file attributes

[Erik M. van der Poel]

> There's absolutely nothing wrong with checking magic numbers, etc. to
> find out the type of a file.

There are no magic numbers in ordinary text files. Also, Unix is being
used in many different countries, and people use their local character
encodings for text files. We are now seeing increased networking of
computer systems, even on a global scale, and I think this will only
increase. In order to deal intelligently with files encoded in "other"
codesets, we need to label the files. This sort of labeling is really
metadata (as opposed to data), and it seems to me to be cleaner to put
it somewhere else (i.e. not in the file itself).

The character encoding example given above is just that -- an example.
There are many other pieces of information that we need to attach to
data, so that the data may be operated upon intelligently. "Ordinary"
people (not the wizards that read this newsgroup) don't care whether a
tape is in tar format or cpio format. They just want the computer to
do the right thing, preferably without typing cryptic commands.

"Ordinary" people are also getting tired of all these compatibility
problems. We need labeling of all types of data, not just Unix files
and cartridges. If the computer cannot understand the labels, then the
user should be able to look at them, to see which application is
needed.


> You're trying to tell me that changing the semantics of the filesystem,
> and implementing new system calls to deal with that is SIMPLER than
> writing a couple of C callable library routines?

I think we should add standard headers to data, e.g. cartridges. Old
programs that call open() will have problems with these headers if the
system does not hide them. Of course, we could just leave open() as it
is, and change lots of user-level programs to deal with the headers. I
feel, however, that this would be more work than changing the system. 
How do others feel about this?


> What sort of metadata would be required for .desktop?

Well, according to the KISS principle, *all* files should have
metadata. So the metadata for .desktop would simply say what kind of
file it is.


By the way, why is it that every time someone tries to start a
discussion, the replies are negative (and often sharp) criticism?
Could we try to see the positive side of these ideas, and then try to
develop them? The extension I'm proposing would allow Unix hackers to
continue doing whatever they do. That includes me, by the way. I also
like writing long command lines with powerful Unix idioms and pipes,
etc. You all know what I'm talking about.

I'm trying to propose an extension that would allow "ordinary" people
to use Unix (also, POSIX) and computers in general more easily. We (as
hardware and software providers) need to think carefully about the
needs and the frustrations of the non-computer types. Let's set up a
general system that works across the whole information technology
industry, without stifling innovation.

(If any of you are interested in the migration aspects of this, you
might like to take a look at the article I posted to
comp.std.internat.)
-
-- 
Erik M. van der Poel                                      erik at sra.co.jp
Software Research Associates, Inc., Tokyo, Japan     TEL +81-3-3234-2692