Automatic file associations - Re: Unix handles file extensions "very poorly"? - Re: Mac/Mac Programming/Cocoa/HyperTalk
19 Dec
2011
19 Dec
'11
11:14 a.m.
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:52:03 +0100
From: Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de>
MikeS wrote:
---- Original message:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:13:38 +0100
From: Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de>
>Files should have an header wich describes
what type of data the file
>represents.
Why?
> What is so terribly wrong with using the file's _name_ to describe the
> type
> of data a file represents, so that those "humans" that you seem to
> disdain
> elsewhere can also know and work with its type, not just the computer? You ask me what's wrong? Never heard of a file
called "your_win.jpg.exe"
for example and was most Windoze users are doning with such a file and how
its name is displayed on most windoze machines?
I'm not a UNIX expert so I must have misunderstood; you mean UNIX cares
about file extensions after all and I can't name a UNIX executable
"your_win.jpg" ?
At least the modern DOS equivalent (which is what we're talking about,
remember?) *does* show the all-important .EXE in the file name, as will
Windows if you've enabled it. How does UNIX warn me at a quick glance?
...
<Half a dozen paragraphs of the traditional redundant and totally irrelevant
Microsoft-bashing drivel removed for readability>
...
BTW, I think
this quote from Ritchie himself sums it up perfectly:
"Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
> m Hmm, wasn't it "Unix IS user friendly, but it
is a little restrictive what
his friends are.."
Look it up! I think you'll find dozens of references, as well as to your
quote, e.g.
http://inagist.com/CodeWisdom/146592721312817153/
or
http://quotes.prolix.nu/Technology/Computers/
PS:
Sorry for my broken english, never learned it in a shool or so, it's
entirely from using unixoid OS's and communicateing with people like you
over the net.
Proably it's still better as your german :-)
I doubt it; born and raised in Hamburg my German's actually pretty good.
m
19 Dec
19 Dec
2:28 p.m.
MikeS wrote:
Ok,
Holm
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe,
Freiberger Stra?e 42, 09600 Obersch?na, USt-Id: DE253710583
www.tsht.de, info at tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:52:03 +0100
From: Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de>
MikeS wrote:
No. There are other mechanisms that differentiate what file can be executed
and wich not, not dependign on the file name. The long directoy listing
shows what is executable:
here is the entry for /bin/ls on my machine:
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 26112 30 Sep 14:58 ls
and that's a jpg:
-rw------- 1 holm holm 200804 7 Aug 20:01 llll2.jpg
Where is your problem?
Windows is hiding the extension by default, for what is this good for?
For viruses? Seems to be so, this feature is mostly used by them.
---- Original message:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:13:38 +0100
From: Holm Tiffe <holm at freibergnet.de>
>Files should have an header wich describes
what type of data the file
>represents.
Why?
> What is so terribly wrong with using the file's _name_ to describe the
> type
> of data a file represents, so that those "humans" that you seem to
> disdain
> elsewhere can also know and work with its type, not just the computer? You ask me what's wrong? Never heard of a file
called "your_win.jpg.exe"
for example and was most Windoze users are doning with such a file and how
its name is displayed on most windoze machines?
I'm not a UNIX expert so I must have misunderstood; you mean UNIX cares
about file extensions after all and I can't name a UNIX executable
"your_win.jpg" ?
At least the modern DOS equivalent (which is what we're talking about,
remember?) *does* show the all-important .EXE in the file name, as will
Windows if you've enabled it. How does UNIX warn me at a quick glance?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the point.
...
<Half a dozen paragraphs of the traditional redundant and totally irrelevant
Microsoft-bashing drivel removed for readability>
Maybe I have to reinsert them..
...
What for? I haven't quoted this from somewhere, this was from memory.
BTW, I
think this quote from Ritchie himself sums it up perfectly:
"Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
> m Hmm, wasn't it "Unix IS user friendly,
but it is a little restrictive what
his friends are.."
Look it up! I think you'll find dozens of references, as well as to your
quote, e.g.
http://inagist.com/CodeWisdom/146592721312817153/
or
http://quotes.prolix.nu/Technology/Computers/ PS:
Sorry for my broken english, never learned it in a shool or so, it's
entirely from using unixoid OS's and communicateing with people like you
over the net.
