Originally Posted by Booga
"given up on making it work right" for your definition of "right".
For the definition that Apple uses, yes. Again, don't make this personal. I'm just outlining the position that Apple is using, not adopting it as my own. I'd appreciate it if you'd see and respect the distinction.
There will always be systems out there that don't implement remote callbacks for change notification on directories, and polling takes up resources. These systems really do need a manual way to refresh a directory, and I'm sure Apple knows that. They've probably just prioritized this feature way down.
Yes, just as there will always be systems out there that don't implement multi-forked systems. But what are the remote filesharing systems that the Finder implements clients for? AFP (Apple's), SMB, NFS... and for most people it's AFP and SMB. It doesn't have to be *ALL* systems out there to implement the necessary features, only that the ones Apple supplies clients for do. So here's the 64k$ question - how many of those selected protocols don't offer a way of pushing down file changes to the Finder client? If the answer is 'none', then it should be expected that this would be quite doable without a manual refresh.
Microsoft is the #1 vendor of desktop, embedded, and server operating systems, with over 50% market share in the first two and continuing to gain market share in the second two.
Er, which set of two does embedded fit into? I count three, so...
Seriously, while they may be the largest single-source vendor of embedded (which I'm not convinced of - I think Symbian is pretty damned large there), and server OSs, I don't believe they're even close to the largest OS in those markets. When you combine all the Unix/Linux variants sold by various vendors, together they more than equal the MS offerings. I mean seriously - think of all the embedded systems out there in consumer electronics, cars, medical devices, you name it. It's a *massive* space, and Windows is running at all in what slices of it? Phones, and... ? (Yes, I know that there's an Embedded Windows product, I honestly don't know what it runs on these days.)
And as someone who agrees with me that the difference in line ending doesn't really affect them much, my mind boggles at your vehemence with which you argue against standardizing the industry on the most common practice. Honestly, I doubt anyone would notice.
You haven't convinced me that it's the most common, by any means. I mean, you do realize that the programming language still with the largest use (as measured in shipping LOC) is COBOL, right? The PC market is, when you come down to it, just a piece of the whole, and not even a particularly massive one.
Since our positions hinge solely on which line ending has the most common use, and we can't agree on that, (and I don't think either of us going to uncover compelling evidence to that end) let's just agree to disagree, alright?