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

[Robert Qualls]

I just realized that anything using openvt with absolute paths (i.e.
open /bin/bash) won't work with that script, so it would need to also
/ instead check if the file is in a PATH folder.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Robert Qualls <robert at robertqualls.com> wrote:
> I'll probably do that. However, right after posting, I realized that
> anything using openvt with absolute paths (i.e. open /bin/bash) won't
> work with that script, so it would need to also / instead check if the
> file is in PATH or something.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Alastair Knowles <kno0001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rather than waiting for upstream, you could always temporarily place the
>> script in the AUR.
>> On 18/12/13 21:59, Robert Qualls wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Looking back, I see how my thread title suggested renaming xdg-open. I
>>> actually didn't mean this. I just think that the open should refer to
>>> xdg-open or any other agnostic file opener. Other than breaking
>>> things, it's quite possible that xdg-open will not always be the best
>>> way to open files, especially since it assumes a desktop environment.
>>>
>>> Since some of the more conservative distributions are worried about
>>> compatiblity, it might be possible for an interim script to determine
>>> whether the call is likely to open a file or is intended for openvt.
>>> Maybe. xdg-mime query filetype and if it's a file, use xdg-open?
>>>
>>> I threw this together. Seems to work for the one file case.
>>>
>>> if xdg-mime query filetype $1 &>/dev/null; then
>>>   xdg-open $1 &>/dev/null
>>> else
>>>   openvt "$@"
>>> fi
>>>
>>> As an update, I posted an issue at Arch Linux, and the response seemed
>>> to indicate it was acceptable for them, but Arch culture is to wait
>>> for changes to occur upstream, so they aren't going to change
>>> anything. As of right now, open points to nothing in Arch.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Frederic Crozat <fred at crozat.net> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xdg mailing list
>>>> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xdg mailing list
>>> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>>