-83
votes
|
|
7
5
90
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Akerbos
wrote on the 10 Mar 10 at 19:09
|
|
|
Extensions have no meaning for Ubuntu, so why should it handle them?
Since you are a new user, so I suggest you look up MIME types. Ubuntu uses them to distinguish between file types. In short: it consider's the file's content, not its name, what is obviously a much better choice.
This is true for all *nix I ever used, but you never know ;)
|
|
|
|
^true, but i am not asking for the fact that they have no meaning, i want to know how to HIDE THEM so i DON'T SEE THEM
|
|
|
Actually, ubuntu does "kind of" use the fileextensions. The big one is openoffice, all OO files (odt, ott, odc, etc) are actually renamed zip files (try opening one with archive manager to see). If you rename those files to .zip (or another OO format), the icon will actually change.
What ubuntu does is check the mimetype, then if the results are ambiguous (zip, tar, gz, etc) it looks to see if there is a file extension.
|
|
|
The hiding of file extensions is a big security hole in MS Windows, do not duplicate it in Ubuntu!
|
|
veko
wrote on the 11 Mar 10 at 10:46
|
|
|
File extensions are necessary, when one has several files of different types but with similar names. This can happen when one is converting images (jpg->png, raw->jpg), documents (doc->odt, ps->pdf), etc.
Adding an option to hide the extension might be fine, but to my understanding, on Linux extension is really a part of a filename. Moreover, you can have files that contain several dots, e.g. backup.tar.gz, or backup.2010-02-15.tar.gz. Now which of those "extensions" should be hidden?
|
|
Akerbos
wrote on the 11 Mar 10 at 17:06
|
|
|
|
I strongly agree with mikaelstaldal. Most important, what will be identified as extension? It is usual to have files like sometext.old or even some.cfg.old.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 12 Mar 10 at 04:21
|
|
|
Pfft mikaelstaldal. Mind to prove your "security hole"? In theory perhaps.. In reality on linux, people can probably put a jpg in a .tar file, and mark it as executable.. Extensions are an extra security policy, and help provide BETTER security actually.
Extensions are also damned handy to easily identify which application is required to open the file.
But we've had this discussion before, and Darwin Survivor is correct actually. The behavior seemed to be fixed probably 2 years ago
|
|
|
Hiding of file extensions is a big security hole in MS Windows because you can name a malicious trojan executable to something like "CuteGirl.jpg.exe", and the clueless user will see it as "CuteGirl.jpg" and think it's a JPEG image.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 13 Mar 10 at 05:34
|
|
|
Sorry.. You are correct.. I must have skimmed the comment wrong.. Maybe though, what we could do is hide fake double extensions too (by default)..
So by default, xxx.jpg.exe should be shown as xxx.exe
And then also allow users to hide all file extensions, so that would be xxx
|
|
|
I don't think that would be a good idea either.
Don't try to be too clever here, whatever you do it's a big risk of creating security hole and/or confusing users.
Always display the full filename.
|
|
|
|
@Auzy security aside, that would display all my "file.cfg.bak" files to "file.bak" :(
|
Post your comment
|
