Non-executable files with common executable extensions (.bin, .sh) should be easier for users to run

The user shouldn't download files like the one in question at all. Making it too easy to install every crap you get on the net is going to make things messy and providing support nearly impossible. Installing applications that don't come as packages should stay something for advanced users.

@Paul That seems a bit elitist...And if our user finds he can't install GoogleEarthLinux.bin, he's probably going to Google "How to install Google Earth in Ubuntu," get a blog post or forum thread that explains that he needs execution permissions, and install it anyway--with ten wasted minutes. I also don't think that the system should have a meritocracy in place for determining usability.

Timmy has a good point.

I get what you mean, and I think you're right that it could be more obvious that some files need the exec bit, but still, we should promote the use of repositories, even for external programs like google earth.
Maybe we can find a way to promote the use of medibuntu repos out of the system without violating anyone's rights.
The problem with decisions like this is, it has to be made by the informed ones, so the less informed ones have an easier life. And I thought this bugreports where here to discuss which issues should be solved and which way to go. I merely stated my point of view, noone should feel bound to oblige exactly me... Maybe I was just too hard in my wording.

@Paul If the user wants to download and install it, he should be able to do it easily. We are not allowed to decide that for him; it's his operating system, his machine, and his decision. The thing about usability, as I see it, is to make things as easy as we can for the inexperienced user. If we think what he wants to do is a bad idea, we can try to educate him with a warning dialog, but making it harder to make him forget about installing the program is a bad idea from any point of view: he will be disappointed and won't even know what is happening, so nobody wins.

Or, as Timmy said, he will use Google, find an answer, and install it anyway. And will tell his friends that Ubuntu is not user friendly because it took him 10 minutes to do such an easy thing.

Sorry, I answered your last comment while you was writing this one :)

Promoting repositories is a good idea, of course! But what can we do if a user wants to install a program that is not in a repository? I think the most we can do is to educate him with a warning text, but our duty is to make it easy if he wants to do it anyway...

I don't disagree that this is an issue in nautilus which should be solved, but as Paul indicated there are serious security considerations that must be taken into account; this invalidates the issue as a papercut since it is not "trivial to fix".

Well, in fact I think it is "trivial to fix", it is just a question on whether we want users being able to install easily whatever they want or not.

I think it'd be easy to just pop a dialog informing the user on this matter and the possible security issues, and allowing him to decide whether to give permissions to the file or not. Once he is informed, it's up to him to do it or not. But keeping it difficult for newcomers so that they forget about installing it this way is a bad idea, in my opinion... they have always done it in their previous OS, and not being able to do it in Ubuntu will be a negative point in their mind.

So the way, in my opinion, is: make it easy, but educating the user.

Users tend to just click on the "ok" button without reading the warning dialogs and could easily run code downloaded which should not be run this way that's not a bug but a feature than you have to change the permissions to use something

Am setting this bug to Triaged since the work of Bug Control is done here and it's now up for discussion. I lean slightly to marking this bug as Invalid and mentioning Ubuntu Brainstorm since this is no minor change, like Bryce Harrington already said when declining it for 'One Hundred Paper Cuts'. However, it makes no sense to close an already ongoing discussion, so I'll just forward it upstream, if it hasn't already been reported in GNOME's Bugzilla.