Hi Neal,
I can understand your frustration.
You do not give any details of the distribution you are using or the
filename, so this info is general only.
I presume you are using a GUI such as KDE running under X. If you use
Konqueror as your file manager, left clicking on the filename should
op
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, kza wrote:
> > > Konqueror has a few mime types defined.
> > > It uses the approach (1) above, ie .XXX
> >
> > NONONO!
> >
> > this is a job of the OS.
> > it should NOT be necessary for the filemanager to guess the correct type.
> > the type needs to be stored in an ea
Others wrote:
MB> this is a job of the OS.
KH> Well, it could be argued that it belongs somewhere in the filesystem,
That's a good point, Kurt.
MB> do not assume that just because you have a solution that appears to work
MB> that it is the correct one, and others are wrong.
Sometimes the hassl
> > Konqueror has a few mime types defined.
> > It uses the approach (1) above, ie .XXX
>
> NONONO!
>
> this is a job of the OS.
> it should NOT be necessary for the filemanager to guess the correct type.
> the type needs to be stored in an easy to access place, and it should
Well, it could
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:07:32PM +1300, Yuri de Groot wrote:
> > It'd be nice if there was a mime type associated with every file.
> That's the job of the file manager, not the OS.
> Konqueror has a few mime types defined.
> It uses the approach (1) above, ie .XXX
NONONO!
this is a job of
At 04:42 PM 25/02/2002 +1300, Rex Johnston wrote:
> You should be able to name the files exactly what you want
> and STILL have the file manager open it with something useful.
Like BeOS does? There's a set of attributes for each file which
say (among other things) what you prefer to use to view
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 16:07, Yuri de Groot wrote:
> > It'd be nice if there was a mime type associated with every file.
> That's the job of the file manager, not the OS.
You don't think that the OS should know what the files are used for/by ?
> Konqueror has a few mime types defined.
> It uses
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, you wrote:
[snip]
> This just highlights one of the weaknesses of the raw file system, one
> that the macintosh tried to 'fix' by having a resource fork for each
> file that describes what it is.
>
> I'm unsure which is worse.
>
> 1) A .XXX filename extension that is meant to
On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 23:15, Yuri de Groot wrote:
> What is the suffix? .gz? .rpm? .tz? .Z? .zip? .tar.gz? .tar? .deb?
This just highlights one of the weaknesses of the raw file system, one
that the macintosh tried to 'fix' by having a resource fork for each
file that describes what it is.
I
> IMHO a good desktop should have every package suffix associated
> with the right unpacking utility - or better still, a gui front-end to the
> right unpacking util.
right, like midnight commander!
--
Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What is the suffix? .gz? .rpm? .tz? .Z? .zip? .tar.gz? .tar? .deb?
If you tell us the suffix, we'll tell you how to unpack it.
IMHO a good desktop should have every package suffix associated
with the right unpacking utility - or better still, a gui front-end to the
right unpacking util.
Have yo
How the hell do you "unpack" a downloaded file . I'm a new user and a
windows/DOS geek but am lost and alone? in Linux heelp.
Neals
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
