No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
What do you think? Please let me know your | What do you think? Please let me know your thoughts on this topic. | ||
-- | -- | ||
Darren | Darren | ||
---- | |||
---- | |||
| Line 8: | Line 12: | ||
If you absolutely insist on having those 'generic wrappers', you'll find that the xdg scripts (xdg-open, xdg-email, etc) come pretty close to what you describe. | If you absolutely insist on having those 'generic wrappers', you'll find that the xdg scripts (xdg-open, xdg-email, etc) come pretty close to what you describe. | ||
---- | |||
---- | |||
''...we try to avoid making people type a command into a terminal to do something...'' | |||
I agree that we shouldn't make anyone type a command. I'm allowing for a more convenient way to for those users who do. | |||
''...you'll find that the xdg scripts (xdg-open, xdg-email, etc) come pretty close to what you describe.'' | |||
The Xdg-utils are great, but they aren't intended for end users to use to launch common applications. The Xdg-utils are meant to, in part, help applications open other applications. Since users don't ordinarily run the Xdg-util commands directly, it is okay that they are named xdg-whatever, instead of something more meaningful or intuitive. ''xdg-open "<nowiki>http://example.com/</nowiki>"'' is less intuitive than ''web-browser''. | |||
-- | |||
Darren | |||
---- | |||
---- | |||
You'll find that there is a strong resistance in Fedora (as well as in other distros) to allowing binaries with overly generic names like 'text-editor' or 'web-browser'. If anything, you'll have to | |||
use alternatives or some other crude mechanism to make this configurable. | |||
Also, a program name like 'text-editor' is really only intuitive for the minority of English-speaking users. | |||
---- | |||
---- | |||
''there is a strong resistance in Fedora (as well as in other distros) to allowing binaries with overly generic names like 'text-editor' '' | |||
These aren't binaries. These are links. Different rules apply. | |||
''...you'll have to use alternatives or some other crude mechanism...'' | |||
Alternatives is what I proposed and probably the best way to do it. A regular user can configure his alternatives using --admindir and --altdir, assuming the links are placed in a directory in the user's PATH that he or she can write files. Here is an example: | |||
''alternatives --install $HOME/bin/email-client email-client /usr/bin/xdg-email 100 --admindir $HOME/.alternatives/ --altdir $HOME/.alternatives/'' | |||
''a program name like 'text-editor' is really only intuitive for the minority of English-speaking users.'' | |||
That is correct. Other languages can be supported. Thank you for your input! | |||
-- | |||
Darren | |||
---- | |||
---- | |||
Latest revision as of 23:32, 14 November 2008
What do you think? Please let me know your thoughts on this topic.
-- Darren
In general, on the desktop we try to avoid making people type a command into a terminal to do something - precisely because of the problem you mention: what is the name of the command, and what are the options, etc. Clicking on a file will open it in the preferred application for that purpose.
If you absolutely insist on having those 'generic wrappers', you'll find that the xdg scripts (xdg-open, xdg-email, etc) come pretty close to what you describe.
...we try to avoid making people type a command into a terminal to do something...
I agree that we shouldn't make anyone type a command. I'm allowing for a more convenient way to for those users who do.
...you'll find that the xdg scripts (xdg-open, xdg-email, etc) come pretty close to what you describe.
The Xdg-utils are great, but they aren't intended for end users to use to launch common applications. The Xdg-utils are meant to, in part, help applications open other applications. Since users don't ordinarily run the Xdg-util commands directly, it is okay that they are named xdg-whatever, instead of something more meaningful or intuitive. xdg-open "http://example.com/" is less intuitive than web-browser.
-- Darren
You'll find that there is a strong resistance in Fedora (as well as in other distros) to allowing binaries with overly generic names like 'text-editor' or 'web-browser'. If anything, you'll have to
use alternatives or some other crude mechanism to make this configurable.
Also, a program name like 'text-editor' is really only intuitive for the minority of English-speaking users.
there is a strong resistance in Fedora (as well as in other distros) to allowing binaries with overly generic names like 'text-editor'
These aren't binaries. These are links. Different rules apply.
...you'll have to use alternatives or some other crude mechanism...
Alternatives is what I proposed and probably the best way to do it. A regular user can configure his alternatives using --admindir and --altdir, assuming the links are placed in a directory in the user's PATH that he or she can write files. Here is an example:
alternatives --install $HOME/bin/email-client email-client /usr/bin/xdg-email 100 --admindir $HOME/.alternatives/ --altdir $HOME/.alternatives/
a program name like 'text-editor' is really only intuitive for the minority of English-speaking users.
That is correct. Other languages can be supported. Thank you for your input!
-- Darren