<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="im">>>"Nautilus needs to display all installed applications in the "Open With" menu,<br>
>>because an application may not have an installed Mimetype, but still be able to<br>
>>open a file."<br>
</div>>This is a bug in said application.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><a href="http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s05.html" target="_blank">http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s05.html</a><br>
Table 2. Standard Keys reads:<br>
<quote><br>
NoDisplay means "this application exists, but don't display it in the menus".<br>
</quote><br>
<br>
If whatever application ignores the NoDisplay entries in *.desktop files and<br>
adds the them to a context menu, it is from my PoV the one with the wrong<br>
behaviour wrt the .desktop standard.<br>
<div><div></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>That is the sort of things that make me want to abandon once for all linux and opensource software in general and stick with Microsoft Windows (TM). <br><br>When there is a bug, or a feature that does not work as expected, the maintainer of package A tells that the bug is in package B, and the maintainer of package B tells that the bug is in package A. The result is a holy war in which no one wins, giving that everyone blame the other and no-one fix the bug. As the final result, the bug is still there and the final end-user, who is not interested of whom the bug is or who is to blame because he just cannot understand the words "standard", "desktop file" and "NoDisplay entry" (yes, there are other subjects in real life, not only informatics) have to deal with it without no-one that fix it, and he ends leaving linux/ubuntu. A final user does not want to read both opinions and decide who is to blame, he just want to use his software out-of-the-box. Stop.<br>
<br>And who makes a regular linux/ubuntu user angry is that the problem is not that we cannot find the bug and so we cannot fix it. The problem is that we (where 'we' means all the linux community) do not want to fix it, because the responsibility is of the other.<br>
<br>Read this bug report: <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/okular/+bug/456093">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/okular/+bug/456093</a>. The package affected by the bug was changed 6 times. From okular to nautilus and back again.<br>
<br>Of course this does not happen only to okular. It happens also to other packages and I am criticizing generally the way in which the open source community handle that sort of things. For example, plasma has a bug that make part of the screen black like there is a hole. But don't tell them of the bug: it's really a Xorg bug. And don't tell Xorg people they have a bug: it is not their fault if plasma developers cannot interface properly with Xorg.<br>
<br>Proprietary softwares are not like this: one decide for all and things must work. in this way we are proving incontrovertibly that a software developed by a community without a superior that decide for all is not possible. We need a superior entity that decide who have the bug and who should fix it.<br>
<br>I'm just saying that sort of things is ridiculous. When this things happen, we should work together and find a solution together, rather than blaming one another for who is right and who is wrong. As we say in Italy, "we are on the same ship". We all want to develop a free (in GNU sense) and open piece of software, and that should be the target. So just find a solution together. Ask <a href="http://freedesktop.org">freedesktop.org</a> to specify what NoDisplay option really means. Then ask nautilus people to follow the standard. If they don't, find a workaround. Even if the counterpart does not want to talk, just find a workaround by our side. Who cares if we lose the holy war, we don't even wanted it to start.<br>
</div></div>