Slashdot Mirror
File Extensions And Monopolies
A_Non_Moose sent us an article from Salon that talks about how file extensions are one of the tools used by Microsoft to extend their mind and market share. It's a very simple idea but its honestly something I'd never thought about. Definitely worth a read, and a few neurons to realize how its really the simplest of things that will guarantee that this monopoly isn't stopped even if Microsoft's deep pockets didn't let them buy the law.
That is still available, if you hold down Shift as you right-click.
Remember when Netscape and IE fought for .html and URL rights EVERY time you opened them?
RealPlayer, Winamp, Winzip, photoshop, even stupid ass AOL all do this . . .
Installation defaults of all these apps try and steal file extensinos away from programs. Its just a matter of knowing what boxes to uncheck during the installation. Ordinary users simply dont know what they're clicking through during an install.
Once a program gets a hold of an extension its almost impossible for a normal user to fix it. You cant expect users to know where to reassign file extension ownership (in the file association tab under folder options).
This "attempt" at a monopoly through file extensions is something that would only be successful for those who know nothing about the OS at all. Using Win2k as we speak, right clicking on any file and going to "Open with" seems easy enough. Better yet, it has a check box of "use this program to open up the file as default". Very easy. Of course, if no one bothers to look for it, I'm sure it can be considered hard.
I agree that Microsoft does things specifically to retain a monopoly, but does everything it do have that purpose?
I doubt it.
We don't need no stinkin' file extensions!
Really? You don't put ".c" at the end of C source files? Hmmm. I used those kind of extensions under UNIX ten years ago.
This is just plain ridiculous... I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but saying their anti-competitive because people would have to spend about 5 min learning how to change a setting, but because they're too stupid or lazy to do so microsoft should be forced to hold their hand while they do it?
What next... Saying that its unfair to have microsoft.com be the default home page for a newly installed copy of ie just because some idiot might want to change it but doesn't want to take the time to figure out how...???
This goes beyond a legitimate argument to just finding something to complain about because complaining about microsoft is the thing to do.
Ben
Scott Rosenberg, the author of the Salon piece, says Windows "makes you go on a mad hunt through menus and folders and options to find the dialogue box that lets you [change the app that opens a given file type]". Well, yes, it does, unless you shift-rightclick a file and use the "Open With..." option.
:-).
This doesn't really weaken Rosenberg's argument, of course, because this is just one of the zillion and three Windows shortcut thingies that Joe Average doesn't know about. Joe's no more likely to use this than he is to fish his way through to the long-form File Types dialogue. But all of us windswept and interesting Slashdotters who choose/are forced to use Windows ought to know it
Dang it, I used to use an Amiga. Directory utilities on the Amiga just looked at the darn file header. Your IFF image could be called notapicture.txt and it'd still display JUST FINE. A 1Gb footprint for WinXP (which, I hasten to add, I _am_ going to install when next I upgrade my Tiny God), and it still can't do that?!
Come to think of it, that'd be an anti-Sircam-ish sort of feature. "You have attempted to open a file whose extension is PIF, but which appears to be an ordinary executable. That's odd. Would you like to check this file against the new and wonderful Microsoft Proprietary Crushing All Opposition Virus Database to see if it's one of the many things that takes advantage of our monopoly almost as well as we do?"
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/10/08/file _monopoly/print.html
should do the trick
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
- I've spent months trying to figure out how to turn of auto-indenting in numbered lists within Word 2000 with no success.
- Using typeid() and other RTTI features is disabled by default in Visual C++ 6.0 and requires finding a very hidden, nested menu to turn it on. This took hours to find.
In general most of their products seem to lack a good Human Computer Interaction factor. But to go as far as calling bad design, some sort of attempt to keep a monopoly seems rather excessive to me, especially since it's fixed in Windows 2000 so that right-clicking on a file brings up the shortcut menu complete with an option that says "Open With..." where you can specify what program to open the file with and if you want the program permanently associated with that file extension.Ugh. I'm sick of programs fighting each other for the user's attention. Who would buy a blender that detected other blenders in the house and tried to disable them? Should my Sony TV ask me every day if it should take over the remote control for my Magnavox? Why do we put up with this?
We should have a file typing system that incorporates the creating company/software package into it, like how UPC symbols list COMPANY/PRODUCT_NO so both Jiffy and Food Lion can both sell peanut butter and the register knows the difference. That way Joe Shmoe can double-click on his RealMP3 and it won't open in WMP.
http://kered.org
My mom is a competent user. But never in a lifetime would she know how to reassociate a file type. She has a crutch in that she can call me and I can either talk her through her problems or go visit her.
