Does anyone like the new file selection boxes?
It had me totally confused when I first came across it, the 'directory/folder' window just has the words Home, Desktop and Filesystem in it - it took me quite a while to realise that Filesystem means /. I'm still not sure if I know what Desktop means.
... and nowhere does it display the full path as you navigate.
This is Firefox 1.5 release candidate by the way.
Although i'm not using that firefox version.. it sounds like the 'new' gtk (2.6 perhaps?) one.... takes some getting used to... admittedly, but it does seem fairly usable once you do
Rob.
On 23/11/05, Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
Does anyone like the new file selection boxes?
It had me totally confused when I first came across it, the 'directory/folder' window just has the words Home, Desktop and Filesystem in it - it took me quite a while to realise that Filesystem means /. I'm still not sure if I know what Desktop means.
... and nowhere does it display the full path as you navigate.
This is Firefox 1.5 release candidate by the way.
-- Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk)
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 21:05 +0000, rob page wrote:
Although i'm not using that firefox version.. it sounds like the 'new' gtk (2.6 perhaps?) one.... takes some getting used to... admittedly, but it does seem fairly usable once you do
Yes I think that's what Chris is referring to ...on mine (Firefox 1.0.7 and GTK 2.6) you do at least get a "Browse for other folders" option that expands the dialogue to a more sane one that "sort of" gives you full path access. As you say once you get used to it, it isn't actually that bad.
Actually I have grown to quite like the way that each level in the folder structure creates a button at the top.
I keep meaning to see if there is a switch somewhere that will make the file save as dialogue default to the expanded view.
On 11/23/05, Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
Does anyone like the new file selection boxes? It had me totally confused when I first came across it, the 'directory/folder' window just has the words Home, Desktop and Filesystem in it - it took me quite a while to realise that Filesystem means /. I'm still not sure if I know what Desktop means. ... and nowhere does it display the full path as you navigate. This is Firefox 1.5 release candidate by the way.
It is rather similar to the latest Windows save dialogs.
Such is the price of progress!
Tim.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:45:32AM +0000, Tim Green wrote:
On 11/23/05, Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
Does anyone like the new file selection boxes? It had me totally confused when I first came across it, the 'directory/folder' window just has the words Home, Desktop and Filesystem in it - it took me quite a while to realise that Filesystem means /. I'm still not sure if I know what Desktop means. ... and nowhere does it display the full path as you navigate. This is Firefox 1.5 release candidate by the way.
It is rather similar to the latest Windows save dialogs.
Such is the price of progress!
I haven't looked at firefox 1.5, but the concept of having a directory (?) called "Desktop" is nonsense on the whole, in a Unix / Linux environment. The "Desktop" should be the login directory -- as far as I can tell, the whole silly idea of having a "Desktop" directory is an atavism from the history of some other operating systems which used to not have a proper (multi-) user management, as a simple means to conceal the clutter of files in the top level directory of the boot partition...
Best regards, Jan
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:43:48AM +0000, Jan T. Kim wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:45:32AM +0000, Tim Green wrote:
On 11/23/05, Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk wrote:
Does anyone like the new file selection boxes? It had me totally confused when I first came across it, the 'directory/folder' window just has the words Home, Desktop and Filesystem in it - it took me quite a while to realise that Filesystem means /. I'm still not sure if I know what Desktop means. ... and nowhere does it display the full path as you navigate. This is Firefox 1.5 release candidate by the way.
It is rather similar to the latest Windows save dialogs.
Such is the price of progress!
I haven't looked at firefox 1.5, but the concept of having a directory (?) called "Desktop" is nonsense on the whole, in a Unix / Linux environment. The "Desktop" should be the login directory -- as far as I can tell, the whole silly idea of having a "Desktop" directory is an atavism from the history of some other operating systems which used to not have a proper (multi-) user management, as a simple means to conceal the clutter of files in the top level directory of the boot partition...
