[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#363486: dpkg: [update-alternatives] New categories for: WORD, EXCEL, MEDIA-PLAYER etc.

* Wed 2006-06-14 Hendrik Sattler <debian AT hendrik-sattler.de>
>> The proposal here talks about differnt thing, but indirectly concerns
>> the mime types, which are used to associate actions to certain file
>> extensions.
> Why not have something that starts the proper program according to the given 
> mimetype? E.g.:
> x-mime-handler application/whatever
> This program can make use of the .desktop files. If the .desktop files cannot 
> do this, yet, the standard for them should be extended to make it possible 
> instead of inventing yet another.

Hm. How does that work from command line? Or from X programs that have
fields like:

     Run program: _________________

As I understand, these require the name of executable and the
alternatives system does that. Like providing


I'm not familiar with the .desktop files but I assume they belong only
to environments like Gnome and KDE. How would they be used with small
window managers, that simply contain "plug menu item name here, call
program" approach?

> Note that the alternative-System has one major drawback: it reflects the 
> choice of the administrator only, not the one of the user. And those two 
> _often_ do not match.

90% of the Linux installations or more are personal PCs. For corporate
wide installations, the choice of fixed programs is preferred.

I don't see real obstacle here. Granted that the alternatives system
should be extended to look for


Before checking


Perhaps I should file a wishlist for it.

> Another problem is the missing option compatibility between all of those 
> programs and thus only offers very limited usage of the used programs. And it 
> hides the problem that you have to get used to a program to efficiently use 
> it, e.g. KWord has many differences when compared to OpenOffice Writer.

I believe the need to pass options to programs is beyond the scope of

> And the last point: you have icons on a desktop (or in a menu or whatever) and 
> don't have to remember strange names, anyway. Users that start everything 
> from a shell usually do not use such (mainly mouse-operated) programs.

There are 20+ window managers out there that do not have icons. Not
everybody is capable of running KDE/Gnome that drain all memory from
average systems ( 400Mhz .. 1500Mhz).

We can forget KDE an Gnome (and XFCE?) altogether from this picture,
because they are completely self contained and any invention in there
cannot be used outside of them.

The proposal talks about providing framework for Window managers that
do not have sophisticated program control mechanism. This also means
that it is impossible to ship reasonable default menus, when there is
no infrastructure in place to use.


Reply to: