I resent this implication! TeX users are human too!
> Ask a random MBA, art student, or secretary what "TeX" is.
Now ask the same question of "Linux" or "forks". Specious.
> Normal users don't write Makefiles for their documents.
This is a non-argument: TeX isn't required for "documents as a
directory" and nor are Makefiles. You're trying to confuse one
particular implementation with the fundamental concept.
> Every directory-based document system has failed for general use.
Except WordPerfect for DOS, which implemented forks in the DOS
equivalent of userspace (the document body and document layout
"forks" and every inline image were in seperate files).
> Directories are containers or "folders", distinct from documents.
Documents *are* containers, so are files. Files are containers
for bytes. Directories are containers for files. Documents are
containers for ???. That's what the argument is about.
The arguments for "forks" have actually been arguing for a new
container abstraction in the UNIX filesystem: a lighter weight
directory with special open/lock/read semantics.
But I don't think anybody before has argued that documents are
not containers of something!
> Attempts to hide this in a GUI will always fail.
Why? If the user never sees the kernel, only the GUI, then why
is there any difference between implementing an abstraction in
the GUI versus implementing it in the kernel?
--
Nathan Hand - Chirp Web Design - http://www.chirp.com.au/ - $e^{i\pi}+1 = 0$
Phone: +61 2 6230 1871 Fax: +61 2 6230 4455 E-mail: nathanh@chirp.com.au
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/