I'm continually stunned by the "expected level" of expertise the industry assumes (or fails to live up to). Case in point: the millions of new DSL users with cheap PC's and 24/7 access. My best friend has had me over twice now to fix his machine from malicious ad/spyware stuffed in his registry.
Just how are people supposed to know this stuff? Where are they supposed to learn it?
I'm no friend of the Empire, but they do have a track record of obfuscation. Even if the answer (in 95/98) is a simple right-click, that's a skill that I bet a high percentage of users don't have or understand: "Right-click on this icon, please" [left-click] "OK, I clicked right on top of it. Now what?"
Microsoft has slowly been coming around to the idea of security throughout key configs. Why not take the "A script is accessing..." IE pop-ups and extend them to anything that touches non-app keys in the reg? And, as previously suggested, an audit app that can clearly show you what's associated where, what runs on startup for whom, and validates key DLL versions?
GTRacer
- When Konqueror is as good as IE 5.5...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
I just mailed a letter to the editor of Salon about this article before it popped up on Slashdot. I believe it is dangerous because this whole thing is really a non-issue. File-type mapping is a convience, not a curse, and the article is very misleading about how hard it is to change these mappings...
Below is the text of my letter:
---
I think Scott Rosenberg is way off the mark in his article regarding 'registered file types' for Microsoft Windows. In reality, it is not as hard to change these file mappings as he portrays.
To begin with, the user would very rarely want to change one of these file type mappings; it is the sort of action you tend to perform once and then leave alone. As it is such a rare event, it makes sense for it to be somewhere deeper within the UI than an action that you would want to perform very often. There's only so much space within the UI for quickly accessible items, and they should always be items that are used regularly by a majority of users.
Further, it is a lot easier to change these file-types than he portrays even if you want to change them. Since Windows 98, at least (I don't remember far enough back to know if Win95 supported this), you can right-click a particular file, choose "Open With.../Choose Program" and an easy-to-use dialog pops up which allows you to pick which program to use to open that file-type and even change the file mapping for that file type by choosing 'Always use this program to open these files'. Making this change is not exactly rocket science.
And lastly, while it is true that the process above may not be completely intuitive for new computer users, virtually every application released in the past five years will check the Windows registry to determine file mappings when it is launched and offer the user the option to change these mappings so that the program just launched will become the default for the file-types it supports. When this occurs, it is generally via a simple dialog box popped up when the application is launched, it is hard to argue that this interface is too difficult for users. One of Scott's own examples, RealPlayer, is adamant about informing users of file-type mappings at startup, and offering the choice to remap files to RealPlayer (using a simple Yes/No dialog), ditto for Netscape (and IE), and countless other applications.
I believe Microsoft has many questionable business practices, but file-type mapping is not one of them, and highlighting such a non-issue just detracts from the real problems via crying-wolf-syndrome.
Shift right click, or right click in 2k its quite simple. The standard complaint that users don't know what they're doing thus MS is even more evil because it doesn't pay for a class or whatever is groundless. When someone needs to change the file extension they call their PC-smart buddies or asking on a web board or newsgroup.
This would be monopolistic if MS disabled this fuction, but instead this article is perfect for the mindless MS bashing that makes slashdot look so prejudiced. There are real MS complaints and this isn't one of them.
Maybe I'll get a job at salon. "Hi I'm the Slashdot baiter and I'm thinking of writing something inflammatory about the two button mouse. Think about it dudes, Mac has one button. MS is trying to confuse people for their own ends!"
An analogy:
/*Unix*/
char fname[PATH_MAX]; strcpy( fname, "foo.c" );
char fname[9]; strcpy( fname, "foo" );
char exten[4]; strcpy( exten, ".c" );
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Rosenberg claims it's hard to change registered file types, then explains how to do it in twenty one words. Like many of you, I'm not all that impressed. (Some Windows programs, such as the wonderful IrfanView, offer to grab or give up the registered file type for various types, at installation or whenever.)
.HTM association! If you've told all your browsers to fight over the default like a pack of starving pit bulls, they'll offer to change it back and forth all too often. Otherwise, you can edit a dozen or so obscure registry entries. There's a commercial (but cheap) utility, BrowserSwitch, that doesn't do anything but this.
The real problem is, not all interesting associations can be set via Windows Explorer. Programs can tell Windows, "I want to open up a Web page" or "I want to start sending an e-mail message"; what programs do they use?
Setting "the default browser" is more than just setting the
How do you change the default mail program? I honestly have no idea. Heaven help someone with both Outlook and Eudora installed, who would prefer to use the latter.
