pragma wrote:

> In article <dmvulu$259f$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
>>
>>John Reimer wrote:
>>> 
>>> One thing I liked about it over Windows-based PC's was the use of proper names for devices.  I can't believe we're still using the nasty A:, B:, and C: nomenclature for drive devices within the Windows world (as inherited from its ancient DOS roots).
>>
>>Definately!  That we're *still* stuck with drive letters is completely absurd considering that Unix has had volume mounting for something like 30 years now.  The Windows filesystem is one of the things I like least about the OS these days.  Though apparently the folks at MS agree, since they're now working on a filesystem a lot like BeFS for whatever follows Vista.
> 
> While you're on the subject, there's something else to be learned from
> Vista:
> Monad.  The idea that you can elevate the shell to an interactive script
> environment isn't 100% new, but the idea that all applications are
> (scriptable)
> *objects* is.

Before making such claims, you should read about the DCOP signalling interface for KDE apps. The document below was first written as early as '99.

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/other/dcop.html

This technology has been part of the inspiration for HAL/DBUS of recent Linux kernels.

Lars Ivar Igesund