
C:\ONGRTLNS.OSX - gthank
http://daringfireball.net/2009/10/congrtlns-osx
======
Timothee
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)

~~~
pavel_lishin
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.

~~~
pyre
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.

------
allenp
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.

~~~
roc
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.

~~~
CrLf
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.

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

------
NathanKP
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.

------
jsz0
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.

~~~
jodrellblank
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_

~~~
jsz0
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.

------
9oliYQjP
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 :)

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

------
raintrees
"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.

------
colbyolson
Could someone explain what his title is supposed to mean?

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

~~~
colbyolson
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>

------
bensummers
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.

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

~~~
bensummers
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.

~~~
GHFigs
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.

