I'm amazed that some people don't by default make a conscious choice of where to put archive extractions, Which would typically include deliberate creation of a new folder, named by them, in a suitable place in their archives.
The concept behind the term 'tarbomb', (I had to look it up) speaks most about user laziness and disorganization.
Why should a zip or tar archive contain anything other than the files it's advertised to contain? If they are nested in a folder, that just makes more work for me, since it's unlikely I'm going to be happy with the folder name as is, so have to rename it. Or more likely, move the files back up to the folder I extracted the whole thing into, then delete the now empty superfluous folder.
Lots of UIs for archives allow the extraction into a new directory automatically named like the archive. So why should a user who uses a tool like that even think about it.
It’s so bad UX that we even need to worry one second about this when exploring downloaded archives. I’ve pondered writing a wrapper around tar/unzip/whatever that will automatically extract the archive to a suitable directory, even if there is none in the archive itself. Any day now…
"Modern" gui usually provide this too - For example in KDE I have a nice "extract > extract here, autodetect subfolder" menu in Dolphin (the file manager)
