<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'Droid Sans Mono'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">On Tuesday 24 February 2009, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Alexander Larsson <alexl@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:45 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > >> For the record: even if we requrie this specific file type to be > >> executable AND provide a binfmt launcher (please don't add the > >> xdg-open shebang, it's an ugly workaround), it still does not solve > >> much in "the big picture". It's still perfectly possible to create a > >> desktop file, mark it as executable then archive it and send it to > >> your friend (naming it pr0n.tar.gz). > > > > Then they could as well just zip up a normal executable and name it > > something like "porn.jpeg ". At this level of behaviour its not really > > something you can protect against. > > It's much harder to pull off when you can't get the porn.jpeg file to > display a generic JPEG icon. A desktop file allows you to fake both > name and icon (also automatically translating the name according to > user's locale!). And yet it's more than we have now. If we think of a better way afterwards it's no harm to implement it then. Regards, - Michael Pyne</body></html>