3

Related to this answer on my previous question.

So, XDG can handle it on its own:

  • It can manage default applications - xdg-mime
  • It can open file with associated application - xdg-open.

Why do desktop environments make their own replacements for xdg-open? Like gvfs-open, kde-open, or exo-open,...

Isn't xdg-open enough? If not, what does it lack?

1 Answer 1

6

The Arch Wiki says:

Inside a desktop environment (e.g. GNOME, KDE, or Xfce), xdg-open simply passes the arguments to that desktop environment's file-opener application (gvfs-open, kde-open, or exo-open, respectively), which means that the associations are left up to the desktop environment. When no desktop environment is detected (for example when one runs a standalone window manager, e.g. Openbox), xdg-open will use its own configuration files.

So, they are not replacements, but backends.

4
  • 2
    This presumably allows the DE's freedom to, e.g., implement functionality that may not be provided by xdg-open.
    – goldilocks
    Feb 16, 2015 at 19:09
  • 2
    @goldilocks Rather, it's to allow e.g. PDF files to be opened by Okular under KDE, Evince under Gnome, etc. Feb 16, 2015 at 21:44
  • 2
    unix.stackexchange.com/questions/144047/… has more about how the delegation works.
    – deltab
    Feb 16, 2015 at 22:36
  • @Gilles That's not "rather", that's "as in" ;)
    – goldilocks
    Feb 17, 2015 at 1:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.