'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?
adys.wh at gmail.com
Tue Dec 17 08:10:22 PST 2013
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Diggory Hardy <lists at dhardy.name> wrote:
> 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:
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
I agree but I don't see it happening, honestly. I hope I can be proven wrong.
More information about the xdg