On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 00:07, Geoffrey wrote: > Olaf Fra;czyk wrote: > > > File sniffing does not guarantee it either. Users expect, that the > > action (which application is to be run) is determined by file > > extension. > > If you're born in a windows world, yes. I've never expected a file > extension to define a file type. I refer again to your typical system > directories: /bin /usr/bin /sbin ... This is another story (at least partially). We have executable permission "x" to distinguish if we have an application or data. And... most desktop users are Windows users. > > > The mime-type idea is a terrible thing for a normal user. > > They simply don't understand it. > > Stupid users does not make a solution incorrect. That's based on your > definition of a normal user, which apparently excludes most knowledgable > users. If 99% users are stupid, then normal user is a stupid user. And this is the reality. And if a solution is not understood by 99% people who need to use it, then the solution is incorrect. > > >>> I am all for nautilus using the extension when available and > >>> sniffing when appropriate (a file missing a suffix or when > >>> requested by the user) > >> > >> File sniffing is at least attempting to apply some logical effort > >> to file determination. > > > > But impractical because of slowness. And not ease to understand for > > users. > > Based on your definition of 'users.' I'd prefer to give up the time for > an accurate file identification. Change the name of a file and you've > got the wrong identification. > > > > > The ideal would be ti switch to recognizing file type by it's > > extension but if one extension is used for different mime types, then > > in such case nautilus should detect mime type from file content. > > This should be controlled by user - eg. if user wants to associate an > > extension with another application, he would get dialog box with > > question if previous association is to be dropped or if the mime type > > for this extension should be detected by file content. > > I don't believe one solution or the other will please a majority of > users. Relying on file extension has gotten windows into a lot of > trouble. I prefer both solutions be offered and then let the user > choose, speed and insecurity or accuracy and security.. Here I agree with you. (about the ability to choose). But I don't see any security problem here. The only thing that I could suspect is hiding of extension in Windows. But it doesn't mean that using extensions is dangerous. Only hiding them is dangerous. Regards, Olaf > > -- > Until later, Geoffrey esoteric@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft > > _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