Erm - right - the desktop, even in Windows, is per user, and has been since ~ win 95. Even before that, in Win 3.11 it was possible to give different people different access to things. Technically, I think you'll find that the main reason for Desktop appearing these days is that KDE and Gnome both have desktop areas, which are just a directory within the users home.
*SIGH* - personally, I have no desktop, but then I run ion3, I don't have floating windows (except gimp, and that lives on a floating workspace, which is only created when I need it). I don't follow why people have become pointy clicky beasts, it's giving less control, and more frustration if anything goes wrong (had to deal with openoffice the other day, that frustrated the hell out of me, gimme LaTeX any day).
Does anyone like the new file selection boxes? It had me totally confused when I first came across it, the 'directory/folder' window just has the words Home, Desktop and Filesystem in it - it took me quite a while to realise that Filesystem means /. I'm still not sure if I know what Desktop means. ... and nowhere does it display the full path as you navigate. This is Firefox 1.5 release candidate by the way.
It is rather similar to the latest Windows save dialogs.
Such is the price of progress!
I haven't looked at firefox 1.5, but the concept of having a directory (?) called "Desktop" is nonsense on the whole, in a Unix / Linux environment. The "Desktop" should be the login directory -- as far as I can tell, the whole silly idea of having a "Desktop" directory is an atavism from the history of some other operating systems which used to not have a proper (multi-) user management, as a simple means to conceal the clutter of files in the top level directory of the boot partition...
In a historical sense yes - Windows XP generally has the folder 'Documents and settings' and inside that users, and inside that 'Desktop' which acts as the folder in which your desktop settings are installed. Because they expect their users to store other data in their user folder (application settings etc) they meerly move the actuall desktop directory to being the 'username/Desktop' directory. I believe this is customizable AND overridable in the registry. I also believe this is controllable in Gnome / KDE ? You can specify what directory you want to be your 'desktop'
Erm - right - the desktop, even in Windows, is per user, and has been since ~ win 95. Even before that, in Win 3.11 it was possible to give different people different access to things. Technically, I think you'll find that the main reason for Desktop appearing these days is that KDE and Gnome both have desktop areas, which are just a directory within the users home.
There is of course the all users - this is a nice handy override which allows common shortcuts and is very useful if you have a multiple account, single user style computer (by which I mean many users, but only one physically using it at a time.
I guess your average user (of which we have none of in Alug) only want a KDE / Gnome / Windows style interface with minimal customization.
BTW - does the Firefox 1.5 release support SVG ? I have had to run Deer Park Alpha to get that support.
JT
On 11/24/05, James Taylor james.taylor@stealthnet.net wrote:
BTW - does the Firefox 1.5 release support SVG ? I have had to run Deer Park Alpha to get that support.
Firefox 1.5 is Deer Park Alpha, but I don't know if SVG is still in there: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Tim.
The message 4385D728.9070203@stealthnet.net from James Taylor james.taylor@stealthnet.net contains these words:
In a historical sense yes - Windows XP generally has the folder 'Documents and settings' and inside that users, and inside that 'Desktop' which acts as the folder in which your desktop settings are installed. Because they expect their users to store other data in their user folder (application settings etc) they meerly move the actuall desktop directory to being the 'username/Desktop' directory. I believe this is customizable AND overridable in the registry. I also believe this is controllable in Gnome / KDE ? You can specify what directory you want to be your 'desktop'
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but you can of course tell Firefox where you want it to download to. I save files to one directory and saved pages to another. Works automagically.
Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 4385D728.9070203@stealthnet.net from James Taylor james.taylor@stealthnet.net contains these words:
In a historical sense yes - Windows XP generally has the folder 'Documents and settings' and inside that users, and inside that 'Desktop' which acts as the folder in which your desktop settings are installed. Because they expect their users to store other data in their user folder (application settings etc) they meerly move the actuall desktop directory to being the 'username/Desktop' directory. I believe this is customizable AND overridable in the registry. I also believe this is controllable in Gnome / KDE ? You can specify what directory you want to be your 'desktop'
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but you can of course tell Firefox where you want it to download to. I save files to one directory and saved pages to another. Works automagically.
