Written by arckeda the 20 Dec 08 at 22:55.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #16690 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #16690 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by Jarige the 30 Apr 10 at 11:37.

Instead, show the normal bug e-mail address as sender, which is unique to that bug report (445852@bugs.launchpad.net for instance). Those e-mail addresses already exist, the only thing that needs to be done is removing the private e-mail adresses from the notification mail.

Instead, show the normal bug e-mail address as sender, which is unique to that bug report (445852@bugs.launchpad.net for instance). Those e-mail addresses already exist, the only thing that needs to be done is removing the private e-mail adresses from the notification mail.

Written by Eldmannen the 23 May 08 at 18:50.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #9010 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #9010 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by misiu_mp the 21 Aug 09 at 13:09.

In the error pop-up in gedit, add the option to skip unreadable bytes or replace them with a replacement character.

In the error pop-up in gedit, add the option to skip unreadable bytes or replace them with a replacement character.

Written by Penguin Guy the 29 Aug 09 at 19:10.

Add a built in hex editor and when opening a non-text file let the user select if they want to open it as a text file or a hexadecimal file. Also have a radio list under View -> Format including 'Plain Text', 'Hexadecimal', and 'Binary'.

Add a built in hex editor and when opening a non-text file let the user select if they want to open it as a text file or a hexadecimal file. Also have a radio list under View -> Format including 'Plain Text', 'Hexadecimal', and 'Binary'.

Written by arkmundi the 28 Jul 10 at 13:27.

Open the file anyway with a warning that it may not be a text file. Display all characters not part of the encoding set visibly with some special character.

Open the file anyway with a warning that it may not be a text file. Display all characters not part of the encoding set visibly with some special character.

Written by flint the 27 Sep 10 at 11:38.

Write a filter to include in the "tools" section of gedit which would filter non-ascii text. Additionally, this filter would be available when invoked (e.g. "gedit --encoding=failsafe ), and the filter could be invoked to save an adulterated version of the binary - or not.

Write a filter to include in the "tools" section of gedit which would filter non-ascii text. Additionally, this filter would be available when invoked (e.g. "gedit --encoding=failsafe <filename>), and the filter could be invoked to save an adulterated version of the binary - or not.

Written by geoff07 the 30 Oct 10 at 20:43.

When I open a text file from Windows, gedit often blanks the screen and in a big red banner says it can't open the file.

Yet notepad/Wine in Ubuntu can open these files.

Therefore the files are perfectly open-able by a simple program. So it isn't a problem of unreadable bytes or binary data. So why not by gedit, which is supposed to be the premier editor in Ubuntu?

And please don't expect me as a user to know or want to know anything about character encoding, that is the job of the developers.

When I open a text file from Windows, gedit often blanks the screen and in a big red banner says it can't open the file. Yet notepad/Wine in Ubuntu can open these files. Therefore the files are perfectly open-able by a simple program. So it isn't a problem of unreadable bytes or binary data. So why not by gedit, which is supposed to be the premier editor in Ubuntu? And please don't expect me as a user to know or want to know anything about character encoding, that is the job of the developers.

Written by orbatos the 13 Feb 11 at 02:57.

gedit should simply display available ASCII characters and perhaps (optionally?) detect newlines and spaces, while blocking out unprintable characters using their control or hex codes like other technical editors (SciTE, VIM).

In addition, if any banner is to be displayed, the document should be visible and the banner should have options like "Ignore" and "Read As:", followed by the encoding menu.

In the event that a hex editor plugin is developed, an encoding option of "Read as Hex" could be added to the encoding menu.

gedit should simply display available ASCII characters and perhaps (optionally?) detect newlines and spaces, while blocking out unprintable characters using their control or hex codes like other technical editors (SciTE, VIM). In addition, if any banner is to be displayed, the document should be visible and the banner should have options like "Ignore" and "Read As:", followed by the encoding menu. In the event that a hex editor plugin is developed, an encoding option of "Read as Hex" could be added to the encoding menu.

Written by qwerty800 the 31 Jul 09 at 22:01.

Quote form AndrewLuecke:

Its totally lame that marking a png file +x, linux thinks it is executable. Why should file permissions affect the way a file is loaded, especially when they aren't always transferred with files?

What if I don't want a binary to be executable? I unmark it and suddenly Linux thinks its a totally different file? AND THATS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?!? Users would be flabbergasted when their installer turns into a text file. There is no way Microsoft would have succeeded that way. It should be 1 click. ALWAYS! I think you overestimate users greatly, if you believe that they should be right clicking programs and screwing around to get them running.

Quote form AndrewLuecke: Its totally lame that marking a png file +x, linux thinks it is executable. Why should file permissions affect the way a file is loaded, especially when they aren't always transferred with files? What if I don't want a binary to be executable? I unmark it and suddenly Linux thinks its a totally different file? AND THATS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?!? Users would be flabbergasted when their installer turns into a text file. There is no way Microsoft would have succeeded that way. It should be 1 click. ALWAYS! I think you overestimate users greatly, if you believe that they should be right clicking programs and screwing around to get them running.

