• (cs) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    On the topic of the Mac screenshot: 3) As you can see, the dialog clearly offers the option to override this descision, it's even selected as default. I can't remember when Windows allowed me to override a descision.

    No it doesn't and no it isn't. Read the message again. The guy wants to save the file as a ".csv". The options are ".csv.txt" or -- the default -- ".txt". Neither is ".csv".

    I've run into this problem before, and it is annoying. I don't know what causes it, since most applications on Mac OS X just don't care about filenames. It must be application or framework dependent.

  • no u (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    On the topic of the Mac screenshot:
    1. As you can see, the dialog clearly offers the option to override this descision, it's even selected as default. I can't remember when Windows allowed me to override a descision.

    Next time you bash Mac OS X, please use it first. Thanks.

    wtf does an application's dialog options have to do with the operating system?

    Have you seriously never seen a "are you sure.. ?" dialog box in windows? Every user of every OS gets many chances to "override a decision" each time they use a computer. We call this choice.

    Clearly it has hurt your delicate fanboy feelings to see a mac wtf on this site. Get over yourself.

  • (cs) in reply to Mason Wheeler

    Have you never needed to tell the difference between a string that has no value as opposed to an empty string?

  • (cs)

    If you've never seen Ming-Na's acting, null is very appropriate here.

  • kktkkr (unregistered)

    I would personally have made that Quit menu several layers deeper.

    Captcha: ideo... a bad one.

  • David C. (unregistered)

    Mac OS X uses extensions, but it doesn't care what extensions an applications wants to use for its files.

    The software responsible for this WTF is the application, not the OS. Other apps (like Microsoft Excel) have no problem saving CSV data in a file whose name ends in ".csv".

    And yes, I agree with those that say extensions should not be necessary. Under classic Mac OS (System 9 and earlier), file types were identified exclusively through a 4-byte type ID, independent of the filename. (Along with another 4-byte creator ID, to identify the app that created the file.) You could use any name, with any suffix, and it wouldn't have any impact on your ability to launch the right app by double-clicking the icon from the desktop.

    With the advent of Mac OS X, however, Apple took a step backward and started using the filename to identify the type. The type/creator IDs still exist in the file system, but they are very marginalized. They used to be used (if present) on earlier versions of Mac OS X, but with today's releases, I don't think they are used for anything. This may lessen a learning curve, by doing what Windows does, but it also makes the system less intelligent and less powerful than it was in the old days.

  • Ralph (unregistered)

    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so the few of us can know we aren't alone. Hopelessly overwhelmed by sheep, but not alone.

  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Rank Amateur:
    Anonymous:
    That method for quitting a program actually looks kind of compelling.

    I agree. I bet it's faster and easier for the user than a Yes/No message box, but still protects the user from accidentally quitting due to a slip of the mouse.... assuming that such protection is needed (e.g., the program has a lengthy startup process).

    Label works for me. What would be better? I don't need "No, Don't Quit."

    You people have it all wrong. There should never be a "Are you sure you want to quit?" feature. I don't care if it's a fuel pump controller for the boosters on the space shuttle - users should rightly be punished for clicking things they shouldn't.
    So you're suggesting replacing the Humane Interface Guidelines with Miscreant Interface Guidelines? That might work for Linux!

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Rank Amateur:
    Anonymous:
    That method for quitting a program actually looks kind of compelling.

    I agree. I bet it's faster and easier for the user than a Yes/No message box, but still protects the user from accidentally quitting due to a slip of the mouse.... assuming that such protection is needed (e.g., the program has a lengthy startup process).

    Label works for me. What would be better? I don't need "No, Don't Quit."

    You people have it all wrong. There should never be a "Are you sure you want to quit?" feature. I don't care if it's a fuel pump controller for the boosters on the space shuttle - users should rightly be punished for clicking things they shouldn't.
    So you're suggesting replacing the Humane Interface Guidelines with Miscreant Interface Guidelines? That might work for Linux!

    They will never improve the Linux UI to that standard.

  • (cs) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Rank Amateur:
    Anonymous:
    That method for quitting a program actually looks kind of compelling.

    I agree. I bet it's faster and easier for the user than a Yes/No message box, but still protects the user from accidentally quitting due to a slip of the mouse.... assuming that such protection is needed (e.g., the program has a lengthy startup process).

    Label works for me. What would be better? I don't need "No, Don't Quit."

    You people have it all wrong. There should never be a "Are you sure you want to quit?" feature. I don't care if it's a fuel pump controller for the boosters on the space shuttle - users should rightly be punished for clicking things they shouldn't.
    So you're suggesting replacing the Humane Interface Guidelines with Miscreant Interface Guidelines? That might work for Linux!
    That comment just made me smile. Very nice.

  • FTFY (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so I can feel superior to any number of people without actually demonstrating any insight.

    I think this is a little more accurate.

    Not that you're wrong.

  • SeySayux (unregistered) in reply to no u
    no u:
    SeySayux:
    On the topic of the Mac screenshot:
    1. As you can see, the dialog clearly offers the option to override this descision, it's even selected as default. I can't remember when Windows allowed me to override a descision.

    Next time you bash Mac OS X, please use it first. Thanks.

    wtf does an application's dialog options have to do with the operating system?

    Exactly my question. How does a crappy application make Mac OS X a wtf?
    Have you seriously never seen a "are you sure.. ?" dialog box in windows? Every user of every OS gets many chances to "override a decision" each time they use a computer. We call this choice.
    That's different. The "are you sure" kind of dialog boxes are made to override a user decision, not an operating system decision. "Are you sure you want to move the mouse? But I mean, like, really, really, really sure? The world may come to a bloody end because you moved your mouse! Do you still want to move that mouse now, hmm?"

    I grant that I haven't used Windows a lot lately, as we're working primarily with OS X and Linux over here, but one thing I remember firmly is the dialog box that goes something like this: "Updates have been applied. Your computer will be rebooted". First, I did not ask to get updates applied, and secondly, what if I don't want to reboot my computer right now?

    Clearly it has hurt your delicate fanboy feelings to see a mac wtf on this site. Get over yourself.
    Actually, that's where you're wrong. If anything, I'm not a fanboy at all. Instead, I try to provide extra information about why the application behaved as on the screenshot, as apparently most people here are "Mac anti-fanboys".

    Defending something when critisized by people that are apparently clueless ("Omg teh M4c suxx0rZ" does not really make one appear literate on the subject), is hardly fanboyism. Positive critisism by experienced people that is well argumented, on the other hand, is greatly accepted and even neccesary.

    To finish with an ad hominem, which apparently is the only form of logical reasoning you abide by: this whole wall of text was probably futile, as either your brain imploded by now because of the sheer amounts of logic and non-black-and-white thinking, or your lexical faculties are not sufficient to cope with these amounts of rigorous text.

    Errata: I'd like to retract statement 3 in my previous post as it is partially incorrect: the 'Save As' dialog box does not offer the mentioned functionality, however, the 'Rename' dialog box, which I assumed was the same as the 'Save As' one, does.

  • gravis (unregistered) in reply to David C.
    David C.:
    With the advent of Mac OS X, however, Apple took a step backward and started using the filename to identify the type. The type/creator IDs still exist in the file system, but they are very marginalized. They used to be used (if present) on earlier versions of Mac OS X, but with today's releases, I don't think they are used for anything. This may lessen a learning curve, by doing what Windows does, but it also makes the system less intelligent and less powerful than it was in the old days.

    If making OSX more interoperable with Windows, why wouldn't they do it?

  • causa (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    no u:
    SeySayux:
    On the topic of the Mac screenshot:
    1. As you can see, the dialog clearly offers the option to override this descision, it's even selected as default. I can't remember when Windows allowed me to override a descision.

    Next time you bash Mac OS X, please use it first. Thanks.

    wtf does an application's dialog options have to do with the operating system?

