Executable Shell - ideas wanted

[Mig21]

Hi

I am looking for feedback and ideas for improvement about a simple but (I feel) important project of mine - Executable Shell, or esh.

I condensed what I learned and did so far on this page: http://littlesvr.ca/uli/esh/ Please take a look. An excerpt:
Regular Linux users are not able to download a program from the web and run it. They can if they have the most basic knowledge of what a terminal is, but most people don't and never will (nor, I belive, should they need to). This is the problem Executable Shell (esh) is trying to solve.

I would like to hear from you even if you think the idea is terrible. I'm pretty convinced at this point that it would bring a lot of benefits without introducing any security risks, but feel free to argue otherwise and I will try to address your concerns on the webpage.

Ultimately I would like to see all the distributions and file managers to support esh.

Thanks for your time.

[MrFSL]

Sorry, but I guess I don't understand the need. My 70 year old mother uses Linux without problems. She even installs software without help.

As for running scripts, if they are executable then a simple double-click should do it with plenty of GUI driven choices on how you want the script to execute.

If it is distro-independent application packaging that you are interested in then there are other options.

For instance: http://www.autopackage.org/

or even perhaps:
http://klik.atekon.de/


Cheers!

[Mig21]

Sure, I don't doubt that there are people who don't need this functinality. But you must agree that there are people who do?

[robzon]

Is there a need for this? The best wait to find out is to wait. A great thing about opensource is that stuff that's really desired gets a lot of attention and effort, and stuff that's not will just pass by.

[23meg]

A double-click on the downloaded file in a file manager (or on the desktop) will result in a dialog asking the user what program they want to open this file in.

In Nautilus, when I double click an executable .sh file (or any other executable text file), this dialog pops up:

http://i23.tinypic.com/vcw3dx.png

The esh utility deals with the problem by running sh with the name of the file as a parameter

Which is exactly what "Run in Terminal" and "Run" do, right?

[Mig21]

23meg: yep, that's exactly it. Unfortunately if the script doesn't already have execute permissions you won't get that dialog, it will just open in a text editor.

[MrFSL]

So at best a small tool that parses script files for the #! line and says something to the effect of:

"Files application.sh, seems to be of the type script but is not currently set to be executable. Would you like to change this..."

...then let the file-manager do as it it normally does.

It seems to me that the user looses the benefit of understanding how script files and file permissions work.

The first time they get nothing but a text editor opening when they are expecting an application - and they go to the web (probably this forum) to get help - and they get it - they are enriched and indoctrinated into the whole Linux experience and the community.

Too much "hand-holding" is not only unnecessary but in many ways somewhat defeatist; given what the open community is really about; given what this forum is about.

Just my opinion. ;) I think you are developing a great tool for a lot of people. I just don't see the support to get this in conformity between distros and file-managers.

[MrFSL]

Sorry For the Double Post -

it seems that my previous post has sparked a bit of discussion here at work and I would like to elaborate a bit here on the forum since I am being misunderstood by my colleagues.

An operating system has certain properties and security and file permissions in one of them. It is an core notion but also a simple one. - In my view the GUI should be there for convenience and to simplify some otherwise long, complicated, or repetitive tasks. However, what the GUI (for the sake of "user-friendly-ness") attempts to make the O/S appear to operate in a way contrary to its specific properties, I think the user ultimately suffers.

I did not mean earlier that Linux is great because people have to search the internet to get answers. - The fact is that I personally have learned the most from ANY piece of technology when I am using it and can't make it do something. NOT something complex mind you, but when I can't make it do something rather simple and intuitive. This forces (or inspires) me to look deeper into the application of this technology - increasing my knowledge of how it works - and bettering my whole understanding.

One problem I have with other O/S's is that they wish to hide from their users their inner workings. They throw a GUI atop their O/S and say "don't you worry how it works - you just use it this way!" - More often times then not their desktop environment does not lend an understanding whatsoever to the user as to its REAL methods of operation; but rather a false methodology which only lends to user dependency.

Hopefully I am now clearer to my cohorts.
:D

*P.S. - My spelling and grammar sucks I am typing fast.

[Mig21]

I agree that knowing about how the software you use works is a good thing, and the fact that source code is available allows many people to be involved in open source communities - discussing and improving everything from the nasty ugly algorythms that make it tick to the location of the buttons.

But I think that these communities can only benefit from more members - and to get more members we need more users. To get more users you need technically able software but the software also has to be easy to use.

I am the maintainer of ISO Master (http://littlesvr.ca/isomaster) - a graphical editor for ISO images. When I got started all I heard from everywhere is "we don't need this, we have mkisofs, the users can learn a few command-line switches". After it's been released all the emails I got were from people who are happy they could edit their ISO images, as they could on Windows. A couple even said an ISO editor was the only thing they needed to switch to Linux permanently. I'm not really sorry that fewer people now understand the difference between ISO9660, Joliet, and Rockridge filename formats :)

So honestly I expect nothing less than to hear that people hate my idea :) I hope to get more feedback still, and I will compile a list of issues that everyone brought up, and put them on the webpage - maybe in the form of an FAQ.

I'm hoping that the ones who make the decisions about what goes into file managers or into distributions will look at all issues and agree with me in the end.