🚀 go-pugleaf

/* Written by jurjen@cwi.nl in uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.mac */
>In article <481@eutrc3.UUCP> rcbaem@eutrc3.UUCP (Ernst Mulder) writes:
>>What I would suggest is a new type of Folder,
>>maybe give it a different name, which is TRANSPARENT to the
>>path it's located in. Graphically a bit like this
>
>We had this discussion a while ago, and the conclusion was that it was
>not a good idea.  There is already a folder.
>We can see it as an operating system flaw that the INIT scanner does not 
>search, for example, System Folder:INITs or something.
>It is very user-unfriendly to make two different kinds of folders, that 
>are only a difference for the computer, and not for the user. 
>This is only puzzling.
>  -- Jurjen N.E. Bos (jurjen@cwi.nl)

  Well, then let's make it a difference to the user, as well.  In the open
(relatively) world of Mac programming, it's silly to say we should view
something as an Operating System flaw and leave it at that.
  I've often thought I'd like a "shrink box", which I could draw on the
desktop, which would actually show up (like, a thick-bordered box), where
I could put files, which would then shrink to tiny icons (perhaps not
all that distinguishable, but then...).  Taking a file out of the
shrink box re-grows it.  Also, you can have as many separate shrink boxes
as you'd like on any given level of the desktop/disk - perhaps even
named.  Then, how about some sort of "magnify" function, which would zoom
in on the shrink box, and let us identify the little icons.  Then,
we could partition INITs and CDEVs and whatnot into their own little
(labelled?) shrink boxes, and I'd feel happy.

- Mark Thompson                       "The University Neither Knows Nor
  locally discontinuous, but           Cares What I Am Saying."
  constantly derivative.
  University of Illinois at U-C