    Exactly my question. How does a crappy application make Mac OS X a wtf?
    Have you seriously never seen a "are you sure.. ?" dialog box in windows? Every user of every OS gets many chances to "override a decision" each time they use a computer. We call this choice.
    That's different. The "are you sure" kind of dialog boxes are made to override a user decision, not an operating system decision. "Are you sure you want to move the mouse? But I mean, like, really, really, really sure? The world may come to a bloody end because you moved your mouse! Do you still want to move that mouse now, hmm?"

    I grant that I haven't used Windows a lot lately, as we're working primarily with OS X and Linux over here, but one thing I remember firmly is the dialog box that goes something like this: "Updates have been applied. Your computer will be rebooted". First, I did not ask to get updates applied, and secondly, what if I don't want to reboot my computer right now?

    Clearly it has hurt your delicate fanboy feelings to see a mac wtf on this site. Get over yourself.
    Actually, that's where you're wrong. If anything, I'm not a fanboy at all. Instead, I try to provide extra information about why the application behaved as on the screenshot, as apparently most people here are "Mac anti-fanboys".

    Defending something when critisized by people that are apparently clueless ("Omg teh M4c suxx0rZ" does not really make one appear literate on the subject), is hardly fanboyism. Positive critisism by experienced people that is well argumented, on the other hand, is greatly accepted and even neccesary.

    To finish with an ad hominem, which apparently is the only form of logical reasoning you abide by: this whole wall of text was probably futile, as either your brain imploded by now because of the sheer amounts of logic and non-black-and-white thinking, or your lexical faculties are not sufficient to cope with these amounts of rigorous text.

    Errata: I'd like to retract statement 3 in my previous post as it is partially incorrect: the 'Save As' dialog box does not offer the mentioned functionality, however, the 'Rename' dialog box, which I assumed was the same as the 'Save As' one, does.

    Whoa, apparently "no u" was right.

  • (cs)

    Barney Bolger

    Trick question... they really wanted you to show them you give 110%. Geez.

  • xvx (unregistered) in reply to gravis

    Mostly because the old way of doing it was just as compatible but more powerful. It used to be that if a file had a creator and content type code set, OS X would obey those, and if it didn't it would obey the file extension. Not so much anymore.

  • SeySayux (unregistered) in reply to causa
    causa:
    Whoa, apparently "no u" was right.
    Whoa, apparently you're great with pseudonyms!

    Seeing a screenshot of any application on any operating system usually leaves me indifferent -- the only exception being when it's my own application, the screenshot says it's crashed and the release is due tomorrow -- seeing a personal insult, however, does hurt my feelings on a certain level.

    I'd like to start critisizing the functioning of your cerebral cortex, however, that'd only lower me to your level, what I'd like to avoid at all costs.

    They have a saying around here: "Don't feed the trolls." Ergo, I will cease this nonsensical debate unless you have any other personal insults for me, such as questioning my ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc. As they say in Latin, Absentem laedit, qui cum fatuo litigat.

  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    Rob:
    Sadly, OS X has been using file extensions as the default typing method for the last few releases. It sucks balls.

    Regardless, the correct extension for CSV files is, in fact, .txt.

    While I realize that it is text, why is that the correct extension? Seems pretty reasonable that most people would want the default application for .txt files to be a text editor and the default application for a .csv to be a spreadsheet? Why is any file extension ever prohibited? Yea, it's great to have some basic defaults, but I should always be able to save anything with whatever extension I want, regardless of what some shitty OS thinks I should want.

    You must do things the Steven Jobs way or no way at all! Personally I think he just wants to become the Zombie overlord.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to facilisi
    facilisi:
    SeySayux:
    On the topic of the Mac screenshot:
    1. As you can see, the dialog clearly offers the option to override this descision, it's even selected as default. I can't remember when Windows allowed me to override a descision.

    "Use both", "Cancel", "Use .txt"

    Where's "Use .csv"? That's all I want to do!