I believe that is true and has been mentioned - what I meant was that there is effectivly a symlink between what you see underneith all your windows (The actual 'desktop') and the folder which it pulls that data from, and that 'symlink' is customisable in both linux and windows - IIRC
JT
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 15:07 +0000, James Taylor wrote:
In a historical sense yes - Windows XP generally has the folder 'Documents and settings' and inside that users, and inside that 'Desktop' which acts as the folder in which your desktop settings are installed.
When you say desktop settings it seems like you are referring to desktop configuration (wallpaper and theme etc)
No desktop settings are held in Documents and settings\username\desktop.
It is simply a folder that holds shortcuts (or if someone annoying has been using the machine...loads of files) that were placed on the desktop as that user.
Personally I see nothing wrong with this behaviour or the problem in having a desktop folder (on either Windows or Linux)
Things get a little more obscured with Nautilus (well at least I think it is Nautilus that does this and not Gnome itself) because you can place objects in the desktop folder that will then appear on the desktop, but magic puts other things on there as well (like mounted volumes that appear in /media)
Jan, are you saying that it shouldn't be possible to put anything on the desktop and it should *only* be a workspace, or are you suggesting that only quick launch icons etc should be placed on the desktop and not files (in which case I suppose a xml file or something could be used to hold the contents of the desktop)
On windows things can get a bit screwy if (for example) you put large files on the desktop and then use roaming profiles...but that's more of a problem with roaming profiles than the desktop folder.
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'?
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.
I hate C++ for similar reasons ;-)
Ian
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:16:50AM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
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.
I hate C++ for similar reasons ;-)
I'm with you there to some extent. It depends on the application. Many of the parts of the system I work on are low level comms. type things where the process is essentially sequential and doesn't fit the OO paradigm very well. On the other hand there are places (like GUI graphics and database applications) where OO does make some sense.
Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:16:50AM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
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.
I hate C++ for similar reasons ;-)
I'm with you there to some extent. It depends on the application. Many of the parts of the system I work on are low level comms. type things where the process is essentially sequential and doesn't fit the OO paradigm very well. On the other hand there are places (like GUI graphics and database applications) where OO does make some sense.
ISTR that at Xeros PARC when they were developing WIMP was the time the OO paradigm was devloped specifically for GUIs. I can see its relevance in that context. What I am not happy about is the assertion that it is applicable to everything else. IMHO it is a tool like any other - only as good as the hands it is in and not suitable for every job.
Ian
Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:16:50AM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
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.
I hate C++ for similar reasons ;-)
I'm with you there to some extent. It depends on the application. Many of the parts of the system I work on are low level comms. type things where the process is essentially sequential and doesn't fit the OO paradigm very well. On the other hand there are places (like GUI graphics and database applications) where OO does make some sense.
In which case C++ is an odd language to have a go at. You can write non-OO apps in C++ and still benefit from using some of the other benefits like templates and the C++ (and C) standard libraries. If you'd said Java I'd have understood the argument as in Java everything has to be part of an object.
JD
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:55:44AM +0000, Jon Dye wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:16:50AM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
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.
I hate C++ for similar reasons ;-)
I'm with you there to some extent. It depends on the application. Many of the parts of the system I work on are low level comms. type things where the process is essentially sequential and doesn't fit the OO paradigm very well. On the other hand there are places (like GUI graphics and database applications) where OO does make some sense.
In which case C++ is an odd language to have a go at. You can write non-OO apps in C++ and still benefit from using some of the other benefits like templates and the C++ (and C) standard libraries. If
Yes, and that's what I tend to do, all our code (in the older part of our applications) is compiled by the C++ compiler but much of the low level stuff is essentially written in ANSI C mode, just using the extra bits of C++ when they're useful.
