Applying BeOS lessons to MacOS X?

[eirik]

Application Binding

In BeOS and other OS's, one can configure through a 'control panel' their application binding policy, which specifies the application that will be used to open specific file types.

MacOS X presently does not provide any flexilbility. I cannot remember if it is based soley on the file name extension or the 'Creator Code'.

In practical use, say you prefer to have all of your jpeg files opened with GraphicConverter. However, if someone created a jpeg on their Mac with Quicktime, then Quicktime may be selected by the OS to open the file. Worse still, for those who try to avoid "Classic", opening a file from the desktop may open "Classic" because the "Creator Code" calls for a "Classic" application.

Here is an article about BeOS, please scroll down to the section on "Application Binding":

Tales of a BeOS Refugee

This section on "Application Binding" does a good job of addressing my point. Hell, that's where I learned about it in the first place.

Cheers,

Eirik

 

[kishba]

I tried to get my copy of BeOS 5 (yes I actually bought it to support them) working in VPC with no luck

The installer was in black and white and it locked up really quickly... anyone have any luck with doing this?

I would like to compare BeOS to Mac OS X...

 

[oldMac]

"Binding" files to applications...

While the current OS X / Classic scheme using both type/creator codes and file extensions seems a bit random, I hardly agree that the best scheme involves binding all "html" files to a particular application.

While this may be true for the average user, it certainly isn't true for the developer who is often editing a lot of those "html", "xml" or other files rather than viewing them in a web browser.

Many people have complained about the Mac's move to "dot three" extensions primarily for this reason. With "dot three" extensions, much of the useful ambiguity in file types is removed. Having a hybrid system to support Classic is just more confusing. And whose idea was it to hide the "dot three" extensions, anyway?

If we're stuck with "dot three", which has become necessary, IMHO, for file compatibility with the greater majority of PC users, then let's just show the extension for what it is. Give me that plus a fast, system-level ability to remember when I change a file's application association (with a simple and powerful interface for allowing me to change it) *AND* a visual cue so that I can tell how it's associated.

Give me these things without dropping .DSStore files on SMB drives and I'll be happy.

 

[eirik]

BeOS application binding

BeOS offered a control panel for application binding. One could select any one of three standard approaches. Or, one could create custom hybrid rules, very easily, and save each one like a script or rule, just like saving a hyperlink. Further, one could apply rules to individual files or file types in general and even to batches of files.

This may seem superfluous to novice to even intermediate users. However, advanced users, particularly multimedia hounds, would find this very useful. They often like to view a given file type that was created elsewhere or something with a different application that might have created themselves. The permutations are extensive.

Including metadata in the file name is sloppy and a step backward. BeOS included a feature that was essentially a metadata translator. Apple could do the same. It would however require that all applications that share or transfer files to non-Mac machines employ this metadata translator so that an outgoing file would append a ".doc" to a word document bound for an MS machine.

I recently read that hidden extensions can fool someone into opening a file because all the user sees is "funny.jpg" instead of "funny.jpg.exe" (I'm not sure if this is the correct syntax, BTW. But this is a well-documented problem.). A metadata utility or translator might also include a security function to check the contents of a file to further ensure that the file type is what is claims to be. Honestly though, I don't know how urgent, if at all, this last function might be.

BTW, MS is moving towards more robust metadata too.

Eirik

 

[Taft]

Metadata.

I agree that binding applications to documents needs work in OS X. But I think the greater issue is Metadata for files. The fact that Mac OS X is moving away from Metadata really irritates me.

Metadata has a lot of promise for keeping a file's owner, creator, and such straight, unlike the crappy .poo methodology. The fact that MS is moving *towards* metadata as Apple moves away *really* irks me.

I consider this one of the failures of OS X.

Matthew