GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 601736
Confusing dialog when opening text files set with executable bits on
Last modified: 2013-04-10 22:05:07 UTC
This particularly happens when using a usb thumb drive that is fat32 or ntfs. Text files are set as executable, and so when double-clicking them, you get asked if you want to view it or run in the terminal. While this isn't directly a bug, and it is the current desired behavior, we think that this behavior could be improved in such a way that Nautilus makes "smarter" decisions for its actions to reduce the amount of diaglogs users have to click through. This was originally reported at Ubuntu Launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/425166 Thanks
I think the problem with all files on a fat32/ntfs is marked as executable is fixed in udev (??) but I agree the dialog isn't user friendly, adding usability keyword.
The first problem was fixed in bug #601736 (it wasn't udev but udisks) but I won't marking this as a dup as the dialog still needs some love.
Sorry, I meant bug #313023. Apologies for the spam.
Created attachment 221183 [details] [review] Change default executable text action to display Presenting a scary dialog by default isn't nice. The file manager is not primarily an interface for launch applications. Some filesystems mark all files as executable and it just sucks to keep asking when you want to view text files. Also, any application launched this way is going to suck. You won't have app tracking in the shell and showing a terminal to users that don't expect it is really nasty.
Review of attachment 221183 [details] [review]: I agree...most of the times I see that dialog I really wanted to display the file instead. We don't have an explicit "Run" context action in this case, though, do we? So in case running the script is what you wanted instead, you need to go to the preferences and change behavior. I still think this is an improvement over the current situation, but what do you think about also adding a Run context action in this case?
I think we can address that case when and if it comes up.
*** Bug 679187 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #6) > I think we can address that case when and if it comes up. It came up: bug 697737
(In reply to comment #8) > It came up: bug 697737 Oops, bug 697737 is about files *not* set as executable. My bad.