Re: Proposal: use /usr/bin/open as an alternative for run-mailcap and others.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:52 PM Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:
>
> * Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> [201013 00:54]:
> > "open" is a verb commonly used to describe the action of accessing a
> > file in Linux. You used it yourself above, and it's one of the most
> > prominent functions in the file API. It seems sensible to provide a
> > tool that matches the verb most commonly used to describe this action.
> >
> > The availability of
> > /usr/bin/open wouldn't preclude your use of whatever program you want to
> > use. What it would do is provide a convenient utility to support people
> > who don't (yet) have a preference for what application they want to use
> > to open a file. Maybe they have only basic needs, or are unfamiliar
> > with the file type and its associated commands. There are surely many
> > other reasons.
>
> Earlier in this thread, the program "see", part of mime-support, was
> mentioned as already providing this functionality. What does the
> proposed "open" do that "see" doesn't, or what does it do in a
> significantly different way that having both of them would be a benefit?
>
> So far, the only answer I have seen is that MacOS users are familiar
> with open. To me, this is not significant enough. A symlink or cover
> script that does simple massaging of the arguments, which invokes an
> existing utility like run-mailcap, would be better served by a
> macos-helpers package that can become a collection of utilities that
> help users coming from MacOS feel more comfortable in Linux. These
> wouldn't clutter the $PATH space for users who did not want them.
>
> The other difference that I remember being mentioned is that the
> proposed open only handled files, not URLs, but the author was willing
> to add that functionality to open if it was deemed popular.
>
> Describing a clear benefit to having both open and see would help
> immensely. Alternatively, convincing the mime-support authors that open
> should replace see would also work.
This thread is full of people who strongly prefer "open" over "see"
("see" is also little known). Add me to that list. In this case, I
don't care whether other operating systems do it or not.
I think "see" was used because "open" was not available. I don't know
why you are so interested in having "see" go away. It could be removed
but it's not clear at all to me that it needs to be removed at the
same time "open" is added. (I don't see anything else that would want
to use "see".)
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
> If open does not provide any real benefit over see, I would not want it
> to be in the transitive Depends or Recommends of a standard Debian
> desktop installation, which would then obviate its usefulness in the
> archive (except as a macos-helper as above).
>
> ...Marvin
Reply to: