'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?
lists at dhardy.name
Tue Dec 17 07:58:57 PST 2013
Replying because this is a good question and not fully answered...
The problem is not standards but compatibility, as stated.
What was not mentioned is that Debian switched the default /bin/sh
implementation from bash to a simpler POSIX shell (I think dash) not so long
ago. Naturally, they had similiar compatibility issues — but were able to fix
the scripts which actually broke.
I don't think any of the systems I have installed recently had an 'open'
command installed by default (I always alias this to xdg-open on my systems).
If the 'open' alias is removed, a few scripts may break here and there, and
people will fix them (to use less generic names like 'openvt' or whatever).
Usage of generic/short names in scripts is inappropriate anyway, IMO. For
example, typing 'tar xaf xyz.tar.xz' on an interactive command line is fine,
but in a script long options (--extract, etc) should be used. In fact, if
there was a way to enforce this type of thing in scripts then it ought to be
used — along these lines I always head scripts #!/bin/sh not #!/bin/bash.
TLDR: this can be changed and should be, IMO.
On Monday 16 December 2013 04:03:57 Robert Qualls wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the xdg