Ant wrote :
> "FromTheRafters" wrote:
>
>> It happens that Ant formulated :
>>> I am surprised. Why would you hide those extensions?
>>
>> Maybe I should make an image *after* I set things up correctly.
>
> So you don't normally hide extensions?

No, but I made my image with default settings for that OOTB experience.
I think I'll re-do it with tools onboard and proper settings.
>
>> My disagreement is in thinking that filenames have meaning.
>
> The extensions have meaning in that a shell operation uses them to
> decide what application (or not) to open the file with.
>
>> Why can't
>> there be some sort of internal 'content type' metadata being used
>> instead of relying on a filename extension? That way, the 'content
>> type' travels *with* the content it describes and the name doesn't
>> matter.
>
> I wouldn't like that at all. If I double click on a malicious exe (not
> that I deliberately do) renamed as ".vir" or ".bin" then I don't want
> the OS deciding what to do with it; i.e. run it. I want it to open in
> a hex editor or whatever I've associated to those extensions.

Yeah, I hadn't considered the ease at which one can 'name away'
executables. I suppose though that it could be done with an execute bit
or something like that. I'm not really opposed to apps being associated
by filename extension with the files they are meant to work with, I
just thought that it could be done with something more meaningful than
a filename where executables are concerned. After all, the loaders
don't depend on filename extensions to determine what kind of
executable they are.
>
>> The problem isn't that the OS gets tricked into running something, it
>> is that the *user* does because of the name and the icon associated
>> with that name. If the icon was associated with the *content* instead
>> of the name wouldn't it be that much clearer what one is about to
>> double-click on?
>
> The only way that could work is if displaying an icon resource from
> the exe were disallowed.

It could still be allowed, but the shell could overlay something akin
to what it does with shortcut icons. An executable would *always* show
that it is an executable by a star (instead of a little arrow) in the
corner, or a border color for the entire icon. All executables could be
identified clearly no matter what custom icon was included.

> You would then use a generic icon for all
> exes. It would also slow down explorer listings as the OS would have
> to scan every file in a directory to see what icon to use.

That's a good point. As it stands it would only have to look at names,
which are in the filesystem not in the content of the files themselves.

> There's
> also no quick way of determining whether a file is text only,
> especially in these days of unicode.

I suppose the OS could determine such when the file is first saved with
content and such metadata could be stored in the filesystem where it is
more easily accessed.

[...]