On Friday 25 November 2005 10:55, Jon Dye wrote:
In which case C++ is an odd language to have a go at. You can write non-OO apps in C++ and still benefit from using some of the other benefits like templates and the C++ (and C) standard libraries. If you'd said Java I'd have understood the argument as in Java everything has to be part of an object.
C is just a sebset of C++.. Slowly rewriting an application here using some of the features of C++ (data encapsulation, overloaded functions) and the difference in size of the final binary is minimal. I dare say if/when I start using STL things will go down hill, but fortunately there is little need for it except in perhaps one area. Using C++ gives me the oportunity to link to and use some interesting libraries to process B-Splines and also simplify the user interface.
As for Java - I don't have a good thing to say about it..
Regards, Paul.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:59:34AM +0000, Paul wrote:
On Friday 25 November 2005 10:55, Jon Dye wrote:
In which case C++ is an odd language to have a go at. You can write non-OO apps in C++ and still benefit from using some of the other benefits like templates and the C++ (and C) standard libraries. If you'd said Java I'd have understood the argument as in Java everything has to be part of an object.
C is just a sebset of C++.. Slowly rewriting an application here using some of the features of C++ (data encapsulation, overloaded functions) and the difference in size of the final binary is minimal. I dare say if/when I start using STL things will go down hill, but fortunately there is little need for it except in perhaps one area. Using C++ gives me the oportunity to link to and use some interesting libraries to process B-Splines and also simplify the user interface.
As for Java - I don't have a good thing to say about it..
Oh I do. It frees development from those 'middle' errors.
The first layer of errors one fixes are the compiler errors, that's easy except for the odd abstruse one.
The next layer (the middle ones above) are the ones that (sometimes) cause seg faults and core dumps or just prevent your program from doing anything at all. Java prevents nearly all of these from happening, at least it stops a whole lot more of them than C/C++ does.
The final layer is the program logic errors where the program 'works' but doesn't give the right results (or not always anyway). No language will help much in fixing these errors.
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
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:27:35AM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
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?
... but my computer isn't a desktop, nor is it a place to put one, it's *on* my desktop. I just want ways available to make it easy to use. What I have in practice on my screen when I start my machine at work or my home machine is a set of terminal windows which automatically connect to various places (e.g. my mail system, usenet news, my coding development areas, etc.), plus maybe a few other icons/buttons which do useful things.
These appear on a set of separate virtual screens, so I have one screen for development work (well two actually), one for news and mail, one for web browsing, etc. This really doesn't relate to a 'DeskTop' paradigm at all.
One thing that surprises me is how few Windows users use the multiple virtual 'desktops' that are freely available for windows as they are for Unix/Linux systems. I suspect it's the 'desktop' paradigm that makes this happen, having as many 'desktops' as you want and being able to go from one to another instantly just seems wrong if you're stuck in the rut of an office desktop.
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?
You find it by using the facilities that a computer has that a real desktop hasn't:-
You use the file system hierarchy to have easy and quick and easily found places to keep all your data. It amazes me how many people don't use a tree structured approach to keeping stuff, so many people have the whole screen covered with 'top level' icons.
If you do lose something you use the computer's ability to search huge data stores very quickly to 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.
Which goes to prove what I said to some extent, this is something unique to the computer environment and constraining it to a 'desktop' just makes it more difficult to use and understand.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:07:09AM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
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.
Which goes to prove what I said to some extent, this is something unique to the computer environment and constraining it to a 'desktop' just makes it more difficult to use and understand.
JOOI what do you call what most people commonly refer to as a desktop on your computer?
I don't see why you are having a rant about it as the name "Desktop" is an arbitary name that describes what most people would call the desktop, if it was called "boingboingeeeeeeek" and the developers had called what most people call the desktop "boingboingeeeeeeek" would that make you any happier?
