On 07/15/2010 07:37 PM, Ryan Oram wrote: > Matthew Paul Thomas wrote on Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:59:28 +0100: >> A Greasemonkey script would work only for people already using Ubuntu >> (and using a browser that allows Greasemonkey scripts). It wouldn't do >> anything to make an apt: URL understandable for people who aren't using >> Ubuntu. Nor would it help CMSes such as WordPress that mangle apt: links > > Yes, but it would remove the need for users to manually enter in > "apt-get install" commands given to them on blogs and forums. It would > instead give them a link to click on that would bring up a GUI asking > them to install the package (at the present time it would be the > minimal AptURL GUI, on Maverick it will be Software Center). The > script works fully on "apt-get install" commands posted on WordPress > blogs, as I have tested. > > There are very few browsers that do not support GreaseMonkey scripts > nowadays (Firefox, Chromium, and Epiphany all do, as well as lesser > used browsers such as Opera or Midori) and said script could be easily > integrated to an extension (or even ubufox itself). In fact, the > extensions for Firefox and Chromium in the original post were made > from the GreaseMonkey script. > > Let's face it, AptURLs have not be adopted widely by the community. > However, there are tons of blogs, forums, and guides that use "apt-get > install" to instruct users to install certain packages. Converting all > of these commands into simple AptURLs will be big help to new users on > Ubuntu and would serve to better integrate apt-get (and Software > Center) into the browser and the web. > > Original script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/47591 > > Thanks, > Ryan
I don't think we should install something like this by default. If the license is open source, why not package it? If people want it, they can install it. Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
