And a new Paperwhite? When?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

It's not your fault. When a forum gives people the option to link to images, it's reasonable for them to expect that doing so will work.

But what's not reasonable to expect to work is an image link without an image file extension like you get from some sites.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive_Ram

To the original question, while I am very guilty of looking for the latest model myself I have recently come to like the fact that the technology is mature and there isn't a need to constantly upgrade (and the carbon footprint that comes with having to replace technologies)

I have a Kindle Paperwhite 10th generation. My only issue with it is I find the navigation of menus a bit slow and laggy. But once you're reading a book it's fine. I'll use it until it dies I think

I find the eBook management of the PW5 to be rather clumsy. It's not slow to me. But Amazon has made it a lot more complicated.

[Frogm4n]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But what's not reasonable to expect to work is an image link without an image file extension like you get from some sites.

Expecting a file extension on the end of a URI to match the content that is returned when making an HTTP request to it is very old school web design. It's why the Content-Type header was defined.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Frogm4n

Expecting a file extension on the end of a URI to match the content that is returned when making an HTTP request to it is very old school web design. It's why the Content-Type header was defined.

Well, MR does not work without the filename in the [img] tag. It still may not with, but it definitely won't work without.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Frogm4n

Expecting a file extension on the end of a URI to match the content that is returned when making an HTTP request to it is very old school web design. It's why the Content-Type header was defined.

Ah, the"newer is better" because it's newer, even if it's stupid. Not having a file is so they can track you. Obfuscated is evil, even if valid.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Ah, the"newer is better" because it's newer, even if it's stupid. Not having a file is so they can track you. Obfuscated is evil, even if valid.

Actually, relying on file extensions was always a bad idea and can be a security risk -- it's a holdover from earlier days when computers weren't as fast (easier to determine than actually opening the file to find out) and people weren't as concerned about computer security.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Actually, relying on file extensions was always a bad idea and can be a security risk.

Especially with MS stupid idea of hiding the last part after the last dot (period). A file extension might be poor to decide which program to run, but it's not an inherent security risk. MS decisions like autorun, autoplay, hiding file extensions, the default services running (esp uPnP and Server and Remote Desktop), Macro on by default in MS Office, the way most versions of Outlook worked, the way dcom works, zero security of Win9x, treating archives as folders, USB HID silent installs, having to login in as administrator on Win NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Win2K, XP, Vista etc because an idiot wrote the win32 program and only tested on Win9x and skipped reading the bits on NT security.

The "not having file endings" on downloads but a script (for server) is nothing to do with security, less secure and about tracking.·

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Actually, relying on file extensions was always a bad idea and can be a security risk -- it's a holdover from earlier days when computers weren't as fast (easier to determine than actually opening the file to find out) and people weren't as concerned about computer security.

It's not to do with computer speed, but the design of CP/M in 1976, which the "bought in DOS" by MS had copied. Hiding the ending makes it worse.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It's not to do with computer speed, but the design of CP/M in 1976, which the "bought in DOS" by MS had copied. Hiding the ending makes it worse.

Which had everything to do with speed. Reading the contents of files to determine their type wasn’t an option on linear access storage like tape, and very slow on single sided floppy disks. Extra metadata wasn’t an option either when the entire disk held 160k.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Especially with MS stupid idea of hiding the last part after the last dot (period). A file extension might be poor to decide which program to run, but it's not an inherent security risk.

I don't think that has anything to do with security. It's there to theoretically make the computer less confusing to use for novices.

[Paperbackstash]

Really unless they release something substantially different, like a color model, I dont' see a reason to release a new paperwhite, especially so soon. It has the majority of current e-ink e-reader features. It's about 2 2/12 years old, which isn't bad. I'm still hoping, but doubting (!!!) for a new Oasis.

[tomsem]

A 7.8|8" Kindle would be nice. They might as well put buttons on it too. It would not be a Paperwhite at that point.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Quoth

A file extension might be poor to decide which program to run, but it's not an inherent security risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filena...ecurity_issues

There have been instances of malware crafted to exploit vulnerabilities in some Windows applications which could cause a stack-based buffer overflow when opening a file with an overly long, unhandled filename extension.

...

When trying to identify a file for security reasons, it is therefore considered dangerous to rely on the extension alone and a proper analysis of the content of the file is preferred. For example, on UNIX-like systems, it is not uncommon to find files with no extensions at all, as commands such as file are meant to be used instead, and will read the file's header to determine its content.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by tomsem

A 7.8|8" Kindle would be nice. They might as well put buttons on it too. It would not be a Paperwhite at that point.

The Oasis 4 or finally, the Voyage 2? For my tired old eyes, an 8" ereader is close to the sweet spot between readable text sizes, the amount of text on the screen and not being to large to carry around.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by twowheels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filena...ecurity_issues

Yes, that is the issue of Explorer STUPIDLY hiding extensions, which can be turned off. I mentioned that stupid default decision. Putting that link proves my point and that you don't know what you are writing about.

It's not a security issue caused by file extension use, but a really stupid (misuse) setting in Explorer. Turn that off as well as killing all autorun and autoplay.