PDA

View Full Version : [SOLVED] Nautilus file extension display



VanillaMozilla
April 26th, 2012, 10:37 PM
I noticed that Nautilus (Places) under Oneiric does not seem to display file extensions! There is a verbose description of the file type, but I couldn't find a way to display the extension (the part of the file name after the dot).

Please tell me I missed something. This is an essential part of the file name.

papibe
April 26th, 2012, 10:44 PM
Hi VanillaMozilla.

Do you refer to hidden files? The ones that start with a dot?

Or regular extensions like .txt .sh, etc?

Regards.

VanillaMozilla
April 27th, 2012, 01:33 AM
No. There are no hidden files here that I've noticed.

Ohmygosh, I see I'm getting the same problem in Natty, with Nautilus 3.32.2.1. Look at /usr/share/applications, then look at the same directory with a ls command in the terminal. The Nautilus display is very different from the actual list of files. What the heck is going on?

mc4man
April 27th, 2012, 01:54 AM
The .desktops in /usr/share/applications have an actual file name & a 'display' name that's determined by the Name= line in the .desktop

Ex. "Home Folder" is this if you were to open in a text editor, see screen
Actual name is nautilus-home.desktop, Name= is Home Folder

This is the way .desktops are.

VanillaMozilla
April 27th, 2012, 01:54 PM
I see. Is there any way for the File Manager to display the actual file name? And are there any other cases in which Nautilus does not display the file name?

VanillaMozilla
April 27th, 2012, 06:37 PM
OK, I get it. It's trying to be helpful by displaying the file contents in place of the file name. Given the choice, I would opt for consistency instead.

For anyone reading this and wanting an answer, you can view the file names with a Web browser or file picker, but your options for managing the files (e.g., deleting, renaming) are limited.

Thanks, your reply is appreciated, mc4man, even if the irregularity is not.

mc4man
April 28th, 2012, 12:47 AM
It's not really an irregularity, it's how it works & should work
Never really tried to understand the exact 'how it's done' but you can see the results if you take a closer look

If you create a valid .desktop anywhere in your Home dir. it will show actual file name & can't be executed by d. left clicking on unless it's then marked as executable

However any .desktop that's created, installed or placed in /usr/share/ or /usr/local/share/ or any directory within them will automatically show the Icon=, Name= & can be executed by any user from d. left click even though the .desktop isn't set as executable
(as long as it remains in /usr/share/.. or /usr/local/share/..

.desktops in any other location will show as <whatever>.desktop unless explicitly set as executable

VanillaMozilla
April 28th, 2012, 04:50 AM
Right. A special rule for every case. (I wonder how many others there are.) The really annoying thing is that's by design. No wonder our computers are too damned complicated.

Krytarik
April 28th, 2012, 05:20 AM
OK, I get it. It's trying to be helpful by displaying the file contents in place of the file name. Given the choice, I would opt for consistency instead.
Do you know how your "consistency" would actually look like?: Desktop icons displayed with their actual file names, that thing with the .desktop appended, and with some generic icon instead of those fancy ones. :P In case you don't know, Nautilus is also handling the desktop, if you have icons enabled there.

Regards.

VanillaMozilla
April 28th, 2012, 05:27 AM
KDE gets it right. Icons and file names.

I'm looking at it right now. It's actually kind of pretty too. Hmm....

Thanks for your help, though. I really do appreciate it.