Various movie formats can be handled by Windows Media Player, and RealPlayer, and QuickTime. Assuming Microsoft hasn't banned the latter two, how can you tell your browser which one you want?
Any solution would need to be at least partially technical. It's not clear how much of a legal solution is necessary; I'd like to hear arguments on both sides.
I agree with Rosenberg in one way: Windows users would be better off if they could make such choices more easily.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
a right-click should not be considered the primary way to get at a function
And why not? It is right there next to the Left mouse button. Why is it a less valid as a primary way to get at a function? It is only bad GUI design if you can't wrap your brain around more than one button. I suggest you unplug your keyboard and stay away from any mouse with a wheel on it.
On a Mac, without special 3rd-party hack programs (like ResEdit or Snitch), it CANNOT BE DONE AT ALL
Incorrect. Open desired application. From within application, File menu, Open, open the desired file. Now without making any changes to the file, re-save it in the same place with same filename.
Now the file's icon changes to that of the desired application. It now is "associated" with the new app.
This wasn't the most efficient approach, but it was the most obvious. The Mac often wastes computer resources and keystrokes at the expense of saving "brain-strokes". Although, often, if you look deeper, there are numerous shortcuts to do the same thing more efficiently.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Doesn't anyone drag and drop anymore? Wasn't DnD the big advantage to using a GUI?
.html file on to the text editor icon: it's open for editing. Double-click and it's opened by the default browser. Want to see it in an alternate browser? Drag it over to that icon. Drag it over to the printer icon for a hard copy.
On both my Macs and my Windows computers, I use DnD to override default file associations. Drag the
Lately, I've been using DnD to extract strings from all of the Sircam-infected Word documents that show up in my mail by dragging the attachment link embedded in the mail message on to the TextEdit icon in the OS X Dock (not that SecretPlans.doc.pif would execute anyway if I clicked on it).
Why bother with the overhead of having a GUI if you're not going to use all the features?
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
A more technical explanation:
The Mac's file system stores 2 equivalents to the file extension for each file, the type and creator codes. The type code indicates what type of file it is, the creator code indicates the application that created it. The key concept here is that on a Mac, those 2 bits of metadata are orthogonal, and with a simple file extension they cannot be without some serious filesystem hacking, which MS hasn't bothered to do.
Also worth noting that Mac OS X has most of the features this guy requests; you can remap a file's ownership from the Get Info window, and make your change global from the same location.
This, more than the evangelism that goes with the religion, is why I hate Macs.
.html file. But the machine was having none of that. It thought it knew better. "No, no", it seemed to say, "you don't want to be opening that, you don't know where it's been".
.java and .class (and even .rpm - with a cute ickle picture of tux) files look purty by drawing my own icons.
.css can have the same icon as a .php3, but another .css could have the same icon as a .png.
I was first introduced to this when I tried to open an
"Could not open the file because the application that created it wasn't found" (Right before a "Sorry a system error occurred. Error type 7. Restart" - patronising twat of a machine!)
An HTML file for fucks sake! Plain text with markup! Opens in IE, Mozilla or Simpletext. Just open the fucking file!
"Sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that, Dave."
It had a file extension. It was UTF-8. It was a plain and simple bastarding HTML file. And the Mac sat smugly. And refused to open it.
In the end I had to copy it across to a Windows machine and back.
And this guy at Salon thinks that's easier?
In Windows, whenever an app steals a file extension (which only happens during installation, not whenever I open a file), I take it right back, maybe leaving it in as an option on the context menu. I have Notepad on the SendTo menu, so I can always open anything as if were text. I can make
Can I do any such thing on a Mac? No. I'm stuck with the icon whichever app chose for it. If I save an HTML file from dreamweaver, I can't view it in IE without dragging it into an IE window. If I save it from fireworks, it has a different icon again. Very soon it gets impossible to tell the difference between files. A
And that's less confusing?
People are so blinded by Jobs-worship that they forget to realise that someone else is doing The Right Thing. A file type is as distinct from it's creator as it could possibly be. OSX is better, though. Guess what - it uses file extensions when the resource fork is missing. And it lets you change the app a particular file type opened with, relatively easy. But there can only be one app which opens a particular file type. Which is the Wrong Thing.
File types are not a Windows idea. They date from the pre-unix days. It makes it easy to tell what a file is by looking at it's name - handy on a teletype, or even by ftp. It also makes it easy to change a files meaning without changing its content (eg txt to html). It separates the content of a file from the application used to create it.
