5 ms·

Yes, and it sounded great on paper but was horrible for interoperability because a file was not self contained from the POV of filesystems that didn't support t

Yes, and it sounded great on paper but was horrible for interoperability because a file was not self contained from the POV of filesystems that didn't support the resource fork. Every file you wanted to distribute cross platform needed 2 versions. One with all that metadata bundled up for Mac, one without it for everything else. It was a nightmare OS-X dropped it for good reason.

throwanem 6y ago
Yeah, it was painfully overcomplicated for sure - Palm OS did it much more seamlessly for cross-filesystem interop, but it was only when SD cards and /Palm/Launcher came along and you didn't really need Hotsync any more that it really got comfortable. It was very much of its time and I don't regret that it's gone, but it was certainly a clever and interesting design.
Qwertious 6y ago
>but was horrible for interoperability This makes me sad - it was dropped because of problems with other operating systems, not because it was necessarily a bad architecture. I understand why they would do it, but it makes you wonder how much better our systems could be if it weren't for concerns about legacy.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  > This makes me sad - it was dropped because of problems with other operating systems, not because it was necessarily a bad architecture. No, it was dropped because it was designed without enough forethought given to how that metadata would be transmitted over the wire or when multiple files were bundled consistently. Even if every OS used this scheme a better solution to these problems would have to have been devised. Are extensions perfect? No, they suck. But yet solve this metadata transfer problem "good enough" and therefore won the war. PS - There was also a lack of user management tools/feedback on a lot of systems, for example changing the "file type" was often impossible out of the box, and the file types often unclear unless you went into details/properties on purpose (a potential security headache, up there with hidden extensions ala Windows).
  - efreak 6y ago
    Microsoft removed the file type manager in Vista(?), so it's no longer as simple to change what software opens arbitrary file extensions. You now need to have a file with the extension you want to change the default for, use 'open with', and check the 'use by default' button. If you want to change a bunch of file types by copy/ pasting exe path, sorry, you can't do that without editing the registry. And the new method of changing programs that open groups of file types (ie documents or html), the program you're running needs to be registered as something that can do so, or it won't appear in the list. Want to change all image formats except gif (jpg, png, tiff, bmp, wmf, emf, and so on) to a different image viewer? Your options are to change them all then change gif back, or to change them individually. I think there's a location in the new settings for listing all file type associations, but it still doesn't allow copy/pasting paths for multiple fast modifications. If you want to change the name of a file type as it appears in the file type column in explorer, or want to change the icon used for a type of file to something other than that of the application used to open it, that's no longer possible without editing the registry.
- smoldesu 6y ago
  >I understand why they would do it, but it makes you wonder how much better our systems could be if it weren't for concerns about legacy. Concern for legacy is the only thing keeping the field of computing sane these days. If every operating system worked with radically different standards for basic things like filesystems, a significant amount of bespoke work would need to go into each build of every piece of software, and we could very quickly encounter a monopoly scenario where only the rich could afford to develop apps for everyone. All of this is not to say that there aren't already systems doing this: Haiku and Plan-9 are about as esoteric and non-conformant as they get, and their reward for that is a minuscule but dedicated userbase. If Apple wants to make the computer a better experience for the end user, then they're going to have to play ball.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    They still kind of do : WSL is kind of useless because of incompatible file systems between Windows and Linux...
    - withinboredom 6y ago
      I’ve not had any issues opening a file from WSL in my IDE, which is running from Windows.
      - BlueTemplar 6y ago
        Oh, right, IIRC WSL 2.0 uses a complete different method?
        withinboredom 6y ago
        yeah, I think it creates a file share that you can access.

throwanem 6y ago

Yeah, it was painfully overcomplicated for sure - Palm OS did it much more seamlessly for cross-filesystem interop, but it was only when SD cards and /Palm/Launcher came along and you didn't really need Hotsync any more that it really got comfortable. It was very much of its time and I don't regret that it's gone, but it was certainly a clever and interesting design.

Qwertious 6y ago

>but was horrible for interoperability This makes me sad - it was dropped because of problems with other operating systems, not because it was necessarily a bad architecture. I understand why they would do it, but it makes you wonder how much better our systems could be if it weren't for concerns about legacy.

Someone1234 6y ago
> This makes me sad - it was dropped because of problems with other operating systems, not because it was necessarily a bad architecture. No, it was dropped because it was designed without enough forethought given to how that metadata would be transmitted over the wire or when multiple files were bundled consistently. Even if every OS used this scheme a better solution to these problems would have to have been devised. Are extensions perfect? No, they suck. But yet solve this metadata transfer problem "good enough" and therefore won the war. PS - There was also a lack of user management tools/feedback on a lot of systems, for example changing the "file type" was often impossible out of the box, and the file types often unclear unless you went into details/properties on purpose (a potential security headache, up there with hidden extensions ala Windows).
- efreak 6y ago
  Microsoft removed the file type manager in Vista(?), so it's no longer as simple to change what software opens arbitrary file extensions. You now need to have a file with the extension you want to change the default for, use 'open with', and check the 'use by default' button. If you want to change a bunch of file types by copy/ pasting exe path, sorry, you can't do that without editing the registry. And the new method of changing programs that open groups of file types (ie documents or html), the program you're running needs to be registered as something that can do so, or it won't appear in the list. Want to change all image formats except gif (jpg, png, tiff, bmp, wmf, emf, and so on) to a different image viewer? Your options are to change them all then change gif back, or to change them individually. I think there's a location in the new settings for listing all file type associations, but it still doesn't allow copy/pasting paths for multiple fast modifications. If you want to change the name of a file type as it appears in the file type column in explorer, or want to change the icon used for a type of file to something other than that of the application used to open it, that's no longer possible without editing the registry.
smoldesu 6y ago
>I understand why they would do it, but it makes you wonder how much better our systems could be if it weren't for concerns about legacy. Concern for legacy is the only thing keeping the field of computing sane these days. If every operating system worked with radically different standards for basic things like filesystems, a significant amount of bespoke work would need to go into each build of every piece of software, and we could very quickly encounter a monopoly scenario where only the rich could afford to develop apps for everyone. All of this is not to say that there aren't already systems doing this: Haiku and Plan-9 are about as esoteric and non-conformant as they get, and their reward for that is a minuscule but dedicated userbase. If Apple wants to make the computer a better experience for the end user, then they're going to have to play ball.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  They still kind of do : WSL is kind of useless because of incompatible file systems between Windows and Linux...
  - withinboredom 6y ago
    I’ve not had any issues opening a file from WSL in my IDE, which is running from Windows.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      Oh, right, IIRC WSL 2.0 uses a complete different method?
      - withinboredom 6y ago
        yeah, I think it creates a file share that you can access.