The only reason for the existence of "Desktop" is because it represents the contents of a folder which relates to what many people call their desktop. Showing the contents of this folder is quite a powerful concept (and imho is better than not using the desktop space at all), but if you don't want to use the folder then don't, at least some people find it useful ;)
Also back to your original mail I think that choosing the name "filesystem" is better than labelling it "/" as most people will understand the concept of the "filesystem" better than what / is and it would mean that look and feel could be maintained across different systems that may not have a root folder called / (i.e. Windows and its friends). I can't see that it would have taken that long to work out beyond clicking the button labelled Filesystem what it represented to someone familiar with Unix type file system layouts.
I for one remember the main stumbling block I had coming to Linux 8'ish years ago when trying to get the system installed was that disk druid in Redhat 5.1 kept telling me I didn't have a "root" filesystem, it took me a good hour to work out as a newbie coming from Windows & the Amiga that I needed to give the partition a label, and that the label needed to be "/", the trouble was that nowhere did it say that the "filesystem root" was called "/" (and at the same time I was having to deal with the concept of having a user called "root" which is about as clear as mud until you have the thing installed anyhow) and you needed to label it, of course looking up "root" in the index of the install manual pointed me to the user root.
Thanks Adam
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:51:34AM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:07:09AM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
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.
Which goes to prove what I said to some extent, this is something unique to the computer environment and constraining it to a 'desktop' just makes it more difficult to use and understand.
JOOI what do you call what most people commonly refer to as a desktop on your computer?
The screen!
I don't see why you are having a rant about it as the name "Desktop" is an arbitary name that describes what most people would call the desktop, if it was called "boingboingeeeeeeek" and the developers had called what most people call the desktop "boingboingeeeeeeek" would that make you any happier?
The only reason for the existence of "Desktop" is because it represents the contents of a folder which relates to what many people call their desktop.
Not in general, my 'desktop' if you want to call the screen that doesn't show the contents of anything, it a space where I do computery sorts of things.
Also back to your original mail I think that choosing the name "filesystem" is better than labelling it "/" as most people will understand the concept of the "filesystem" better than what / is and it would mean that look and feel could be maintained across different
But it's not a general filesystem, it's one particular one. If it had said "root filesystem" or "root" I wouldn't have been so confused.
systems that may not have a root folder called / (i.e. Windows and its friends). I can't see that it would have taken that long to work out beyond clicking the button labelled Filesystem what it represented to someone familiar with Unix type file system layouts.
What took me a long time was to realise at all that that left hand window was where I could select the directory I wanted to go to.
I for one remember the main stumbling block I had coming to Linux 8'ish years ago when trying to get the system installed was that disk druid in Redhat 5.1 kept telling me I didn't have a "root" filesystem, it took me a good hour to work out as a newbie coming from Windows & the Amiga that I needed to give the partition a label, and that the label needed to be "/", the trouble was that nowhere did it say that the "filesystem root" was called "/" (and at the same time I was having to deal with the concept of having a user called "root" which is about as clear as mud until you have the thing installed anyhow) and you needed to label it, of course looking up "root" in the index of the install manual pointed me to the user root.
Quite, but I had exactly the same problem the other way round having grown up in a Unix world.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:33:00PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
JOOI what do you call what most people commonly refer to as a desktop on your computer?
The screen!
Heh, to me the screen is the big lump of glass between me and my desktop ;) just goes to show how metaphors/semantics work with different people.
Not in general, my 'desktop' if you want to call the screen that doesn't show the contents of anything, it a space where I do computery sorts of things.
Hmmmn, mine does stuff. If I was to receive a support call saying my screen doesn't show the contents of anything I'd be asking the user to turn the computer on ;)
Also back to your original mail I think that choosing the name "filesystem" is better than labelling it "/" as most people will understand the concept of the "filesystem" better than what / is and it would mean that look and feel could be maintained across different
But it's not a general filesystem, it's one particular one. If it had said "root filesystem" or "root" I wouldn't have been so confused.
Aye, but I think the ideology is that many people don't know what the "root filesystem" or "root" is (this is certainly true for many desktop users of Unix/Linux that I have supported) and that if you know what root or / is then you will be the kind of person to click everything until it works :)
systems that may not have a root folder called / (i.e. Windows and its friends). I can't see that it would have taken that long to work out beyond clicking the button labelled Filesystem what it represented to someone familiar with Unix type file system layouts.
