• MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Never understood why Windows’ explorer hides extension by default. Does MS fear it would confuse their users?

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, they think their users will be confused by and accidentally remove extensions. To be fair that might happen sometimes but it’s nowhere near worth it

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        They already have a confirmation box when you try to change the extension. And could just as easily move it into another column where it’s harder to change (explorer was like this once, a long time ago).

        And yet, they keep hiding the on the rationale that it confuses the users. The most common thing on explorer is some user being confused because they can’t understand what clicking on a file is supposed to do, but that’s not an argument for showing them…

        So, yeah, that’s the surface-level explanation. But there’s a deeper reason.

        • Almrond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          You seriously underestimate the stupidity of 80% of windows users. They could put multiple warnings and people would still click past them without reading then bitch to their IT team when they break something.

        • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They already have a confirmation box when you try to change the extension

          I think you overestimate the average users willingness to read anything. Only thing they know is how to bitch about things not working even when they were told exactly why it’s not working/what they did (wrong)

          • towerful@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Classic ticket.
            “It’s broken, it doesn’t work”,
            “what happened?”,
            “I ran it like the instructions said, and it didn’t do anything”,
            “was there an error message?”,
            “I don’t know. Something popped up, but it was in the way so I closed it”,
            “Do it again, don’t close the error message, and tell me what it says”

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Or my mom.

              Me: Don’t just click OK without reading the message first.

              Mom: Don’t click OK. Got it.

      • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Ah, right, in the context that Windows determines filetype only on extension.

        Btw, there’s a bunch of mimeopen implementations for Linux. Is there something like that for Windows too?

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t think that anything like that exists in Windows. Generally that’s my least issue with windows honestly. It’s a POS on so many levels

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    What do you mean? linkin_park_-_numb.mp3 clearly has an extension, it’s all the other files that don’t!

  • iiGxC@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    At a conference recently, one person accidentally sent the organizer a pdf of their presentation with their notes underneath each slide, instead of the presentation itself, but it was super confusing because the file was “presentation.pptx.pdf” which of course got displayed by windows as “presentation.pptx”. The person who decided to hide extensions by default must be so proud of pulling off such a wide reaching prank

  • DrGunjah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not like I want to defend windows, but If it needs admin permission you usually can’t start it without confirmation.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Here’s the problem. So many legitimate things need elevation, and often multiple times in a single install. Guess what most Windows users do, when they see an elevation prompt. What do you reckon?

      • DrGunjah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Honestly I don’t think it’s that bad. I have to use sudo just as often on linux as I have to accept the elevation box on win. Win11 has some serious issues but UAC is harmless.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sudo is very different. You need to explicity enter your password. It may be cached for a short time and I’d argue that’s actually better.

          If I’m installing something, it asks for my password once but can then raise to root multiple times that’s fine.

          If I’m installing something and it asks for elevation three times, for example it needs to Install multiple drivers. It generates an automatic click when installing for many unexperienced users. It’s dangerous imo.

          It can’t really be compared to Sudo.

          • glitchdx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sudo is just clicking “ok” with extra steps, thus making adding and removing programs more annoying, thus meaning the common user will probably just be logged in as root all the time. I challenge you to change my mind.

            • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s exactely what happened in my mind when I was getting started with Linux (kind of), although it’s arguably a habit that comes from using Windows where people don’t really think about OS users and permissions

            • Burninator05@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              As a Linux beginner who has a couple of false starts into it being my daily driver I’ll say that there are two stumbling blocks left for me. Permissions “issues” is the bigger problem and some programs not being as fleshed out is the other.

          • DrGunjah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            So you think a person that would turn off UAC wouldn’t just put NOPASSWD in the sudoers? I doubt that. And even if they had to enter their pwd… Wouldn’t that just be annoying for the casual user instead of increasing security? I doubt they would be like “Oh I have to enter my pwd now, that really makes me think twice about whatever I was going to do with sudo.”

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    One time I struggled debugging a program on a clean Windows machine. For some reason it seemed like it couldn’t find a JSON file that’s obviously in the system. I could even open the file on my own and view its contents.

    Turns out after much frustration that the file was actually a json.txt file. I didn’t notice because the extension was hidden, so I only saw .json and thought it was fine.

  • abcd@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can’t imagine how much I hate this setting. A couple of weeks ago I helped a guy install some specific software on a windows machine provided by the customer. It’s like one exe with a config file. Pretty basic. My instructions were:

    1. Copy the exe to a specific path
    2. Create a new text file in the same path and copy paste this provided text into the file
    3. Rename file to abc.xml

    The exe was throwing errors because of the missing config file. Of course the filename was abc.xml.txt 💩

  • Godnroc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m literally trying to get into Linux and one of the first things was installing software, which involves copying and running random bits of code from whatever website has the highest search result. I would say a lot of software is running code you have no idea what it does.

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Of all the reasons to be like “Windows bad, Linux good!” This one doesn’t really hit.

    Of all the actual differences, this is the one people think makes Linux superior? This is just a circle jerk lol.

    • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Honestly: Yes. It’s an example that perfectly encapsulates how windows “as a concept” actively babies and dumbs down its users. I the 00’s, nobody had a problem with file extensions, but now that we’re working with users that have grown up with computers we suddenly need to remove them because they’re “too confusing”?

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You don’t love heading to the terminal to add the executable flag and run it?