C:\ONGRTLNS.OSX | Hacker News Reader

C:\ONGRTLNS.OSX

daringfireball.net

41 pointsgthank26 comments

I suppose that it's really a matter of preference (as mentioned towards the end), because I personally dislike the way, for example, some PNG files might open in Preview or possibly Photoshop if I created them with PS.

Recent case in point: I received HTML files from a designer that opened in Dreamweaver because that's what she used, but I really just wanted to open it in Safari. (I never use Dreamweaver)

"matter of preference" == "a case for configurability"

Personally, I'm with you. I like the simplicity of the one-app-per-extension model. When I want to edit something, it's easy enough to open it in TextMate.

I guess it would be nice if files kept track of individual users' preferences. In fact, I wish Finder would do the same on network shares; I hate opening a network folder and realizing that one of my coworkers has changed the way things are organized.

But that seems like the kind of tiny feature that's a lot of work for not a lot of reward.

Doesn't seem like it would be a lot of work. Just tell Finder to ignore folder/file-specific settings when accessing files/folders on a network share. That way all preferences just go to your defaults, though you also can't change the preferences and 'make then stick' it might be a compromise solution.

I think the use of an invisible identifier to label the mapping between a file and it's app is a really non-intuitive interface. Getting rid of files without extensions and making it dead simple to know what will happen if you open a file improve the experience, even if it seems backwards, clunky, or non-sophisticated. I think this change is a really mature decision on Apple's part even if it isn't the traditional Mac way of doing things.

In the old days creator codes weren't invisible because they determined the file's icon. Now that icons are thumbnails that's no longer the case.

At the same time: extensions are a poor way to communicate with the user, largely arbitrary and very fragile.

If they were going to make a change in the name of consistency, they could have done better.

It used to be the case that the file's icon represented the file's type. But with icon previews, that's no longer the case, so the extension is the only visible means of conveying the file type.

They could overlay a small line of text or sub-icon over the actual icon, though.

From the article:

His closing paragraph is technically accurate, but is completely at odds with the article’s title and opening premise — unless he meant that Apple has “fixed” creator codes in the same sense that one “fixes” a dog.

Scathing, but a very reasonable estimation of Apple's extremely poor explanation of why they did away with creator codes.

Good article until the last paragraph where he gave in to the temptation to make a sensationalistic statement. If Windows does indeed offer this functionality I've never seen it. Not in Windows 3.0, not in 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, or 7. You get a default application per file type and can choose to open any filetype with any other application on a per access basis. To the best of my knowledge you cannot even statically assign a specific filename.type to open with a different application. Everything goes by the filetype extension in Windows. If I'm wrong I apologize to the author in advance.

What sensationalistic statement? If Windows offers what functionality? He only mentions Windows twice in the whole article, both times comparing Snow Leopard to Windows 3.0

Unless my reading comprehension is extremely poor today he is saying Snow Leopard has the same level of filetype functionality as Windows 3.0 which is simply not true.

Just a little factoid, because I think a lot of readers here might be too young to know the significance of the title of this rant. When Windows 95 was released, Apple took out ads in major newspapers worldwide with the text C:\ONGRTLNS.W95.

I remember, because back then I was a 15 year old rabid Apple hater who stumbled on the ad while browsing the business section of the newspaper before heading out for school and the ad got under my skin :)

I think the lesson to take from this is that metadata is always harder and more important than you think.

"I just alternate-click and choose Open With Other Application" he said in his best Marie Antoinette voice...

Although I would answer that I would normally ruffle my feathers when a software company chooses for me what my actions mean, in reality I have always just lived with the behavior. Doesn't that come with the territory? I didn't write it myself, so I learn the rules of the road according to this system...

In Windows, I learned to alternate click most of the time so that I could choose the desired behavior instead of trying to remember Microsoft's rules (i.e. drag to same drive letter=move, drag to different=copy).

I am thankful Ubuntu offers at least one of the same alternate click choices.

Edit: According to the above, then, it seems I would be "taught" by Snow Leopard to open the app first, then choose what resource to work on with that app. Same work-around I use in Windows and Ubuntu.

Could someone explain what his title is supposed to mean?

http://fsinfo.noone.org/~abe/pictures/windoof/whymac.png

Granted that picture doesnt really explain much, but it did get me on the right path[1], so thanks.

    Remember the days when DOS/Windows file name restrictions were a target of mockery? 
    E.g. the sarcastic “C:\ONGRTLNS.W95” full-page newspaper ads Apple ran when Microsoft launched Windows 95. 
    With the iPod Shuffle, Windows’ limitations are now ours, too.

[1] http://daringfireball.net/2005/02/firewire_hysteria

While Mr Gruber might not use any computer other than a Mac, the rest of the world does. There's a lot of value in following the lowest common denominator in this case -- encoding the type in the filename isn't a bad way of ensuring the type never gets lost.

We're not talking about file types; we're talking about which app is used to open a file.

His headline and the gibe about using technology from the Windows 3.1 era is about encoding filetypes in filenames and how you handle the consequences.

That's not what the article is about. Mac OS X already used file extensions to derive UTIs in the absence of type & creator codes. It's a fine and practical replacement for type codes, in that they both describe the content, but they do nothing to replace creator codes, which can't be derived from an extension. There is no interoperability gain, because again extensions were already the primary way to determine type and application binding for things without type/creator codes, which means everything from other systems.

The point is that the new way is significantly more limited than the old way, which was the way the Mac had always worked. Understandably, this can be seen as a step backwards.

encoding the type in the filename isn't a bad way of ensuring the type never gets lost

The most likely way of losing the type is surely if a user accidentally (or maliciously) changes the filename extension. That is why Windows pops up an alarmist warning if a user tries to change their file extension. Whereas a largely invisible (but still changeable) attribute is much less likely to 'get lost' due to user intervention.

You don't have to have a UI which exposes it to the user as two bits of dot separated metadata. In fact, Windows doesn't by default.

My point was, given the reality of the systems we have now, embracing it is a decent plan.

Why can't one strive for better? Given the reality of prevalent general ignorance why not embrace it and eradicate writing in schools, replacing it with touch-tying lessons?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com