What took me a long time was to realise at all that that left hand window was where I could select the directory I wanted to go to.
Which window manager do you use? I'm guessing that it isn't gnome ;) I quite like the way the file manager works and being able to have bookmarks to various parts of the filesystem is handy as it saves me doing lots of point'n'drool^H^H^H^H^Hclick action.
Thanks Adam
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:45:49PM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:33:00PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Not in general, my 'desktop' if you want to call the screen that doesn't show the contents of anything, it a space where I do computery sorts of things.
Hmmmn, mine does stuff.
Er, yes, I think that's what I was saying. Real folders on my desk (if I happened to have any there, which I haven't) don't "do stuff", they just are. However the objects on my screen do "do stuff".
friends). I can't see that it would have taken that long to work out beyond clicking the button labelled Filesystem what it represented to someone familiar with Unix type file system layouts.
What took me a long time was to realise at all that that left hand window was where I could select the directory I wanted to go to.
Which window manager do you use? I'm guessing that it isn't gnome ;) I quite like the way the file manager works and being able to have bookmarks to various parts of the filesystem is handy as it saves me doing lots of point'n'drool^H^H^H^H^Hclick action.
I used xfce until very recently but got fed up with it becoming so (to me) complex so I've changed to fvwm2 which is a pleasant revelation. It's just so simple to configure compared with xfce, not a GUI in sight to get in the way of actually doing things! :-)
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:51 +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
I for one remember the main stumbling block I had coming to Linux 8'ish years ago when trying to get the system installed was that disk druid in Redhat 5.1 kept telling me I didn't have a "root" filesystem, it took me a good hour to work out as a newbie coming from Windows & the Amiga that I needed to give the partition a label, and that the label needed to be "/", the trouble was that nowhere did it say that the "filesystem root" was called "/" (and at the same time I was having to deal with the concept of having a user called "root" which is about as clear as mud until you have the thing installed anyhow) and you needed to label it, of course looking up "root" in the index of the install manual pointed me to the user root.
I remember exactly the same struggle (at about the same time) when I tried to install SuSE 5.1 on a spare machine. I am glad I persevered (I remember the joy when I first got the thing to play some sound with tracker)
Also it took me ages to get my head around mount points, I think that is probably the biggest shift people coming from windows have to make. It all makes sense once you understand it and you realise how daft drive letters are. That said with Gnome showing a pretty icon whenever you put a readable disk in the drive, I guess the average user doesn't even have to understand those now (lot of crossover there with the other conversation thread that is going on at the moment)
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:07 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
One thing that surprises me is how few Windows users use the multiple virtual 'desktops' that are freely available for windows as they are for Unix/Linux systems. I suspect it's the 'desktop' paradigm that makes this happen, having as many 'desktops' as you want and being able to go from one to another instantly just seems wrong if you're stuck in the rut of an office desktop.
I think this is the same reason that most Windows users are still using Internet Exploiter...they are either simply not aware of the options or are scared that they may break something by installing such a utility.
Also a lot of Windows users I know don't tend to multitask...they will fullscreen one application and work on that, finish save their work and close it...open something else.
Actually that is an important difference between OS X, Linux and Windows
OS X encourages you to leave stuff running even if you have finished with it...Clicking the close icon simply minimises the application in the dock (whilst leaving it running)
With Linux I tend to leave lots of stuff running in various virtual desktops. At the moment I see that I have left a Windows XP virtual machine running on desktop 4, couple of terminal sessions on 2, XMMS is sitting doing nothing on 3 and I am writing this email on 1 with Evolution...there is also a Serial console open to the Debian installer running on the Alpha server behind me and Firefox
Windows tends to encourage (needs really) you to only have applications open that you need. I find that if you have too much open then User Interface slowdown and constant interruptions from dialogue boxes stealing focus makes the system damn near unusable.
