Re: SEUL: Re: extension binding/enlightenment

[William T Wilson <fluffy@dunadan.com>]

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Roger R Dingledine wrote:

> efficient enough to work for me. (My X keeps growing to about 150 megs

Hm, that's a bummer.  Leaky programs are not fun.

However, does Enlightenment have the same functionality of FVWM, you can
kill it and start it again without disorienting any of your programs?  Or
does it have too much "state" for this.

> of ram usage over the course of a few weeks.) Note that Rasterman (the
> guy in charge of E) is on the RHAD team. So don't forget GNOME yet... 

I don't think that it'll be such an "us against them" mentality.  If RH
uses Enlightenment, I doubt it prevents us from using it too.

> It strikes me that we have a very powerful 'file' command, to determine
> what sort of thing a given file is. Is it feasible to extend the
> functionality of this command enough that we don't have to have explicit
> extensions? 

Maybe, but it is easier to work with extensions than with magic numbers.
Do all programs even put magic numbers in their files?  For those that
don't we still have to use extensions.