1 vote by jaxmax — 1 votes, 5 comments

Luckily there are other file managers.

Luckily it can be forked or compiled without this patch.

Why does a file manager need social buttons?

Because that makes sense? Please don't get me wrong, I am not endorsing such Twitter-esque proprietary data farms, but sharing of files in general does make sense. The three questions are:

1) What "service" or "destination" do we want? 2) Where should the core logic be implemented? 3) Where do we want to expose that functionality?

First, I think the screenshot shows quite a lot of option, Mail, Bluetooth, *cloud. I wouldn't be in favor of having Twitter or Telegram enabled by default, but iirc this are all plugins that can be enabled/disabled.

Second, I agree that this should not be part of the FileManager. I haven't looked at the code, but since they talk about implementing the same share menu as in okular, it looks obviously that they duplciate efforts. In theory you want a "share programm" that can be invoked by others. I, myself, do have a "share.sh" that uploads to my public share and generates a one-time-link (or sends the file by mail).

Third, I do think it makes sense to expose this functionality in the file manager (read: wherever you tend to manage your files) and IIRC it has been for qutie a while (Send to). Having this in Firefox has also been a highly debated change, but I agree with the intention and use share by mail regularly.

I agree with your comment. For me, this should be an opt-in plugin and should be configurable (for example I should be able to remove twitter and add gnusocial).