No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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://redhat.com/</nowiki>"'' is less intuitive than ''web-browser''. | |||
Revision as of 11:42, 13 November 2008
What do you think? Please let me know your thought 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://redhat.com/" is less intuitive than web-browser.