[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I still don't get it. How do all those settings get to be "right" in the first place? Are we assuming that the hacker doesn't know how to make a file from scratch? Or is it part of a system that outlaws any documents that don't come from the mothership?

It seems like this would only perpetuate a false sense of security.

Well, if the file claims to be a JPG you can try setting the metadata to a JPG using some additional mechanisms and seeing if the checksums have changed? This is basically a challenge/response type thing, the basis of many security principles.

The verification process would obviously be a little tricky, but the checksum of that file is a key part of this. The last thing we want is some malware author changing his executable to a JPG, setting the UTI or whatever other metadata to say its a JPG (or screwing with your existing files by changing metadata and injecting crap), and for the OS to say "what type of file are you Mr. UTI? JPG? Okay, roger that.. launching you! ... Hey wait a-hole, you said you were a JPG! "

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

In my case it is because I can't

Ok pretend I said "learn" instead of "speak"

I've really lost the thread in the Esperanto analogy...

Ok I can remind you. Your answer to creator codes breaking on (FAT) thumb drives was "just use HFS instead of FAT." Your solution wouldn't work 99+% of the time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, if the file claims to be a JPG you can try setting the metadata to a JPG using some additional mechanisms and seeing if the checksums have changed? This is basically a challenge/response type thing, the basis of many security principles.

Why would you expect it to change? IOW, if a person is creating a file to look like a JPG, what would ever cause any of these properties to say anything other than JPG?

It seems like you're relying on something to have set these properties accurately in the first place, and I don't see why you can make that assumption.

The verification process would obviously be a little tricky, but the checksum of that file is a key part of this. The last thing we want is some malware author changing his executable to a JPG, setting the UTI or whatever other metadata to say its a JPG (or screwing with your existing files by changing metadata and injecting crap), and for the OS to say "what type of file are you Mr. UTI? JPG? Okay, roger that.. launching you! ... Hey wait a-hole, you said you were a JPG! "

The first-run alert we have now pretty much covers this already. If you didn't know something was an app rather than a doc, it tells you.

And I can't imagine how changing other legit files' metadata helps the hacker... am I missing something?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok pretend I said "learn" instead of "speak"

Right, well regarding USB drives, there's quite a lot of people I know (and according to Google, people I don't know) that format their USB drives in HFS+, so there seem to be some students of Esperanto out there.

Esperanto is a fine language. Prettier than Klingon

Ok I can remind you. Your answer to creator codes breaking on (FAT) thumb drives was "just use HFS instead of FAT." Your solution wouldn't work 99+% of the time.

Thanks, and I agree with you, there's no way of preserving creator codes on a FAT32 drive - anything else is to me at least personal preference (i.e. how one formats a drive) and for my part I'll leave it at that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's hard to disagree with that! There are people who would say that the best version of Word for the Mac was 5.1 (or whatever that popular version of 5 was). It is a mistake to take for granted that anything new is universally superior to even stuff that is much, much older.

Case in point:

Windows 8 Explorer. Finally a real "pro" interface! These guys REALLY listen to their customers! I wish Apple did that!





http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...-explorer.aspx

[Doofy]

I'm sorry mods but that ^ is the kind of thing people should be banned for. I could have gone a whole lifetime without looking at Windoze again and look what Spher does. That's just plain offensive. BAN HIM!!!!

[Thorzdad]

What's really nuts about that msdn blog entry are the comments from, I assume, kool-ade-drunk developers. The denial is breathtaking. How anyone could look at that ribbon UI and say it's fantastic is beyond me.

[OreoCookie]

Even MS fanboi Paul Thurrot is not so sure whether this is the right direction for the Explorer. It's amazing to me that they still try to cram everything in a tool bar, it's complete overload. Even an experienced user will have trouble finding and targeting the right icon quickly.

[Spheric Harlot]

And that's One out of Five views.

[besson3c]

It's all about what the defaults and the overall implementation is going to be though, right? I mean, the Finder has a customizable toolbar and it appears that everything you can do through the menus is also available through the toolbar. It's just that Apple gives you a slimmed-down set of Finder controls and makes you add the others you want yourself. In addition, in the Finder the menu items are available for those that don't want to do this or haven't found that they can do this.

If Microsoft still provides menu options as an alternate, and/or makes it *really* freaking clear that you can add functionality you want, and ships with a slimmed down set of defaults with either scenario, this could work, I guess?

This speaks nothing to the aesthetics of this and the layout of this particular cool, which is a whole other thing. I'm just speaking to the overall concept.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't know... all those colors are hurting my delicate sensibilities. If only there was a way for it to all be monotone!



Also: Finder toolbar only has 17 options, and 3 of those are for empty space (counting the separator). That pic has 24 toolbar items, times 5 views. There's a whole lot more "kitchen sink" in there than is possible with Finder. Like "invert selection?" Who has ever used that? A principle of software design is hiding complexity, making complex tasks seem simple. Apple goes overboard with that, admittedly. But MS's ribbons go not far enough with it.

Edit: so in summary I basically agree: the set could be streamlined as a whole, by using a smaller default set. But that's not the whole problem, each item also needs some streamlining too, like many of those buttons could be combined by being context-aware (for example). Why do you need "delete" when you have "cut?"

[besson3c]

What about options buried in the little gear widget in the Finder, did you count those?

[Spheric Harlot]

They're in a menu, which is precisely the point.

There is no conceivable user without some disorder whom that ribbon design would be ideal for.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If Microsoft still provides menu options as an alternate, and/or makes it *really* freaking clear that you can add functionality you want, and ships with a slimmed down set of defaults with either scenario, this could work, I guess?

I take it you've never actually used Ribbon before? There are no menus. The ribbon replaces both menus and toolbars. My company upgraded to Win7 and Office '10 a couple weeks back so I'm currently suffering having to re-learn the location of every command now that all of the menu items I was used to are hidden in a ribbon somewhere.

[Stogieman]

"Who doesn't want to use the ribbon?"

[The Final Dakar]

Jesus, is your internet set to 1998? That is the worst screencap I've seen in years.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The ribbon has lots of popup menus (looks like). Counting whatever they contain would only increase the disparity.

[Stogieman]

[Uncle Skeleton]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I take it you've never actually used Ribbon before? There are no menus. The ribbon replaces both menus and toolbars. My company upgraded to Win7 and Office '10 a couple weeks back so I'm currently suffering having to re-learn the location of every command now that all of the menu items I was used to are hidden in a ribbon somewhere.

I haven't. If the ribbon is the only option, then I'm definitely not a fan.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Case in point:

Windows 8 Explorer. Finally a real "pro" interface! These guys REALLY listen to their customers! I wish Apple did that!

LOL, you can say about the Finder what you want, but compared to M$ explorer, I'm still a happy camper.

-t