Proably it's still better as your german :-)
I doubt it; born and raised in Hamburg my German's actually pretty good.
m 
5:02 p.m.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Holm Tiffe wrote:
EXACTLY!
The default is to hide the extensions, and give an extra boost for viruses
to trick the unwary newbies.
Just as the default for their web products is to execute incoming code, so
as to facilitate an emphasys on WWW of dancing kangaroos and yodelling
jellyfish.
I have to constantly remind myself that _I_ am not the target user for
MICRO~1 products. Many of their most obnoxiously unpleasant and annoying
design decisions are actually probably the right ones for who they are
aiming at!
OK, if you have to. But delete everything that you don't agree with that
isn't needed. If enough people deleted extraneous content, then we
wouldn't have 15K for 3 line messages!
Look it up! I think you'll find dozens of references,
as well as to your
quote, e.g.
http://inagist.com/CodeWisdom/146592721312817153/
or
http://quotes.prolix.nu/Technology/Computers/ What for? I haven't quoted this
from somewhere, this was from memory.
Thet are BOTH valid quotes. There is no need for an "is it this V is it
that" argument!
No. There are other mechanisms that differentiate what
file can be executed
and wich not, not dependign on the file name. The long directoy listing
shows what is executable:
MS-DOS has a byte for "attribute";
it is too bad that they didn't use one of those bits for "executable"!
Windows is hiding the extension by default, for what
is this good for?
because some asshole declared it to be more "friendly"
with the extension
not displayed!
At least the
modern DOS equivalent (which is what we're talking about,
remember?) *does* show the all-important .EXE in the file name, as will
Windows if you've enabled it. How does UNIX warn me at a quick glance?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the point. <Half a
dozen paragraphs of the traditional redundant and totally irrelevant
Microsoft-bashing drivel removed for readability>
Maybe I have to reinsert
them.. BTW, I think
this quote from Ritchie himself sums it up perfectly:
"Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
Hmm, wasn't it "Unix IS user friendly, but it is a little restrictive what
his friends are.." > >PS:
> >Sorry for my broken english, never learned it in a shool or so, it's
> >entirely from using unixoid OS's and communicateing with people like you
> >over the net.
> >Proably it's still better as your german :-)
I have been part of the faculty of a college for more than 30 years. Your
"broken" English is substatially better than the average of our students,
and even staff. Over our "Information Desk", there is a sign that says,
"Question Ask Here". As a comment about college illiteracy, I got license
plate frames that say, "UC Berkeley Aluminum"; nobody notices the
misspelling. Note to Tony: I also got one that says, "UC Berkeley
Aluminium" that I will give to my [British] PhD advisor.
Sorry, I don't know German.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
6:54 p.m.
On 12/19/2011 5:02 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Holm Tiffe wrote:
In my experience in a previous job as a sysadmin of NT 4.0 boxes (around
1998), I can say that having an "Exec" bit for Windows binaries would
have slowed virus spread, but only just.
You would not -believe- the lengths some of our users would go through
to (manually!) install malware. Users would get an e-mail with a
password-protected ZIP file as an attachment ("ElfBowling.zip" or
"NakedWomen.zip"), and the e-mail itself would contain detailed
instructions for installing the damned thing since you couldn't just
double-click on the attachment.
Disregarding all advice we'd repeated about not running stuff that came
in e-mail, our users would faithfully follow the e-mail instructions to
the letter and get their machines infected (well, no, the virus scanner
would catch it, thankfully).
If Windows had an "Exec" bit the instructions in the e-mail would have
been just be one line longer.
- Josh
No. There are other mechanisms that differentiate
what file can be executed
and wich not, not dependign on the file name. The long directoy listing
shows what is executable:
MS-DOS has a byte for "attribute";
it is too bad that they didn't use one of those bits for "executable"!
8:31 p.m.
As a comment about college illiteracy, I got license
plate frames
that say, "UC Berkeley Aluminum"; nobody notices the misspelling.
How do you tell the difference between not noticing and noticing but
not telling you? If I saw such a thing, especially if the car were
parked or in traffic (ie, I couldn't easily talk with its person at the
time), I'd just get a chuckle out of it but no more; the owner would
have no reason to think I'd noticed.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
4751
days inactive
4752
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
derschjo＠mail.msu.edu -
dm561＠torfree.net -
holm＠freibergnet.de -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG