On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 08:43:15AM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:04:21AM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Personally I see nothing wrong with this behaviour or the problem in having a desktop folder (on either Windows or Linux)
I think that the whole concept of pretending that a computer's file system maps sensibly onto a 'desktop' and 'folders' is pretty silly. It hides too much of the power of a good computer file system. Why can't we call files 'files' and directories 'directories'?
I also don't see the problem of having a folder called 'Desktop' in your home directory that holds the contents of the desktop. What else would you do? Not have a folder and not allow people to put icons/files/etc. on the desktop? (I keep a few files on my desktop, due to the goodness of Gnome doing icon preview of photos this is quite handy, and it reminds me to put downloaded files in the right place later on) or have some other method which allows people to put icons/files/etc. on the desktop but give the folder a different name? or hide the folder somewhere obscure so they (especially newbies) can't find it?
Another thing you can do with Gnome is you can create "locations" which can point at an SSH connection/filesystem (SFTP I guess, I've never used this) and FTP server, a Windows Share, or a WebDAV folder. You can then make these locations appear in the file dialogues as an easy way to get places with a single click.
Thanks Adam