🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <373@draken.nada.kth.se>, ragge@nada.kth.se (Ragnar Sundblad) writes:
> In article <184@hodge.UUCP> adail@pnet06.cts.com (Alan Dail) writes:
> >no, no, no, no, no.
> >The whole point of having Icons is that the visual representation
> >makes it easier to find the file you want easier than having to
> >read the text.  The icon is supposed to represent what the cdev/init
> >does.
> 
> no, no, no, no, no and yes
> The file icon is supposed to represent what the *FILE* does/contains.
> Just like the document icon and the application icon there should be
> an init icon, cdev icon, rdev icon, etc, etc.
 
I fail to see why these two purposes should be at odds.  All commercial
applications I know of use custom icons for both the application 
and document files.  Generally, they each depict very clearly whether a 
file is an application or a document.
Of course, it might be helpful if a default {init,cdev,rdev} icon
existes, just as default icons exist for applications and vanilla documents.
The default icons, while functional, are uglier than sin.

Johan Larson