Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:44:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding desktop support Message-ID: <199904282244.PAA28325@kithrup.com> In-Reply-To: <19990429083638.B34373.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@gurney.reilly.home> References: <199904282017.NAA01044@dingo.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 01:17:46PM -0700
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <19990429083638.B34373.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@gurney.reilly.home> you write: >On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 01:17:46PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: >> Since the overhead is minimal, and costs nothing at runtime, the >> default would be to build _with_ them. Please focus your worry on >> things that actually matter to the server application. 8) >I have no argument about size costs. I have no argument about >collecting per-program icons. My argument is that the >executable is the wrong place to put them. Andrew is correct. For example... Apple Computer currently has a system like what was proposed. Actually, it's a considerably better system, since it's general-purpose, extensible, and user-modifiable if desired, but it's along the same lines. They're dropping it, and going with what NeXTStEP uses, for MacOS X -- each "application" is a directory, and has certain files in the directory. These files include the icons (multiple ones for multiple uses, of course -- how is the original propronent of this bloat going to handle that?), the executable, and all sorts of other metadata. Other unix systems have done similar. Putting icons in the executable itself is pretty stupid -- it's a single instance of something that a window manager can use, and there are much less-invasive ways of doing the same thing. 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?199904282244.PAA28325>