MochiMoppel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:00 am
mikewalsh wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:25 pmThis 'double tab' thing is nowt to do with Mochi's scripting, Greg. It's nothing specifically to do with Vivaldi OR your set-up, either; it appears to be a long-standing, endemic 'bug' in the Chromium code-base, <snip> Sure, it's annoying.....but ya CAN live with it. Especially when it's out of your control.
It's in YOUR control, Mike, because it's a bug in your LAUNCH script 
I tried Vivaldi32 in Xenial (I'm now posting from it). Lots of errors when starting from command line and also while running Vivaldi, but somehow Vivaldi works. I get the same double tabs. This is not surprising because the last line in LAUNCH reads
Code: Select all
exec -a "$0" "$HERE/vivaldi/vivaldi-bin" "$@" --user-data-dir=$HERE/PROFILE --no-sandbox --disable-infobars "$@"
First I stumbled on -a "$0". This gives the new process the complete path to LAUCH as a process name. Why do you need a process name at all? And why with such a weird name? Maybe no harm done, but just odd.
The double tabs occur because you let Vivaldi open the passed URLs twice. See the "$@" ? This holds the passed URLs and customarily it is the last argument.
In your case it is too, but there is another here: ... vivaldi-bin" "$@" --user-data-dir....
Remove it and you'll get rid of double tabs.
.....which all goes to prove what I keep telling everybody. I am NOT a 'coder' or a 'script-kiddie'. 90% of what I read in scripts or in the terminal I do NOT understand.
I'm a "bumbler". More often than not, I try things out at random until summat works for me (well, OK; I'm guess I'm probably not quite that clueless, but I'm certainly no expert when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of much of what Bash does, or how you use it correctly.....and it's getting so I no longer have the enthusiasm to learn stuff that I had in the early days).
If something works for me, I'll re-use it. Not very original, I'll grant you, but hey! if it does the job, that's good enough for me.
Anyway; thank you very much for the explanation. It's much appreciated. That's something I've learnt today!
That exec line is merely a modification of the one most of the 'clone' developers use in their own launch wrapper scripts, although I don't know quite how that extra "$@" snuck in. It still worked, so it seemed as if it wasn't that important... They all use 'exec -a "$0"', and I've found that if you don't use it the browsers get all snotty about something not to their liking, and generally refuse to run. So I leave it in.....and as far as 'vivaldi-bin' being an odd process name is concerned, that's the Vivaldi devs' doing, not mine!
Like the 'zilla browsers, the bulk of the 'clones' resides in a huge 'shared' library.....but where the 'zilla browsers fire this up via a small binary, that's where the similarity ends. The Chromium clones don't do it this way; they fire the shared library up directly via a wrapper script instead.....and you've no choice but to use whatever name the devs have given this large shared library.
With regard to the seemingly endless list of errors in the terminal when you run Vivaldi - or ANY Chromium 'clone' for that matter - these browsers ARE very 'noisy' in the terminal. This is normal for these browsers, and is to be expected; Google have them set-up this way to give an ongoing, real-time debug report every second they're running.....mostly for the benefit of developers. (Very quick history lesson, if you don't already know; the Chromium Project is Google's btrowser R&D department. They sponsor it, and it's from where they grab the code for Chrome itself). There is SO much in the way of built-in 'redundancy' routines, that even if you run them in a mainstream distro where they've been specifically re-compiled for that distro by experts, you will STILL get a laundry-list of errors when running them. There is no getting away from this.
Try running Firefox from the terminal. What you will see is not so much different.
Mike. 
That's impossible - or a miracle. After copying the URL to the clipboard it doesn't matter if you use your Ctrl+U shortcut or click on the icon. Both do the same thing, they invoke the script. If Ctrl+U works for you, so should an icon click. The script wouldn't work without an installed xclip or xsel, but xclip is installed in Xenial. So no matter how I look at it, if you get this message it makes no sense to me.