Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

Frederic Crozat fred at crozat.net
Wed Dec 18 01:37:03 PST 2013

2013/12/17 Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt at canonical.com>:

> I wouldn't be so hasty in giving up on renaming. Ubuntu has already
> been through something similar in 2006, when we changed /bin/sh from
> Bash to Dash. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh> A bunch of shell
> scripts broke, and people had to fix them. We survived.
> Renaming/aliasing xdg-open to open, you wouldn't have a righteous
> Posix standard to stand on. But on the other hand, I'd guess many,
> many fewer scripts would be affected. I suggest lobbying a niche OS to
> try it and see what happens. If it works, the more popular OSes can
> follow.

I have to agree with you, but I have strong doubts about just
"renaming" xdg-open to open (without keeping xdg-open available)
because of lot of 3rd party applications (including proprietary one)
have standardized on xdg-open and not having xdg-open available
will break them, for zero added value.
Frederic Crozat

More information about the xdg mailing list