this is y file extensions are no good!

D

Dradts

Official Mac User
try the following:

create a new empty folder in the finder.
name it "New Folder.rtf"
now open up the information window and.... the folder is no more a folder. its now a rich text file! pretty interesting.
its then even possible to drag the folder onto textedit ... but unfortunately nothing will happen
:D

this is anyways kinda cool! i can take a folder, put some private information files in there (like a text file with passwords etc..), name the folder "ReadMe.rtf", klick on "hide file extension" and paste a general document icon in it. i guess nobody will ever find out that there are other documents hidden in this "fake readme file" :D hehe :cool:
 
"this is anyways kinda cool!"

So is your contention that extensions are good or not good?

And, why, in the name of all things holy, would you do that?!

Nothing, no OS, can protect from user error completely. You (or any user) could do the same thing and you don't need extensions to do it.
 
My "New Folder" remains a folder even after putting .rtf at the end of it. No matter what extension I put on there, it remains a folder. I can put stuff into it, take stuff out -- regular old folder functionality, only it's named "New Folder.rtf" or "New Folder.txt."

If I add ".app" to the end, the ".app" extension immediately disappears, but the folder functionality remains. The only way to get rid of the ".app" extension is to "Get Info" and delete the ".app" portion from the "Name and Extension" tab.

If I add ".pkg" to the end, it becomes a package. Double-clicking it opens up the "Installer" program.

Other than those two anomalies, I can add pretty much any extension I want and the folder remains a folder, in form and functionality.
 
Here's the really silly bit about all this:

A)
  • Make a .rtf file in textedit, save it.
  • Click it once, use 'Get Info' - it's reported to be a "Rich Text Format (RTF) document"
  • In Terminal, run the command file Untitle.rtf - it's reported to be a "Rich Text Format data, version 1, Apple Macintosh"
  • Double click the file, Textedit opens it.

B)
  • Change the file's extension to .jpg
  • use 'Get Info' - it's reported incorrectly to be a "JPEG Image"
  • In Terminal, do file Untitled.jpg - it's reported correctly to be a "Rich Text Format data, version 1, Apple Macintosh"
  • Double click the file, Preview opens it and says "The file Untitled.jpg could not be opend" - no hint as to why, it just fails.

So, the point is, there is a way of knowing what the file is, without using file extension or resource fork data. You can try all sorts of tricks - make a .txt file, and paste C source code in it, the file command will recognize that it is not just any text, but C source code. Read man file to find out how it's done if you're curious.

So, my point here is Apple could just make the Mac magically know what the file is, but they choose to use unreliable file extensions. This is not brand new technology either - the authors' contact information from the man pages is dated as early as 1989, and that's for some modifications of the original. How dumb is that, then?
 
I think my main point is still valid...

This is user error. YOU are adding the "incorrect" extension - albeit on purpose. The OS is just doing what you told it to do ( a quality I think is GOOD in computers).
 
in my opinion apple should take out the complete file extension thing of os x and continue using os 9 resources!
i liked them much more!
 
I'm not "promoting" anything.

I stated my preference.

I stated a fact that the "problem" described is not an OS problem but a user problem.

You may disagree as to whether or not OS X has done the "right" thing in giving you the OPTION of showing extension. I happen to think it was a necessary move. Your computer is obviously connected to, at least, the web. extensions are everywhere. On the web, on file servers, yes on Windoze boxes - but also on most every other kind of box except Apple pre-X.

And, no, this isn't 8.3.... It's making the mac play more nicely with EVERYTHING else. I think that's an advantage.

Aside from all that, I (IN MY OPINION) prefer extensions. If I make a mistake in typing the extension or in choosing the right one, I do not blame the OS and/or its creators -- it's my fault and I correct it. If someone sends me a file with an incorrect extension, I make them fix their error (this has never happened to me and I get a buttload of files from clients).

You say extensions stand in the way of your getting things done. I have just the opposite opinion. The said buttload of files clients send to me are instantly recognized for what they are BECAUSE they have extensions. Even if sent from a non-mac platform. This aids in allowing me to actually work faster and with less frustration.

You may have different clients with different habits and types of files. You may work differently. Whatever. You have your opinion and I have mine.

I know turning off the extensions in X doesn't really address your complaint. I realize you'd like things the old way. I'm sorry that Apple's decision to do things this way makes my life easier while causing you frustration and causing you to take a hit in the productivity dept. I was never trying to say that one way was right and the other wrong. Maybe someday you'll be able to do away with extensions for real in OS X and you won't have to use 9 any more to do it.

