Opening files with the app of your choice in GNOME 3

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by vasa1, Nov 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    From what I read and understood, one of the casualties of the move to G3 is the loss of a GUI to select the app of your choice to open a file. All one gets is a very short list and a choice to search the 'net.

    I've come across these links:
    and
    from http://askubuntu.com/questions/7295...on-using-a-custom-command-is-gone/82182#82182

    ***http://blog.whatgeek.com.pt/?p=319 <<<< any feedback on this one?
     
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Just tried it. I now have Aurora (direct from Mozilla and not via a ppa) as my default application to open html files.
     
  3. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
  4. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Yes, I am and I've got quite used to it!

    I took a look at the links you provided. The ubuntuforums one goes into Wine ... Luckily, I don't need Wine. If I absolutely must use some MS program, I use my friends' PCs :D but that's not been necessary for quite a while!

    The Assogiate one is interesting but I don't use Opera and have no need for mht. If I do save html files I clean them up extensively so that they don't "call home" when I open them at a later stage ;)
     
  5. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    Yeah, sorry, I also don't use Wine.
    One thing though, I can't do without web archive 'files' (.mht). In Firefox you would need an extension. Let's say I want to save to documents Mrk's Grub2 tutorial with all the images of course, what better way than saving as a web archive - one file to click on, contains everything. I think I may have one or two .html files saved somewhere, that's all. :argh:
    (Actually I do have more due to Httrack - the website copier).
     
  6. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    No doubt .mht is convenient especially since Linux doesn't allow the pairing of the html file and the associated file containing the pics, css, etc the way MS Windows does. I was told it's a "security" thing.

    What is the size of .mht versus [html +file]?

    Chrome was supposed to provide .mht support but's that's stalled somewhere along the way.
     
  7. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    I don't know what you mean about allow pairing of html file. when I select to save as html with images I get all images, css etc. in a folder plus of course the html file. Clicking on the html file then gives me the same result as web archive.
    The web archive is much smaller in my 'test'.
    .mht = 347Kb
    .html and folder contents= 637Kb
     
  8. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    In MS Windows, if you drag just the pure html file, the folder with the associated files also goes to where you've dragged the pure html file. Same for deletion. It's a setting within Windows. To that extent, the html file and its associated folder are "paired".

    You could look at this
    So there's some sort of compression. Interesting! I'm tempted to try the Fx add-on and see but enough excitement for one day :)
     
  9. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
  10. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    I've been busy! Just picked up Mozilla Archive Format version 2.0.2 (which seems to work with Aurora despite the warning). Just saving this page, https://gcc.geojit.net/, in three different ways I got:
    • webpagecomplete.html 26.4 kB + webpagecomplete_files 220.9 kB = 247.3 kB
    • mht.mht 334.8 kB
    • maff.maff 216.5 kB
    I haven't tried unmht as yet. I'd be interested to know what Opera throws up with that page. It maybe that, depending on the page content (text to graphics ratio), compression efficiency may vary.

    If you don't want to test that page, you could post results for any relatively static page that I could look at later.
     
  11. Ocky

    Ocky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    2,677
    Location:
    George, S.Africa
    Saving https://gcc.geojit.net/
    Opera
    .mht =77.4 KB
    .html with images =57KB + 2.7KB
     
  12. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Just tried it using Opera 11.50 on a Windows 7 PC. I get figures very similar to what I reported last night. I think you're blocking some content to get both so small.

    Anyway, as a Firefox user, I think I'll go with the .maff thing for a while (until it explodes in my face).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.