    Exactly. The WTF is not there IS such a dialog, but that it LACKS the ability to override. Not providing a "do it anyway" button is fair and square the fault of Apple.

  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to survey
    survey:
    it looks like the survey just needs "100" filled into the "total" box.

    Actually you just need to put Zeros in the other boxes. It is probably adding the 100 to null values and some rudimentary error handling is preventing it from blowing up.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    facilisi:
    SeySayux:
    On the topic of the Mac screenshot:
    1. As you can see, the dialog clearly offers the option to override this descision, it's even selected as default. I can't remember when Windows allowed me to override a descision.

    "Use both", "Cancel", "Use .txt"

    Where's "Use .csv"? That's all I want to do!

    Exactly. The WTF is not there IS such a dialog, but that it LACKS the ability to override. Not providing a "do it anyway" button is fair and square the fault of Apple.

    Changing a file type is the OS equivalent of a reinterpret_cast in C++. It's dangerous, and there's nothing wrong with making a decision to disallow it.

    You do remember what happens when you allow a user to screw something up, don't you? They blame you. Worse yet, they may even call you. This is a bad thing.

    Sandbox the users - they're too stupid for any other arrangement.

  • sino (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Changing a file type is the OS equivalent of a reinterpret_cast in C++. It's dangerous, and there's nothing wrong with making a decision to disallow it.

    You do remember what happens when you allow a user to screw something up, don't you? They blame you. Worse yet, they may even call you. This is a bad thing.

    Sandbox the users - they're too stupid for any other arrangement.

    Wasn't this part of the Apple mission statement at some point?

  • luptatum (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    I'd like to start critisizing the functioning of your cerebral cortex, however, that'd only lower me to your level, what I'd like to avoid at all costs.

    ...which you just implicitly did...

    SeySayux:
    I'd point out that you're stupid, but I don't want to feel like I'm as bad as you, so I'll imply it passive-aggressively so I can do exactly what you're doing but also feel superior for having not done it.
  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Changing a file type is the OS equivalent of a reinterpret_cast in C++. It's dangerous, and there's nothing wrong with making a decision to disallow it.

    You do remember what happens when you allow a user to screw something up, don't you? They blame you. Worse yet, they may even call you. This is a bad thing.

    Sandbox the users - they're too stupid for any other arrangement.

    So the sandbox the users policy by apple means that macs are for "stupid people"? Sounds plausible to me.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so the few of us can know we aren't alone. Hopelessly overwhelmed by sheep, but not alone.

    So why, exactly, is it better to have the type identification NOT be part of the file name? It seems to me that a pretty obvious advantage of using the extension to identify the file type is that I can look at a file name and immediately know the file type. It is obvious from a directory listing what the types of the files are. If the type is stored separately, then I have to look it up, possibly with a special program. You could, I suppose, always write the name with the type appended in some way, like, "myspreadsheet.txt,csv". But then how is that different in practice from writing "myspreadsheet.csv"?

    (By the way, how does disagreeing with you make someone a mindless sheep? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone might have carefully considered a question and come to a different conclusion than you did?)

  • Jens Fiederer (unregistered) in reply to Uncle Al

    Yes, the REAL WTF is thinking you are entitled to add empty strings to integers.

  • blarg (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    Have you seriously never seen a "are you sure.. ?" dialog box in windows? Every user of every OS gets many chances to "override a decision" each time they use a computer. We call this choice.
    That's different. The "are you sure" kind of dialog boxes are made to override a user decision, not an operating system decision. "Are you sure you want to move the mouse? But I mean, like, really, really, really sure? The world may come to a bloody end because you moved your mouse! Do you still want to move that mouse now, hmm?"

    No it isn't. Both of them are just choices offered by the application. Both OS's have actions which they force and both have actions which give you some choice. The same applies for applications running on each OS. I can't see how you would take a simple screenshot of a 'yes/no' style dialog box and read into that the idea of a democratic utopia in an OS - unless of course you are a fanboy.

