Use "xdg-open" instead of "open"

[Damglador]

Simple change to use xdg-open command for opening system file manager on Linux instead of outdated "open".

xdg-open is a standardized way of opening files/folders/URLs with a default program on Linux.

Unlike xdg-open, open doesn't come by default on Ubuntu 25 or Fedora 41, and it's missing from Arch repos completely (only available on AUR).

[IntegratedQuantum]

Does this work on macos too?
Also please link a reference that mentions the deprecation/removal.

[Damglador]

I won't be able to find reference of deprecation/removal, I only know that no one uses it anymore on Linux. No clue about MacOS. I could add a separate check for MacOS to use open.

Fedora 41 and Ubuntu 25 also don't have a package called open.

[Damglador]

Probably should https://superuser.com/questions/911735/how-do-i-use-xdg-open-from-xdg-utils-on-mac-osx

[Damglador]

The primary purpose of OS X's open command is to open a file in the associated application. The equivalent of that on modern non-OSX unices is xdg-open.

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/253376/open-command-to-open-a-file-in-an-application#253531

Somewhat of a reference of deprecation

[IntegratedQuantum]

Look, I need some definitive prove that xdg-open is the preferred and right way to open a folder and is preinstalled on more platforms than just open.

[Argmaster]

I think that may not be possible to proof, so I would suggest instead using either as fallback and providing concrete proof that there is a popular Linux distro where open doesn't work (eg. Is not aliased or sth)

[Damglador]

Fedora 41, Ubuntu 25 (both tested in distrobox) and Arch Linux don't have open command and open package, but all have xdg-open installed and the xdg-utils package.

Pretty sure all other software uses xdg-open as well, so if a user doesn't have it, that's their problem.

[Damglador]

My bad, Ubuntu 24

[Damglador]

┌─[damglador@Parasite][~]
└% \cat /etc/*-release | grep ^VERSION= ; \cat /etc/*-release | grep ^NAME=
VERSION="41 (Container Image)"
NAME="Fedora Linux"
┌─[damglador@Parasite][~]
└% command -V open
open not found
┌─[damglador@Parasite][~]
└% command -V xdg-open
xdg-open is /usr/local/bin/xdg-open

┌─[damglador@Parasite][~]
└% \cat /etc/*-release | grep ^VERSION= ; \cat /etc/*-release | grep ^NAME=
VERSION="24.04.2 LTS (Noble Numbat)"
NAME="Ubuntu"
┌─[damglador@Parasite][~]
└% command -V open                                                         
open not found
┌─[damglador@Parasite][~]
└% command -V xdg-open                                                     
xdg-open is /usr/local/bin/xdg-open

┌─[damglador@Parasite][~/Scripts/vs-server-tmux]
└% \cat /etc/*-release | grep ^VERSION= ; \cat /etc/*-release | grep ^NAME=
NAME="Arch Linux"
┌─[damglador@Parasite][~/Scripts/vs-server-tmux]
└% command -V open                                                         
open not found
┌─[damglador@Parasite][~/Scripts/vs-server-tmux]
└% command -V xdg-open                                                     
xdg-open is /usr/bin/xdg-open

Edit: use -V option instead of -v so it explicitly says that command is not found.

[IntegratedQuantum]

Pretty sure all other software uses xdg-open as well

You keep making these claims. I have never heard about xdg before. The only stackoverflow on this topic doesn't mention it either. You got to give me something.

both tested in distrobox

Are these even real systems?

[Damglador]

Are these even real systems?

Yes.

I don't want installing multiple VMs just to prove that open isn't used anymore. If opening file manager will remain broken, so be it.

[IntegratedQuantum]

Is not one article on the whole internet that talks about this?

[Damglador]

May I ask, why was open used in the first place? The game is released only for Windows and Linux. On Linux open is clearly not used (at all or anymore, doesn't matter). If I google "how to open default file manager from terminal on linux", the results are (in order):

• https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-open-file-explorer-from-terminal-on-linux (not universal)
• https://askubuntu.com/questions/31069/how-to-open-a-file-manager-of-the-current-directory-in-the-terminal (use xdg-open)
• https://superuser.com/questions/465495/how-to-find-the-default-file-manager (use xdg-open)
• https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/302287/how-to-find-out-the-default-file-manager-in-the-terminal (use xdg-open)
• https://bitsanddragons.wordpress.com/2023/03/02/howto-open-a-default-file-manager-with-gui-from-a-terminal-on-centos-7-x/ (use xdg-open)
• https://opensource.com/article/22/12/linux-terminal-file-manager (not relevant)
• https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=185349 (use gvfs-open)
• https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/what-command-shortcut-for-opening-file-manager-home/71149 (use xdg-open)
• https://gist.github.com/thirukkural2022/d129070db37a2751d1d8 (open MENTIONED!!!!)

[Argmaster]

Ok, I just checked on my Ubuntu 24.04 and open is an alias for xdg-open .

---

That said, I am worried about how much time we spent on discussing this.
As far as I understand we do not have a concrete bug report from user discovering a feature doesn't work, so essentially this is fixing a non-existing issue to follow an standard which is not mandatory to follow.
In meantime we have plenty of serious features missing in the engine and plenty pending pull requests which actually improve significant parts of the game.
Really, its lowest priority and lowest visibility issue out of them all, so whether we pull this or not does not matter, as long as it doesn't regress the codebase.
I think we should have a policy for handling situation like this, because I don't think this is really helpful.

[IntegratedQuantum]

That is exactly what I need to remove my doubts, thank you.

May I ask, why was open used in the first place?

I looked for how to open a file explorer from code, which only lead to the old stackoverflow linked above which suggested open, but your references are better.

I think that may not be possible to proof, so I would suggest instead using either as fallback

Well, until we can find an actual counter-example where xdg-open doesn't work, I think it's better to use just the xdg-open option, since it (as now shown) does seem to be the more common option. Anything else would needlessly complicate the logic.

That said, I am worried about how much time we spent on discussing this.

Yes I agree, for now the damage is done, may as well merge it. I think a policy about it would make sense.

[Damglador]

As far as I understand we do not have a concrete bug report from user discovering a feature doesn't work, so essentially this is fixing a non-existing issue to follow an standard which is not mandatory to follow.

I would report it. I was testing #1913 and noticed that the game doesn't open file manager when it should. But I decided to just fix it, since it was easier than writing an Issue.

[IntegratedQuantum]

Why didn't you just say so?

[Damglador]

Unlike xdg-open, open doesn't come by default on Ubuntu 25 or Fedora 41, and it's missing from Arch repos completely (only available on AUR).

In the PR description. This makes it broken.

[Argmaster]

Ok, next time please start "X does not work" then the rest. Lov ya C: