From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Shredder vs. Trash (was: Why OS/2 **WILL** fail)
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 17:00:51 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct5.190708.3285@muddcs.claremont.edu>, jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
|> ddulay@jarthur.claremont.edu (Daniel Dulay) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct5.045310.15717@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
|> 
|> >[ lots of stuff deleted]
|> 
|> >  With PM programs you'll notice
|> >that there is very little that you can configure in the program object, so
|> >I believe that program objects are a kludge used to get backward
|> >compatibility w/ DOS and windows programs.  Do you believe that the
|> >information currently in the program object should be integrated into the
|> >file instead?
|> 
|> I'm not aware of how shadows work on the technical level, but the info
|> should be with the shadow.  A shadow should look and act like just another
|> program/file on disk, but it is a link to the real program/file.
|> 

I agree.  Also, a shadow should be visible and creatable from a command
line session.

|> >  Currently program objects "exist" in the os2.ini file
|> >(a very bad place IMHO).  I would prefer that this information be in the
|> >EAs of the program file, and, for simplicity, that one could only have one
|> >set of settings which would reside in these EAs.  This would severely
|> >restrict how one could configure DOS and windows programs under OS/2 (one
|> >of OS/2's best features I think), but I think it would make the WPS
|> >more usable for the average computer user who doesn't want to look at
|> >the settings at all.
|> 
|> If you use just the actual program object, you're limited to just one
|> set of settings for each program.  But if you make shadows of a program,
|> each shadow should have its own set of settings.
|> 
|> Right now we have:
|> 
|> 1. Actual program/file
|> 2. Shadow of actual program/file
|> 3. Desktop program/file object (acts just like a shadow but isn't,
|>                                 and is slightly more configurable)
|> 4. Shadow of desktop program/file (serves no purpose other than to
|>                                    save you the work of making another
|>                                    desktop program/file object)
|> 
|> Shredding the first deletes the real program/file.  Shredding any of
|> the others has no effect on the real program/file, which is confusing
|> since the third looks just like the first from the desktop.  Why not
|> just add the configurability of the third to the second and get rid
|> of the third and fourth altogether?
|> 
|> This dichotomy of stuff on the desktop vs. stuff on disk is really silly.
|> (it's one of the reasons Mac users laugh at Windows)

To me the silliness is the fact that the system doesn't provide a
consistent view between the desktop and command level.  I would prefer
if the command level gave me a complete look at my system, including
program objects, shadows, etc.  If everything resides in a folder then
you should be able to get to it, see it and run it from the command
line as well as the graphical environment.  From the command line,
everything appears to reside on the disk, the only real difference
is the amount of disk space occupied.  Object deletion is really a
simply concept unless you get hung up on where the thing 'really' 
exists.  The concept is this, an object exists in a folder, if you
delete it, it no longer exists in the folder.  Simple.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943