Another poster noted that you can drag a file onto any applications icon in Mac OS. So? That's not new. Windows does it, and so does KDE (I think - can't check right now).
Registered file types are not a means of Microsoft brainwashing. They are simply the best way to handle file typing (I know that sounds weird). mime-types are fine, until a file has unrecognised type, and is not so easy to change. File type and creator metadata is just plain wrong.
Remember: just because you don't have a clue, doesn't mean Bill Gates is out to brainwash you (hey, that rhymes...).
"I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
"Registered file types" are there because Windows was designed for non-techie users. It's not part of The Grand Conspiracy, since file typing is still done in Windows XP the same way it was done in Windows 95, and the way to change registered file types is still the same too. I'f they'd made it harder, I coyuld go for the argument. But they didn't--they kept it the same.
;-)
Registered file types were just a typical Microsoft hack designed to get the system to do essentially what Macs did, but without all the coding overhead and file/creator nonsense. Personally, I'm glad they cheaped out instead of doing file/creator typing, because I like to be able to change a file extension merely by clicking on the filename and changing 3 letters (after setting the newer versions of Windows to show the file extensions, of course--hiding them was another hack to be more like Mac, but a stupid one).
And the average user will never have to change what kind of program opens a certain type of file, manually. See, when you install new software on a Windows box, the new software almost always asks the user whether he wants documents with such and such extensions to open in this new application. Yes is the default and that's almost always what the user selects. No manual changes necessary. It's only computer literate people who should be tinkering around with registered file extensions anyway--because illiterate yahoos can "accidentally" make it so that double-clicking things does nothing, or opens a file in the wrong application. That's why Microsoft put the feature where it did instead of into a separate control panel, where "average" users would no doubt fsck themselves up.
Is MS evil and a predatory monopoly? Yes. Is their handling of registered file types part of their bid to rule the world? No. It's set up just like it should be--literate users know where it is, and average yokels can't ruin their systems by messing with something they shouldn't touch, and installing new apps to handle that file type will give the user the chance to change to opeining files of those types with that program. Or should we put a big shiny button in the control panel that performs a full fdisk just because that functionality is hard to find for the average bloke? No? Didn't think so. The writer of the Salon article is just blowing smoke up our collective arses at best, and at worst is a blundering moron. Nothing personal, of course...
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
If I may ask: In a postscript to your article "The Devil is in Windows' Details", you point out that it is irrelevant that the program used to open a given format can be changed by right-clicking on a file of that type, because there are many users who don't even know what right-clicking is.
That's certainly true, but at the risk of sounding like an elitist, why should we (the computer-literate people) care? It is really not that hard to learn about the "hidden" features in windows, through one's own experience or research on the Internet, or even in the Dummies books. I agree that the concept of hidden features is anti-competitive, but why should we lose any sleep over people who are, for whatever reason, unable to learn enough to make windows do what they wish? Isn't it best for them that they aren't faced with choices that could tax their limited understanding of technology beyond the breaking point? You and I, sir, and the legions of other competant users, will use whatever software and operating systems we like, no matter what Microsoft does. It just seems to me that people who are being hurt the most by "hidden" features are those who shouldn't really be playing with them anyway, because they have no idea what they are doing.
I know that sounds - well, assinine, to put it mildly - but I'd like to cite an example from my work. I am a part-time computer tech at my high school, and one of my duties (and hobbies, when I am not on the clock) is to assist teachers when they have technical problems. About half the calls I get that don't boil down to "You didn't plug in the power cord" are related to incidents where teachers install some new word processor/media player/whatever that a friend (or email spam that sounded "friendly") recommended. All of a sudden, "My Microsoft looks different!" they cry, and they are hopelessly confused.
Most users really do benefit from using an OS that limits what they can do, because most users lack the initiative to learn how to use a less constricting system. Being held by the hand allows computer illiterates to do, for the most part, what they want to do (word processing/games/web browsing). For those who are capable of a greater degree of computer literacy, the modern versions of windows are simply not appropriate - they are not targeted at us. For computer-literate users to complain Windows over-limits the user is like a racing bycyclist to complain that training wheels greatly limit his/her speed - it's true, but what the heck is he doing with training wheels?
BeOS and Linux are both more powerful, inexpensive operating systems without the penchant Windows has for assisting Microsoft megalomania. I would assert that a user who feels constrained by windows should simply switch - and if he/she has documents or other files Linux or Beos can't run, to complain is inappropriate - find or start a project that is working on what you need, and help it however you can. Don't just sit there.
I'm the stranger...posting to