Just PLEASE don't EVER accuse me of promoting anything at all remotely related to Winblows.:eek:

One last thing. I used to hate not being able to just click on a file and have the app I want to open it, open it. With the "invisible" method, all you could do was open the app, and use the menus to open the file which USUALLY worked...( or you could muck about and change the "invisible" bits - equally un-fun). Extensions make that kind of thing easier. For example, I rarely/never use IE/Word/whatever. if a file was created for IE/Word/whatever, it would always open it. Now, the app set to open files with a certain extension (my choice) opens files with that extension(s). You can specify certain apps to open files with certain extensions. I like that.
 
A mantra we learned in our Human Computer Interaction (aka interface design) class: "90% of user error is interface designer error."

OK, so some user 'should not' have changed the extension on their file, but they 'should not' have had to know that. And, as I pointed out above, the system can be easily designed so they don't have to know it. The less fundamentally useless knowledge (i.e. knowing how to use the tool, as opposed to how to do work with the tool) the user has to waste time learning, the better. You and I shouldn't have to concentrate on memorizing file extensions, remembering what sorts of file names to avoid, yadda yadda, unless there really is no alternative to forcing us to learn these things. Forcing the user to learn trivialities to save programmers a bit of work is a Microsoft approach, not an Apple approach.

I agree with you, the type/creator codes in classic Mac OS were no good either. I would hate to see a return to that mess.

The file command is an ages old method (as these things go) of recognizing file types, without relying on any information other than what the file actually is. It does not trust file extensions, it does not trust type/creator codes; either one of these could be misleading. It looks directly into the file, and figures out from the actual content of the file, what it is. This is the only reliable way of finding out file types. That the developers of OS X could have built an already available fool-proof method of determining file types into their OS, but instead chose an (IMO) inferior, very much fool-vulnerable method, is disappointing to me.

For example, if you download some webpage from this site, it will end in .php - does that make it php source code, or html code generated by php? neither filename extensions nor resource forks can tell you that for sure, only looking into the contents of the file.

You could still customize this - specify that files containing html data should be opened with whatever program, as opposed to specifying files hose names end in .html.
 
You make good point for your position. I just don't agree. FOR ME. I haven't memorized extensions. They are what they are. Even if I have to spend a SHORT learning curve discovering how the rest of the world works, fine. after that, I work better, faster, stronger.
I think this is all semantics. There is always a way to "find out" what type of file it is. I like extensions (1) because I can tell what they are by just looking at the name and (2) because it makes the mac work with EVERyTHING else in ach!, "cyberspace" much better. You like the old way of "finding out" what a file is. We're both "finding out." My way is just better --JOKE--:D

I send a lot of files to clients on other platforms. I'd always have to add extensions to files so that they could open them/read them/know what they were. Now I don't have to anymore. Also, I don't have to worry about .hqx or .SIT and the inevitable clients' calls, "what the F**k is .HQX!? OHHH, it's some mac crap." Makes me look bad to them and they'd have to download a new app to decode it. Or, i'd have to use some ZipIt or whatever. Now standard compression works fine and i look superior to them and their windoze toys with my "unix" underpinnings. Actually, I've had clients ask, "didn't you used to use a Mac?" And my reply is always something like, "yeah, I still do, but the OS X is......" At which point they ask question after question. I have actually had 6 clients ask me to send them some links to info about it and Macs. Of those 6, 2 so far have called back asking advice on which mac to buy. They bought Macs ( a TiBook and a DP G4 for one guy in IT at another law firm, and 2 TiBooks - His and Hers anniversary gifts; awwww- and a pre-order of the iLamp :rolleyes: for the other girl

For me the added benefits far outweigh and hassles of the learning curve. In fact i don't even consider the learning curve a hassle at all. I enjoy learning new things.

Yea, the File command works.... But my point was that it requires more work than just KNOWING from the extension and having your mac set up to open that file type automatically based on your choice.

Let's agree to disagree.:)
 
The discrepancy between the get info command and the functionality in the Finder seems to be more of a bug to me than intended functionality. It seems we should probably report that to the Mac OS X feedback page.

However, I'd like to weigh in on the extensions debate. File extensions are GOOD. They allow cross-platform compatibility. And they're also another form of metadata (albeit a bad form) to help the system know what kind of file it is.

I agree that Apple could have really relied on the UNIX stuff to figure out exactly what it is, but when you download a file from the net, Mac OS X in its current state must rely on what metadata it has, which often times is only the filename extension. I must point out that sometimes the same thing would happen in Mac OS 9 with type/creator codes; you could download a generic file and Mac OS 9 wouldn't know what to open it with, and you'd have to deal with that annoying dialog to choose what to open it with.

Filename extensions are good when used right. And Apple is 3/4 of the way there, especially with the "Open with..." and the "Change all..." features in the Get Info window. Those are awesome features in OS X. But let's hope (or lets give feedback) that Apple will implement a better solution for figuring out what a file's contents is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top