"File types"

[Don]

Mark Tapley wrote:
> At 12:03 -0500 8/29/06, Don wrote:
>> IMO, this was a mistake.  It forces the OS to know too much
>> about the applications that run on it -- instead of being a
>> resource manager.  I.e. it should implement mechanisms, not
>> policy.
> 
>     There is at least one reason this may not be a mistake in all 
> contexts. If the OS knows something about the files, and about the 
> applications available, it can help me out by connecting the two (or by 
> notifying me that the needed application is not available). That allows 
> me to double-click on a .jpeg file and have a jpeg viewer launched 
> automatically by the OS to open that file.
>     The alternative is of course for me to find my own jpeg viewer, 
> launch it, and then open the same file. The advantages here are that 
> I'll get the *right* jpeg viewer, the OS can be much simpler, and the 
> file can be smaller and named with greater flexibility.

Sure, but that can be done in the "desktop" (I don't consider the
desktop software to be a necessary part of the *OS*) and managed
*by* the desktop in any number of ways.  It seems that embedding
the type in the filename is just a naive way of doing it  :-/
Unfortunately, something that will probably be around indefinitely
(until MS *invents* the Mac way of doing things... etc.)