Written by alourie the 2 Aug 09 at 06:19.

For short term solution (and probably much simpler to implement), I think that in the dialog that shows possible actions, the "alternative" to execution action should be made much more clear.

For example, I might not know what .svg is, so how should I know what to choose: execution or preview? So, maybe the description of the message should be more elaborate, in lines of:

"SVG is a graphical image file. Do you want to execute it, or preview?".

For short term solution (and probably much simpler to implement), I think that in the dialog that shows possible actions, the "alternative" to execution action should be made much more clear. For example, I might not know what .svg is, so how should I know what to choose: execution or preview? So, maybe the description of the message should be more elaborate, in lines of: "SVG is a graphical image file. Do you want to execute it, or preview?".

Written by nloewen the 4 Aug 09 at 14:58.

extend solution to to have a checkbox to always do the selected action by default. the other option will still be available from rightclick > open with.

extend solution to to have a checkbox to always do the selected action by default. the other option will still be available from rightclick > open with.

Written by mikaelstaldal the 5 Aug 09 at 14:36.

When you try to open a file (with gnome-open, Alt-F2, Nautilus) which is associated with an application (e.g. an .svg file which should be opened with Inkscape), ignore the executable attribute and open it directly with the associated application anyway.

gnome-open and Alt-F2 already does this, so only Nautilus has to be changed.

When you try to open a file (with gnome-open, Alt-F2, Nautilus) which is associated with an application (e.g. an .svg file which should be opened with Inkscape), ignore the executable attribute and open it directly with the associated application anyway. gnome-open and Alt-F2 already does this, so only Nautilus has to be changed.

Written by theodorebook the 28 Aug 09 at 21:06.

The problem of incorrectly set executable bits occurs when files are copied or downloaded from a medium that doesn't maintain that information. In those cases, the operating system usually defaults to marking all files executable or none of them. A more intelligent approach would scan the first few bytes of the file, and look for hints as to whether or not it should be marked as executable.

The problem of incorrectly set executable bits occurs when files are copied or downloaded from a medium that doesn't maintain that information. In those cases, the operating system usually defaults to marking all files executable or none of them. A more intelligent approach would scan the first few bytes of the file, and look for hints as to whether or not it should be marked as executable.

Written by Penguin Guy the 29 Aug 09 at 12:44.

Reason
The sole use for the execute bit is for closed-source applications. For example; an administrator may have a program that can't be read/copied by users (-r), but can be executed (+x).

Solution
A simple solution to this problem would be to allow anyone who has execute permission OR read permission to execute a file. However, the file should only execute if it is an executable (for example, a .png will not try and run itself regardless of permissions)

Viruses
It is commonly believed that the execute permission is a good defense against viruses. This is not true because launchers can run commands without execute permission, so anyone who wants to make a virus will simply use a launcher instead.

Reason The sole use for the execute bit is for closed-source applications. For example; an administrator may have a program that can't be read/copied by users (-r), but can be executed (+x). Solution A simple solution to this problem would be to allow anyone who has execute permission OR read permission to execute a file. However, the file should only execute if it is an executable (for example, a .png will not try and run itself regardless of permissions) Viruses It is commonly believed that the execute permission is a good defense against viruses. This is not true because launchers can run commands without execute permission, so anyone who wants to make a virus will simply use a launcher instead.

Written by qwerty800 the 4 Sep 09 at 01:56.

First, if an svg file is set as being executable, and set to be opened with inkscape, it will not figure in the drop-down menu.

"Execute" should be handeled as a program to open with. I should be able to choice "Execute (with sh)" in "Open with...", just like if it was a program!

A question window is just... too much in the way!

First, if an svg file is set as being executable, and set to be opened with inkscape, it will not figure in the drop-down menu. "Execute" should be handeled as a program to open with. I should be able to choice "Execute (with sh)" in "Open with...", just like if it was a program! A question window is just... too much in the way!

Written by Lachu the 8 Nov 09 at 20:22.

Many folders will never contains executables. Why performing execute operation on this files in this folders?

My idea is to extend Nautilus top bar to inform user, that the folder contains files with executable bit. User can click allow to use executable bit on top bar or not.

If user don't click this button, but will run ELF file, we will show dialog asking to execute this (as) program.

This settings could be stored/remember. For example /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /home/user/bin folders have option to running executable up/on by default.

I described this feature only looking to Nautilus and GUI file managers.

Many folders will never contains executables. Why performing execute operation on this files in this folders? My idea is to extend Nautilus top bar to inform user, that the folder contains files with executable bit. User can click allow to use executable bit on top bar or not. If user don't click this button, but will run ELF file, we will show dialog asking to execute this (as) program. This settings could be stored/remember. For example /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /home/user/bin folders have option to running executable up/on by default. I described this feature only looking to Nautilus and GUI file managers.