA14393@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Macintosh filesystem features To: peters@staidan.qld.edu.au (Peter Stubbs) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 08:42:37 +0100 (MET) Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <12D197189@aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au> from "Peter Stubbs" at Dec 18, 95 09:29:02 am From: Christoph Kukulies Reply-To: Christoph Kukulies X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > On 16 Dec 95 at 23:08, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > > > I don't know if this is patented > > and why it has not been adopted by other filesystems. > > Not even in Win95 (though this doesn't actually say much :) > > you can find this feature. At least I believe it is not possible to > > add an arbitrary resource to an arbitrary file (like a bitmap). (One > > can link an .rbj to an .exe, though but that's all) At most to a > > certain extension like .doc to Word files and so on. > > > > Aren't OS/2's extended attributes like this? They tend to hold file > type data, icons, and in the case of REXX scripts the object code for Interesting. Perhaps worth a look at. Still having a pack Warp 3 lying around here which failed to install on my Atapi drive a year ago. > the script. But they can be used for whatever you want. It's a nice > feature in OS/2, but I'd hate to see the FreeBSD fs go that way. > It's a bit too un-unix. It's the sort of thing the Linux camp might > do. > > BTW after playing for linux for a while, I've decided that linux > stands for "Linux Is Not UniX", sort of like GNU's name. Reminds me of the days when playing with Doug Comer's XINU. > > Cheers, > Peter > > > Peter Stubbs, St Aidan's AGS. ph +61-07-3379-9911, fax +61-07-3379-9432 > --Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Dec 18 16:58:06 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA02802 for fs-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 16:58:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from zit1.zit.th-darmstadt.de (zit1.zit.th-darmstadt.de [130.83.63.20]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA02795 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 16:57:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [130.83.177.7] (ppp07.stud.th-darmstadt.de [130.83.177.7]) by zit1.zit.th-darmstadt.de (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA17053 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 01:57:25 +0100 X-Sender: michael@zit1.zit.th-darmstadt.de Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 01:57:41 +0100 To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG From: petzi@zit.th-darmstadt.de (Michael Beckmann) Subject: Re: Macintosh filesystem features Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk >> I was reflecting about a featute that the MacOS has and which >> I did not see on other OSs: >> >> The DATA and the RESOURCE fork. >> ... > I think Apple probably regrets this "feature", because: They don't regret it. It's a real Macintosh advantage. They're even going to add another fork to files in the next major MacOS release. > - Most files, have a resource fork and an empty data fork >(executables), or a data fork and an empty resource fork (documents), Most files have both, except for something like TIFF or JPEG. > - Makes file transfers to other systems difficult All Macintosh communications programs have automatic facilities to keep both forks intact, when you transfer a Mac file to another machine. OK, in some cases you may have to know a bit about the encoding schemes; for example that you cannot upload a GIF image for a Web page using MacBinary II encoding. But in most cases transferring a Mac file to another machine resp. file-system is a no-brainer. >> What I'm asking myself (and file system experts) if this >> could be implemented in FreeBSD, perhaps as an addition/extension >> to the existing filesystems. >> >> When designing GUIs, window managers and such it would be nice if this >> resource/data dualism would be hidden rather than having sort of >> container files or other methods like .hidden files or files >> starting with special characters (%). > > Shouldn't these things be stuffed into the executable file? On Macs, Absolutely not. This is a feature that makes the Mac really stand out in this regard. You can do miraculous things with ResEdit, which you could never do if the additional Resources were kept in the executable binary. But you still have one single file to double-click and launch; easy to handle and easy to understand for non-computer-experts. >all code and resources is stuffed into the resource fork of the >executable anyways, and the data fork is empty. This is wrong. PowerPC binaries are usually kept in tha data fork, while the Resources are all in the Resource Fork. Michael From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Dec 18 20:02:26 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA17911 for fs-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA17906 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:02:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30742-2>; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:04:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:04:50 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Michael Beckmann cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Macintosh filesystem features In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Michael Beckmann wrote: > > - Most files, have a resource fork and an empty data fork > >(executables), or a data fork and an empty resource fork (documents), > > Most files have both, except for something like TIFF or JPEG. Can you give an example, but from what I've seen, most files have either the resource fork empty, or the data fork empty. > > Shouldn't these things be stuffed into the executable file? On Macs, > > Absolutely not. This is a feature that makes the Mac really stand out in > this regard. You can do miraculous things with ResEdit, which you could > never do if the additional Resources were kept in the executable binary. > But you still have one single file to double-click and launch; easy to > handle and easy to understand for non-computer-experts. Huh? I don't follow... resources are not kept in the executable binary, but you still have a single file to launch? Code segments are resources themselves, so resouces are kept in the executable file. Resedit is pretty much the same as Windows resource editors. Except that executable code is not handled as resources, other than that, all GUI elements, etc, and arbritrary data can be handled as resources too, with only one file. > >all code and resources is stuffed into the resource fork of the > >executable anyways, and the data fork is empty. > > This is wrong. PowerPC binaries are usually kept in tha data fork, while > the Resources are all in the Resource Fork. Why aren't PowerPC binaries in the resource fork with the 68k binaries, with a different resource type? Tom