GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 697737
Double clicking an executable does indeed mean the user wants to run it, so run it.
Last modified: 2013-04-17 02:00:15 UTC
Don't get me wrong - I like GNOME, but I don't like idiotic security policy bullshit that does nothing but obstruct the user. If you download an executable you have to set the executable bit in Properties -> Permissions -> Allow executing file as program. Setting this bit does not even require root or admin passwords so the security aspect of this bit is just bullshit. If I double click an executable that is not set to be an executable I get the error: > Could not display “qt-linux-opensource-5.0.2-x86_64-offline.run”. > > There is no application installed for “executable” files. > Do you want to search for an application to open this file? > > Yes | No New Linux users are lost here. They do not understand how to run the executable, because that error message is just meaningless. Proposed behavior: * User double clicks executable marked as executable -> it runs. * User double clicks executable marked as not executable -> GNOME asks something like: > This is an executable. Do you want to run it? Only run trusted software from trusted publishers. > > Yes | No MS Windows example: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xNMIn.png
Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 604639 ***
Don't get me wrong - I like newbies, but I don't like idiotic ones that asks for bullshit that does nothing but obstruct the way a system works. Your concept of "an executable that is not set to be an executable" is complete nonsense. What is an executable in Unix if not a file that is set as an executable? Unlike Windows, Unix does not run files by extensions. The extension is irrelevant for execution purposes, that's why most executables in your system have *no* extension at all. They are *identified as executables* by the execution bit. So the sentence "User double clicks executable marked as not executable" makes absolutely NO sense. A rough analogy would be someone complaining that Windows should "make it easy" to run a (text) script. What? Do I have to rename "myscript" to "myscript.exe/bat/com/vbs" so it runs?!?! What an unforgivable obstruction of my workflow! Why can't it simply run it? Why must I *rename* it? You see how absurd this would be? And, as you should have noticed, this has absolutely nothing to do with security policy. It's about 2 very distinct systems that do things in different ways. *Learn* how it works in Linux before you complain that the method you used in a completely different system architecture does not work.
You are simply wrong there. An executable is identified by the ELF header. How do you think Nautilus could say, quote: > "... There is no application installed for “executable” files. ..." if it had no way of interpreting the file as an executable? How did Nautilus know to set an executable icon on the file? Unix identifies files not by extension or by execution bit, but by it's header. An shell script is made executable by it's #!/bin/bash header. So stop being a fucking dick about it and think outside the box to make a better system. A system that does not obstruct the users from their goals.