    Also, that other guy isn't me.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Changing a file type is the OS equivalent of a reinterpret_cast in C++. It's dangerous, and there's nothing wrong with making a decision to disallow it.

    Right. That's why cars should be made without gas pedals. After all, if the user is able to make the car actually move, he might get in an accident, and that would be dangerous.

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Ralph:
    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so the few of us can know we aren't alone. Hopelessly overwhelmed by sheep, but not alone.

    So why, exactly, is it better to have the type identification NOT be part of the file name? blah blah blah

    (By the way, how does disagreeing with you make someone a mindless sheep? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone might have carefully considered a question and come to a different conclusion than you did?)

    Thank you for identifying yourself as an idiot, I know to ignore you now.

  • Rawr (unregistered)
    SeySayux:
    Absentem laedit, qui cum fatuo litigat

    I love when you talk Latin to me.

    By the way, want to solve your Windows auto-update problem? There is a setting there, where you can OVERRIDE the default.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    TRWTF is MAC users don't understand they can just change the file extension later.

    Then why not always save the file as "noname.txt" and require the user to rename the file after saving? Then you wouldn't even need a save-as dialog box!

    TRWTF with people who object to electric cars that can only go 100 miles before needing a recharge is that they don't understand that if they want to travel more than 100 miles, then when the battery runs out they could just call for a taxi or walk the rest of the way.

    I'm sure that many deficient features in many products could be overcome by doing some work-around that requires extra effort. That's not an excuse for shoddy design.

  • Hortical (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    ...As they say in Latin, Absentem laedit, qui cum fatuo litigat.

    Oh, wow, you're not full of yourself.

  • Hortical (unregistered) in reply to CDave
    CDave:
    hoodaticus:
    Sandbox the users - they're too stupid for any other arrangement.
    So the sandbox the users policy by apple means that macs are for "stupid people"? Sounds plausible to me.
    Actually, I'm conflicted here:

    A fairly smart, but non-technical, end-user might realize that he doesn't know what he's doing and so would appreciate being limited.

    And a stupid end-user won't realize that he needs the guidance (limitations).

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    frits:
    TRWTF is MAC users don't understand they can just change the file extension later.

    Then why not always save the file as "noname.txt" and require the user to rename the file after saving? Then you wouldn't even need a save-as dialog box!

    TRWTF with people who object to electric cars that can only go 100 miles before needing a recharge is that they don't understand that if they want to travel more than 100 miles, then when the battery runs out they could just call for a taxi or walk the rest of the way.

    I'm sure that many deficient features in many products could be overcome by doing some work-around that requires extra effort. That's not an excuse for shoddy design.

    Nice diatribe. Way to take my playful jab at Mac users and turn it into a straw man about "shoddy design".

  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    Jay:
    Ralph:
    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so the few of us can know we aren't alone. Hopelessly overwhelmed by sheep, but not alone.

    So why, exactly, is it better to have the type identification NOT be part of the file name? blah blah blah

    (By the way, how does disagreeing with you make someone a mindless sheep? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone might have carefully considered a question and come to a different conclusion than you did?)

    Thank you for identifying yourself as an idiot, I know to ignore you now.

    Ok I'll bite, how would you redesign the system?

  • Raptor85 (unregistered)

    TRWTF is how many people who read this site don't understand the concept of MIME types and metadata, which allows sane systems to determine what a file is. (or hell, even without, a simple call to "file" will tell you if it's binary or text, making it quite easy for sane WM's to default all unassociated text files to open in vim/mousepad/emacs/gedit/etc..)

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to CDave
    CDave:
    Ralph:
    Jay:
    Ralph:
    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so the few of us can know we aren't alone. Hopelessly overwhelmed by sheep, but not alone.

    So why, exactly, is it better to have the type identification NOT be part of the file name? blah blah blah

    (By the way, how does disagreeing with you make someone a mindless sheep? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone might have carefully considered a question and come to a different conclusion than you did?)

    Thank you for identifying yourself as an idiot, I know to ignore you now.

    Ok I'll bite, how would you redesign the system?

    So you don't know either? Is there anyone worth talking to in this forum?

  • nobody worth talking to (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    CDave:
    Ralph:
    Jay:
    Ralph:
    TRWTF is file "extensions".

    If you are just another sheep bent on following the herd and never questioning anything, you will not be able to understand why this is true.

    On the other hand if you have the ability to look at systems and see what is wrong with them and how it could be designed better, you already know this.

    So why am I bothering with this post?

    I guess so the few of us can know we aren't alone. Hopelessly overwhelmed by sheep, but not alone.

    So why, exactly, is it better to have the type identification NOT be part of the file name? blah blah blah

    (By the way, how does disagreeing with you make someone a mindless sheep? Have you ever considered the possibility that someone might have carefully considered a question and come to a different conclusion than you did?)

    Thank you for identifying yourself as an idiot, I know to ignore you now.

    Ok I'll bite, how would you redesign the system?

    So you don't know either? Is there anyone worth talking to in this forum?

    No, there isn't.

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Jay:
    frits:
    TRWTF is MAC users don't understand they can just change the file extension later.

    Then why not always save the file as "noname.txt" and require the user to rename the file after saving? Then you wouldn't even need a save-as dialog box!

    TRWTF with people who object to electric cars that can only go 100 miles before needing a recharge is that they don't understand that if they want to travel more than 100 miles, then when the battery runs out they could just call for a taxi or walk the rest of the way.

    I'm sure that many deficient features in many products could be overcome by doing some work-around that requires extra effort. That's not an excuse for shoddy design.

    Nice diatribe. Way to take my playful jab at Mac users and turn it into a straw man about "shoddy design".

    Highlight the places where he takes a playful jab a Mac users.

    Explain how the solution you offer isn't necessitated by deficient design.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Nice diatribe. Way to take my playful jab at Mac users and turn it into a straw man about "shoddy design".

    Nice quip. Fuckity-de-fuckity-Fuck-You.

  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to Raptor85
    Raptor85:
    TRWTF is how many people who read this site don't understand the concept of MIME types and metadata, which allows sane systems to determine what a file is. (or hell, even without, a simple call to "file" will tell you if it's binary or text, making it quite easy for sane WM's to default all unassociated text files to open in vim/mousepad/emacs/gedit/etc..)

    Sure that works but isn't there also more overhead that way? the call to file means that the system will open the file and read a portion of it from disk and then close the file. Sure it's not that big of a deal now but back when these op systems were first being designed increasing the number of disk reads was frowned upon.

  • praesent (unregistered) in reply to CDave
    CDave:
    Raptor85:
    TRWTF is how many people who read this site don't understand the concept of MIME types and metadata, which allows sane systems to determine what a file is. (or hell, even without, a simple call to "file" will tell you if it's binary or text, making it quite easy for sane WM's to default all unassociated text files to open in vim/mousepad/emacs/gedit/etc..)

    Sure that works but isn't there also more overhead that way? the call to file means that the system will open the file and read a portion of it from disk and then close the file. Sure it's not that big of a deal now but back when these op systems were first being designed increasing the number of disk reads was frowned upon.

    You could cache the metadata with the directory listing so when the file browser lists off the files in a folder, it gets all the metadata at the same time.

    Would that be faster? Takes up more space, but space keeps getting easier to come by.

  • SeySayux (unregistered) in reply to Rawr
    Rawr:
    SeySayux:
    Absentem laedit, qui cum fatuo litigat

    I love when you talk Latin to me.

    By the way, want to solve your Windows auto-update problem? There is a setting there, where you can OVERRIDE the default.

    Sure, there is a good temporary fix, that's hidden well under the hood of the OS: http://asymptomatic.net/2005/08/11/831/how-to-disable-that-blasted-restart-now-message-from-windows-update

    BTW, Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua.