The message 1133010667.12467.128.camel@localhost.localdomain from Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.plus.com contains these words:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:07 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
One thing that surprises me is how few Windows users use the multiple virtual 'desktops' that are freely available for windows as they are for Unix/Linux systems. I suspect it's the 'desktop' paradigm that makes this happen, having as many 'desktops' as you want and being able to go from one to another instantly just seems wrong if you're stuck in the rut of an office desktop.
I think this is the same reason that most Windows users are still using Internet Exploiter...they are either simply not aware of the options or are scared that they may break something by installing such a utility.
All too many of them are quite unaware that there is any alternative. May I boast that I have only ever used IE once (outside the system) some time ago, and that was on a new installation, to go and get Opera. With Opera, I got Firebird. Before that I was using Netscape. (Got as far as N4...)
Also a lot of Windows users I know don't tend to multitask...they will fullscreen one application and work on that, finish save their work and close it...open something else.
I used to, using 3.11, but my Win 2000 box often has half a dozen progs running, especially if I'm manipulating images or writing html pages.
Actually that is an important difference between OS X, Linux and Windows
OS X encourages you to leave stuff running even if you have finished with it...Clicking the close icon simply minimises the application in the dock (whilst leaving it running)
Never used that.
With Linux I tend to leave lots of stuff running in various virtual desktops. At the moment I see that I have left a Windows XP virtual machine running on desktop 4, couple of terminal sessions on 2, XMMS is sitting doing nothing on 3 and I am writing this email on 1 with Evolution...there is also a Serial console open to the Debian installer running on the Alpha server behind me and Firefox
All I have ATM is the mail/news software, Nero and a couple of text files. Writing wibbles on the Windows box I might have Explorer, Notepad, Pagemill, Arachnophilia, Firefox, Opera, WS_FTP, Nero and ZIMACS, as well as the two text documents I usually have there for making notes on.
Windows tends to encourage (needs really) you to only have applications open that you need. I find that if you have too much open then User Interface slowdown and constant interruptions from dialogue boxes stealing focus makes the system damn near unusable.
Not found that, though I do tend to close anything I'm not using, just in case. It takes longer to save and close everything if the supply goes on to the UPS...
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:14:16PM +0000, Anthony Anson wrote:
With Linux I tend to leave lots of stuff running in various virtual desktops. At the moment I see that I have left a Windows XP virtual machine running on desktop 4, couple of terminal sessions on 2, XMMS is sitting doing nothing on 3 and I am writing this email on 1 with Evolution...there is also a Serial console open to the Debian installer running on the Alpha server behind me and Firefox
All I have ATM is the mail/news software, Nero and a couple of text files. Writing wibbles on the Windows box I might have Explorer, Notepad, Pagemill, Arachnophilia, Firefox, Opera, WS_FTP, Nero and ZIMACS, as well as the two text documents I usually have there for making notes on.
As I said earlier in the thread my tendency is to have a number of rxvt (lightweight xterm) window running. I use mutt for mail in one of them and tin for news in another. I have firefox running in a screen of its own (with an rxvt window behind). The occasional other application I need I tend to run by typing its name in a terminal window. I have a GUI version of my editor (xvile) that I pop up for program development etc.
The message 20051126145705.GC6331@areti.co.uk from Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk contains these words:
All I have ATM is the mail/news software, Nero and a couple of text files. Writing wibbles on the Windows box I might have Explorer, Notepad, Pagemill, Arachnophilia, Firefox, Opera, WS_FTP, Nero and ZIMACS, as well as the two text documents I usually have there for making notes on.
As I said earlier in the thread my tendency is to have a number of rxvt (lightweight xterm) window running. I use mutt for mail in one of them and tin for news in another. I have firefox running in a screen of its own (with an rxvt window behind). The occasional other application I need I tend to run by typing its name in a terminal window. I have a GUI version of my editor (xvile) that I pop up for program development etc.
