Re: Why file content sniffing sucks

[Dalibor Petricevic <daliborp iskon hr>]

On 12/24/2003 05:25 PM, iain wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 10:59 -0500, Pat Smith wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm, dunno, dunno, oh jpg...whoops, no, it was an executable trojan
> renamed to a jpg to trick me into running it.
>
> Short less facetious answer: File content sniffing is less broken than
> any other method of IDing a filetype, and if it is broken, then the
> algorithm needs tweaking to make it better. It is not an "optional
> feature" and doesn't need to be.

I do not agree with you. But I do not disagree either.
I do not use Nautilus. Have a LOT of disk space filled to the top with 
all kinds of files (multimedia, research materials, development stuff) 
and browsing my HD(s) with nautilus is quite a HORROR.
It is slow and resource expensive.

Point'n'click -> wait(wait...), hope HD will not die -> scroll,skim -+
 ^                                                                   |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

I understand that content based file recognizing is potentialy cool 
stuff but for the reasons I just explained - I DO NOT LIKE IT. Period.
I do not NEED it as well. So, making it "optional feature" makes some 
sense to me since I could use simple file browser WITHOUT all the Bells 
and Whistles.

And another thing:
'It is not an "optional feature" and doesn't need to be'
I respect your opinion but making such a rocksolid statement?
Please, think twice. It's a resource hog.

--
Dalibor Petricevic
Iskon Internet d.d.