29 ms·

Excellent, this will surely cause no confusion with macOS executables.

by dmart 8y ago

ryannevius 8y ago
I'm not sure how a .app TLD could be mistaken for a .app executable.
- sakuronto 8y ago
  You severely overestimate the technical skill of the average user. And even people who know their way around computers rely heavily on patterns in order to identify relationships, so a strong pattern without an underlying relationship is, of course, going to lead to confusion.
  - untog 8y ago
    The average user has no idea that the .app file extension even exists. macOS does not expose it in Finder.
  - gsich 8y ago
    Average user is able to learn.
    - gsich 8y ago
      I see, the downvote confirms the truth.
      - dang 8y ago
        Please don't do this here; the site guidelines ask you not to: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - JeremyBanks 8y ago
    Referring to Mac applications as "Mail dot app" is a thing that only geeks do in the first place.
- sam_goody 8y ago
  Apple Finder (magnify glass in top right) by default will search both local executables on your computer, and (as a second best option) the net. If a user sees *.app in finder, they might be very well getting something they don't expect.
hyder_m29 8y ago
Just like .com and windows executables, eh?
sinatra 8y ago
Just like .com didn’t cause confusion with DOS and Windows .com executables.
- raimue 8y ago
  Just like .sh didn't cause confusion with the .sh extension for shell scripts.
  - adtac 8y ago
    Except, .sh means nothing in particular in Linux. It just so happens people use .sh for shell scripts.
    - cat199 8y ago
      It just so happens people unnecessarily use .sh for shell scripts.
      - sbarre 8y ago
        I think it's used for UX reasons actually.. "Oh, I see this is a shell script" when listing a directory..
      - hk__2 8y ago
        Why would that be unnecessary? Are we supposed to use extension-less filenames and then guess their type every time by looking at their content?
        carapace 8y ago
        Should URLs end in .html?
        hk__2 8y ago
        Web servers respond to your requests stating what type of content they’re sending you. There’s no such thing for files on disk.
gsich 8y ago
Files vs. URLs. Windows-Users had it similar with .com.
aussieguy123 8y ago
evil.co/malware.app

Excellent, this will surely cause no confusion with macOS executables.

by dmart 8y ago

Excellent, this will surely cause no confusion with macOS executables.

ryannevius 8y ago

I'm not sure how a .app TLD could be mistaken for a .app executable.

sakuronto 8y ago
You severely overestimate the technical skill of the average user. And even people who know their way around computers rely heavily on patterns in order to identify relationships, so a strong pattern without an underlying relationship is, of course, going to lead to confusion.
- untog 8y ago
  The average user has no idea that the .app file extension even exists. macOS does not expose it in Finder.
- gsich 8y ago
  Average user is able to learn.
  - gsich 8y ago
    I see, the downvote confirms the truth.
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't do this here; the site guidelines ask you not to: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- JeremyBanks 8y ago
  Referring to Mac applications as "Mail dot app" is a thing that only geeks do in the first place.
sam_goody 8y ago
Apple Finder (magnify glass in top right) by default will search both local executables on your computer, and (as a second best option) the net. If a user sees *.app in finder, they might be very well getting something they don't expect.

hyder_m29 8y ago

Just like .com and windows executables, eh?

sinatra 8y ago

Just like .com didn’t cause confusion with DOS and Windows .com executables.

raimue 8y ago
Just like .sh didn't cause confusion with the .sh extension for shell scripts.
- adtac 8y ago
  Except, .sh means nothing in particular in Linux. It just so happens people use .sh for shell scripts.
  - cat199 8y ago
    It just so happens people unnecessarily use .sh for shell scripts.
    - sbarre 8y ago
      I think it's used for UX reasons actually.. "Oh, I see this is a shell script" when listing a directory..
    - hk__2 8y ago
      Why would that be unnecessary? Are we supposed to use extension-less filenames and then guess their type every time by looking at their content?
      - carapace 8y ago
        Should URLs end in .html?
        hk__2 8y ago
        Web servers respond to your requests stating what type of content they’re sending you. There’s no such thing for files on disk.

gsich 8y ago

Files vs. URLs. Windows-Users had it similar with .com.

aussieguy123 8y ago

evil.co/malware.app