Easily find program name from context menu/without terminal?
Easily find program name from context menu/without terminal?
I occasionally need to know the names of programs. I asked here about "Run as Administrator" being added to the context menu (like in Windows), and the response was basically "can't be easily done". an example is if I wish to edit a config file it cannot be done without accessing the terminal. Knowing the name "gedit" is the real name of "text editor" is useful information in this use-case.
I am not afraid of the terminal, but I would never prefer it over a GUI. is there a way to find a program name/install location from right-clicking-details (or something)? So then I could open a terminal and "sudo programname"?
(As an aside, I prefer Linux overall, but every distro I've tried has a strong sense that if you're using the GUI you don't need or deserve admin controls. Program names in the menus are almost always different from their names in the terminal, and many what I would consider normal system settings, like the ability to act as an administrator, find where a program is installed are terminal only.)
This is Ubuntu with all the default stuff
EDIT: I always expect a degree of hostility and talking-down from the desktop Linux community, but the number of people in this thread telling me I am using my own computer that I bought with my own money in a way they don't prefer while ignoring my question is just absurd and frankly should be deeply embarrassing for all of us. I have strongly defended the desktop Linux community for decades, but this experience has left a sour taste in my mouth.
Thank you to the few of you who tried to assist without judgement or assumptions.
You're viewing a single thread.
but every distro I’ve tried has a strong sense that if you’re using the GUI you don’t need or deserve admin controls
It's not that you don't need or deserve it. The thing is terminal tools are already available. To get the same stuff with GUI someone is going to have to make that stuff. Most people with the skill to make things like that probably don't care enough about GUI to be inspired to make such tools. Since using the terminal is easy and natural to them. When it comes to FOSS, since people work on it in their free time with no payment, they are likely to only put significant effort in things that they would use themselves.
The thing is terminal tools are already available.
Right, after many years of Linux, I get the feeling that developers assume that if you don't like text-based input, you are not responsible enough to configure your own computer. It strikes me as a hacky workaround to the problem of different knowledge levels among users. This is not a criticism of any particular developer, and I have a deep respect for them all. It's just an observation. UAC is not much better, and Apple's "solution" is even worse.
While it wouldn't surprise me if some devs do assume that, I think you're mistaking apathy for malice in the general case. If there isn't a way to do something through a GUI that can be done through a terminal, it only implies that no one has decided that creating a GUI to do that was worth the effort.
It's not (necessarily) that devs want to block users from changing things, it's more of a case that no one has cared enough to put the time and effort in to enabling that GUI access. They either use the terminal or don't configure it ideally themselves because that configuration hasn't been important enough to take their attention.
Though I added that necessarily in brackets there because the Linux community is historically known for RTFM-style gatekeeping even for users who are trying to learn how to use the terminal, so I don't doubt that there are some terminal purists who would attempt to block attempts to add GUI configuration to depots they have influence over.
But just keep in mind it takes time and effort to make things. And, personally, as a dev (not a Linux dev but a software dev that uses Linux), I hate making GUIs. In my experience, unless you're willing to spend a long time positioning, sizing, and centering, they look like crap. Maybe there's a better framework for it these days, but I'd rather be writing algorithms and solving interesting problems than doing graphical design.
That's a really good point. I also know that making GUIs sucks and there's a reason UX devs make the big bucks.
Right, after many years of Linux, I get the feeling that developers assume that if you don't like text-based input, you are not responsible enough to configure your own computer.
Many of us prefer the cli for administration. It's not "punishing" you - it's how things are more often done with Linux.
Oh I know, no disrespect to my terminal-peeps. to clarify, I was speaking purely about the "noob friendly" distros.
GUIs are good for the sole reason of presenting you the available options. A CLI is empty.
Yes! Exactly why it bugs me when options are left out of the GUI out of what I can only assume is a sense of concern the user might use them "incorrectly".
I mean in this case it is very reasonable. Dont run apps as root.
See my konsole entry, the app runs as user, but a specific profile that launches a root shell.
I am also currently updating my linux desktop entries help page