From kde-core-devel Mon Jan 28 11:30:57 2008 From: David Faure Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:30:57 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: KDE and the executable bit Message-Id: <200801281230.57619.faure () kde ! org> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=120152014530508 On Saturday 26 January 2008, Andras Mantia wrote: > The above test.txt > is no different from the same file called test.sh. It is. By naming it .txt you are asking for the file to be considered as text/plain. I don't think it would be a good idea to treat any +x file as a shellscript. Especially with some filesystems (like FAT) making everything +x.... -rwxrwx--- 1 root plugdev 169 2003-09-17 02:19 boot.ini GUI applications are not like a shell. In a shell you choose between ./boot.ini (if you really wanted to execute it) and "cat boot.ini". However in a GUI you just click on it, and KDE has to "do the right thing". I don't think that considering every file with +x as a script is "doing the right thing", it would just lead to too many problems (false positives). What should happen if you give +x to a JPG file for instance? So, honouring the extension is the least we can do to find a better mimetype than "this has +x so surely it must be something that can be executed" - far from true in many cases. "*.sh" is a much better and precise information. -- David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).