Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.internet.services.video.youtube > #393

Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025/7/30 8:42:3, R.Wieser wrote:
> J.P. ,
> 
>>> https://superuser.com/questions/1632295/creating-a-file-with-no-extension-with-right-click-on-windows-10
>>>
>>> The whole "trick" seems to be to press ctrl-A to select the whole 
>>> filename.
>>
>> That method - running the file through a text editor so you can use
>> quote marks when saving
> 
> Thats not what I tried to suggest.

No, not you, but one of the people in the discussion someone posted a
link to suggested that method.

> 
> You mentioned that, when creating a new document, you could edits the 
> filename itself, but not the extension.  At that moment try pressing ctrl-A 
> and see if that results in the extension also getting selected for editing.

If I did say that, it's not what I _meant_ to say. What I _meant_ to say
is that, by default or after you've added a few bits of software, the
"New" option in File Manager still only offer a list of predefined
filetypes, all of which of course come with their own extension; I was
wondering if there was any way to add to that list the option to add a
new filetype with an arbitrary (or no) extension.

Given that you _can_ only create files from the predefined list of
types, I _can_ relatively easily edit the extension: the new filename
appears with the before-the-dot part _highlighted_, since in most case
people _don't_ want to change the extension, but it's easy to move the
cursor (or whatever) to edit the extension if you want to. (At least it
is with "hide extensions" turned off; I usually turn that off so soon
after starting using a system that I don't know if you can edit
extensions when hidden.)

> 
> ... but reading on I think I made an assumption which has made a fool outof 
> me :
> 
>> The better method is to ensure "show extensions [even] for known 
>> filetypes"
>> is selected, then you can edit including the extensions without running 
>> the
>> files through anything.
> 
> I /assumed/ that you saw, after creating a new document, something like 
> "[filename].ext", with only the part beween the "[" and "]" being editable. 

Well, only that part is _highlighted_, but you can move onto the
extension easily enough.

> Which, from my POV, didn't seem too strange, as most people will want to 
> keep the extension when changing the filename.
> 
> The ctrl-a "trick" was, I assumed, to change the above into "[filename.ext]" 
> (making the full filename editable).
> 
> But yes, its quite possible that me having changed the OS configuration when 
> I installed it to always show extensions just /might/ have something to do 
> with me always seeing and being able to edit the full filename. <whistle>
> 
>> That should have been the default for that option for decades, ever
>> since black hats started to use double extensions to hide malware.
> 
> I do not agree with you there.
> 
> Most users are just that, *users*.  They know which icon they need to click 
> on their desktop, but often no more than that.   They really need to be 
> protected against their own absense of knowledge (the same reason for why 
> certain OS related files are hidden).  Making sure that they can change a 
> filename but not inadvertedly throw the extension away (after which the icon 
> changes and they cannot find the file back and/or double-click it to open 
> it) is one of those protections.

They need to be protected against inadvertently changing extensions,
granted. That's why, if you have hiding turned off (i. e. extensions
visible) and you select rename (e. f. with F2), only the name part is
_highlighted_.

But they also need protecting against malware with "double extensions",
such as .doc.exe (or perhaps .txt.com more likely when this practice
started). Such malware would, if extensions are hidden, just appear as
.doc or .txt files; sure, the user will have a moment of puzzlement at
seeing those extensions when s/he thought they'd turned them off, but
might well still double-click them. I think actually running malware is
more dangerous than just changing an extension - the latter can usually
be fixed by asking someone more experienced if they can't find the file,
but the former might do goodness knows what, certainly nothing benign or
its writer wouldn't have done it.>
> Remember all those stories about users which tried to "clean up" their 
> 'puters by throwing all files away they did not recognise - and than 
> complained that their 'puter would not start anymore ?  Yeah
> that happens when you "clean up" the OS folder that way.  :-)

Yes. And those stories of all those users who clicked on (say)
sharapova.jpg (I think that was the name) thinking they'd see a picture
of a tennis player.>
> But for "power"-users ?   Certainly.  But they are knowledgable enough to 
> disable such hand-holding protections in the configuration just after having 
> installed the OS.   As yours truly has done, and absolutily forgotten about. 
> :-|
> 
> As for the "black hat" example you've given ?   AFAIK the OS tries to warn 
> you with a popup when you try to start downloaded executables.  What does 

Yes, it does these days. (Though trivial to bypass by moving the
executables from somewhere other than the internet. But probably saves
_some_ malware from being run, if it wasn't for ...)

> the run-of-the-mill user ?   Figure out which choice makes the popup go away 
> and than blindly apply it, without even reading what it tries to tell them 

... that.) I used to have a quote something like "The difficulty in
making things idiot-proof, is that idiots can be so damn ingenious."

> (yeah, I have been shoulder-surfing a number of such users, just to figure 
> out what went "wrong" on their machine - a popup comes up and within half a 
> second its been clicked away). :-\

Very true. And not just they, but we do it too - the "ohnosecond"
between dismissing and thinking "_what_ did that say?".

> 
> As such I expect one of the future Windows versions to have a default 
> configuration that prohibits the user from running any executable (of any 
> kind) that has somehow been copied into it (downloaded, thumbdrive, etc).

We sure seem to be going that way. The eternal nannying increase is one
of the main reasons I hate "up"grading!>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
> 
> 
John
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Heaven forbid today's audience should feel bombarded with information or
worse, lectured. Dont'scare the horses by waving facts around.
- David Butcher, RT 2014/11/29-12/5

Back to comp.internet.services.video.youtube | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-28 18:18 +0100
  Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-28 19:10 +0100
    Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-28 22:18 +0200
      Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 01:37 +0100
        Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 09:10 +0200
          Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 18:46 +0100
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-29 13:58 -0400
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 20:21 +0200
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-29 15:20 -0400
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 21:47 +0200
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 22:38 +0100
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 08:57 +0200
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:02 -0400
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:54 +0200
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-07-30 14:24 +0100
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:55 -0400
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-07-30 13:44 -0400
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 23:33 -0400
        Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 10:03 +0200
          Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-29 10:15 +0200
          Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-29 22:51 +0100
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:42 +0200
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 10:02 -0400
                Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-07-30 17:04 +0200
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-30 21:49 +0100
            Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-07-30 18:15 +0000
              Re: Creating new files of indeterminate sort? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-07-30 23:37 -0400

csiph-web