4 ms·

This solution only works if you believe no filename extensions will ever be created (or popularized) from here on out. So, instead of hoping for that, why not

This solution only works if you believe no filename extensions will ever be created (or popularized) from here on out. So, instead of hoping for that, why not search for solutions that actually will stand the test of time and aren't as fragile as "freeze the filename extensions!" Also one of the really funny parts of this entire debate is the focus on filenames when most average people aren't even aware of their existence. Windows and Mac have hidden them by default for years now. It's only an image if it shows the image thumbnail, it's only a folder if it shows the folder icon, and so on. I bring this up because it shows how fragile this solution is. You can't get people to adhere to the rule of looking out for ".zip" if they don't even know it exists!

thomasahle 3y ago
> This solution only works if you believe no filename extensions will ever be created (or popularized) from here on out. It works if you just don't believe a filename extension like .com or .net will be popular in the future. Personally I don't think they will, as people rightly find it annoying if the clash with TLDs.
- hfkwer 3y ago
  [dead]
- waboremo 3y ago
  Not much of a solution if it requires hoping something doesn't become popular in the future. That's more like a hot potato you've just passed on.
  - thomasahle 3y ago
    In fact, if something like a .net file does become popular, it just shows that people don't care as much as I assumed, and so the problem has solved itself.
- schwartzworld 3y ago
  Would you settle for it being popular in the past? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    That predates widespread use of the internet. Also by the time Internet Explorer took off, COM files ceased to be relevant. So no, COM files aren't relevant at all in this discussion.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - schwartzworld 3y ago
      My first internet computer ran dos and Windows 3.1 and it was chock full of .com executables.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - soraminazuki 3y ago
        Almost no one had internet access back then and Internet Explorer didn't even exist at the time of Windows 3.1's release. So still not relevant.

thomasahle 3y ago

> This solution only works if you believe no filename extensions will ever be created (or popularized) from here on out. It works if you just don't believe a filename extension like .com or .net will be popular in the future. Personally I don't think they will, as people rightly find it annoying if the clash with TLDs.

hfkwer 3y ago
[dead]
waboremo 3y ago
Not much of a solution if it requires hoping something doesn't become popular in the future. That's more like a hot potato you've just passed on.
- thomasahle 3y ago
  In fact, if something like a .net file does become popular, it just shows that people don't care as much as I assumed, and so the problem has solved itself.
schwartzworld 3y ago
Would you settle for it being popular in the past? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_file
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  That predates widespread use of the internet. Also by the time Internet Explorer took off, COM files ceased to be relevant. So no, COM files aren't relevant at all in this discussion.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - schwartzworld 3y ago
    My first internet computer ran dos and Windows 3.1 and it was chock full of .com executables.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      Almost no one had internet access back then and Internet Explorer didn't even exist at the time of Windows 3.1's release. So still not relevant.