  • Rawr (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux

    First of all, they are doing it wrong on many levels. There is a very simple setting within Windows Updates that you can change. What they are suggesting is a WTF in and of itself. I don't know what version first had this setting, but I know even my XP box does not automatically update without my interaction.

    I love how this 'Don't bash MAC unless you know what you're talking about!' guy rags on windows and is totally clueless. Classic. But at least he knows Latin.

  • mara (unregistered) in reply to Rawr
    Rawr:
    First of all, they are doing it wrong on many levels. There is a very simple setting within Windows Updates that you can change. What they are suggesting is a WTF in and of itself. I don't know what version first had this setting, but I know even my XP box does not automatically update without my interaction.

    I love how this 'Don't bash MAC unless you know what you're talking about!' guy rags on windows and is totally clueless. Classic. But at least he knows Latin.

    That's cause the debate has nothing to do with what works and what doesn't/ It's about symbolic loyalty and pride.

    Further - while I appreciate the many, many problems that windows has, I don't think it's effective rhetoric to make Mac's slogan - "sucks less than windows".

  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to praesent
    praesent:
    CDave:
    Raptor85:
    TRWTF is how many people who read this site don't understand the concept of MIME types and metadata, which allows sane systems to determine what a file is. (or hell, even without, a simple call to "file" will tell you if it's binary or text, making it quite easy for sane WM's to default all unassociated text files to open in vim/mousepad/emacs/gedit/etc..)

    Sure that works but isn't there also more overhead that way? the call to file means that the system will open the file and read a portion of it from disk and then close the file. Sure it's not that big of a deal now but back when these op systems were first being designed increasing the number of disk reads was frowned upon.

    You could cache the metadata with the directory listing so when the file browser lists off the files in a folder, it gets all the metadata at the same time.

    Would that be faster? Takes up more space, but space keeps getting easier to come by.

    Yep that would be faster but then aren't you essentially doing pretty much the same thing as having a file extension and hiding it from the user?

  • praesent (unregistered) in reply to CDave
    CDave:
    praesent:
    CDave:
    Raptor85:
    TRWTF is how many people who read this site don't understand the concept of MIME types and metadata, which allows sane systems to determine what a file is. (or hell, even without, a simple call to "file" will tell you if it's binary or text, making it quite easy for sane WM's to default all unassociated text files to open in vim/mousepad/emacs/gedit/etc..)

    Sure that works but isn't there also more overhead that way? the call to file means that the system will open the file and read a portion of it from disk and then close the file. Sure it's not that big of a deal now but back when these op systems were first being designed increasing the number of disk reads was frowned upon.

    You could cache the metadata with the directory listing so when the file browser lists off the files in a folder, it gets all the metadata at the same time.

    Would that be faster? Takes up more space, but space keeps getting easier to come by.

    Yep that would be faster but then aren't you essentially doing pretty much the same thing as having a file extension and hiding it from the user?

    Sorta, yeah.

    But when I think about, I can't remember or imagine many situations in which I need to change the extension of a file.

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to nobody worth talking to
    nobody worth talking to:
    Ralph:
    Is there anyone worth talking to in this forum?
    No, there isn't.

    Ah, a man of my own mind.

    You see kids, the only way to tell if someone is worth talking to is if they believe that there is no one worth talking to.

  • CDave (unregistered) in reply to praesent
    praesent:
    Sorta, yeah.

    But when I think about, I can't remember or imagine many situations in which I need to change the extension of a file.

    So wouldn't just hiding the file extension from the user solve the problem and be much easier and more cost effective than recoding the whole thing?

  • (cs) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    nobody worth talking to:
    Ralph:
    Is there anyone worth talking to in this forum?
    No, there isn't.

    Ah, a man of my own mind.

    You see kids, the only way to tell if someone is worth talking to is if they believe that there is no one worth talking to.

    If you think such a person is worth talking to, then by your own definition you aren't worth talking to.

    Shit, why am I talking to you?

Leave a comment on “Redefining Near”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article