Well, I've been playing with Sarge and I'll try motleytasking with several windows tiled when I get some new glasses.
With the list of apps I mentioned earlier, you can add Paintshop Pro sometimes and Irfanview nearly always, as well as one of the other graphics progs I have, and which does things better than either of the other two.
I can see the attraction of (say) having Firefox, Opera, a text editor and another very basic browser open and tiled, but as I said, squinting...
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:11:07PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:07 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
One thing that surprises me is how few Windows users use the multiple virtual 'desktops' that are freely available for windows as they are for Unix/Linux systems. I suspect it's the 'desktop' paradigm that makes this happen, having as many 'desktops' as you want and being able to go from one to another instantly just seems wrong if you're stuck in the rut of an office desktop.
I think this is the same reason that most Windows users are still using Internet Exploiter...they are either simply not aware of the options or are scared that they may break something by installing such a utility.
Also a lot of Windows users I know don't tend to multitask...they will fullscreen one application and work on that, finish save their work and close it...open something else.
Yes, I find that wierd too, the number of people who run everything full screen. One of the basic powers of a GUI is multiple overlapping (or maybe tiled) windows and many users aviod using it!
Windows tends to encourage (needs really) you to only have applications open that you need. I find that if you have too much open then User Interface slowdown and constant interruptions from dialogue boxes stealing focus makes the system damn near unusable.
At home and at work my approach is to run a windows virtual multi-screen environment with one of the screens dedicated to my Linux (or at work, Solaris) desktop. Most of my work goes on in the Linux/Solaris desktop but it's dead easy to flip over to one of the other screens if/when I need to run something (other than the X server) under Windows.
Chris Green wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:11:07PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Also a lot of Windows users I know don't tend to multitask...they will fullscreen one application and work on that, finish save their work and close it...open something else.
Yes, I find that wierd too, the number of people who run everything full screen. One of the basic powers of a GUI is multiple overlapping (or maybe tiled) windows and many users aviod using it!
I think that is a matter of opinion/perception. I personally prefer to have whatever I am actually working on at full screen as a rule. I cannot stand overlapped or tiled windows because I can never find the one I want. I really dislke apps lke GIMP that open a plethora of windows too. I simply have four desktop each with a full screen application in it. This partly because of the type of application I tend to use (EDA) but also because I have never joined the must have the best resolution display possible brigade and use XGA. The only desktop that does not have a full screen app is the one with several tabbed consoles. Now tabbing I do like, especially when editing multiple files (at full screen of course).
And as for multi-tasking, in reality very little of it occurs on the average PC.
Ian
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 03:50:54PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:11:07PM +0000, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Also a lot of Windows users I know don't tend to multitask...they will fullscreen one application and work on that, finish save their work and close it...open something else.
Yes, I find that wierd too, the number of people who run everything full screen. One of the basic powers of a GUI is multiple overlapping (or maybe tiled) windows and many users aviod using it!
I think that is a matter of opinion/perception. I personally prefer to have whatever I am actually working on at full screen as a rule. I cannot stand overlapped or tiled windows because I can never find the one I want. I really dislke apps lke GIMP that open a plethora of windows too. I simply have four desktop each with a full screen application in it. This partly because of the type of application I tend to use (EDA) but also because I have never joined the must have the best resolution display possible brigade and use XGA. The only desktop that does not have a full screen app is the one with several tabbed consoles. Now tabbing I do like, especially when editing multiple files (at full screen of course).
What I use multiple windows for very often is referring to one file (or other inforamtion) while editing another. This can be done by flipping from one screen to another but that's usually more time consuming and messy than having both on the same screen.
What I really like with a good[ish] screen resulution is being able to have two terminal windows (or editor windows) both 80 columns wide completely visible side by side.
Chris Green wrote:
What I use multiple windows for very often is referring to one file (or other inforamtion) while editing another. This can be done by flipping from one screen to another but that's usually more time consuming and messy than having both on the same screen.
Hence my comment about tabs.
Ian
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:36:26PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
What I use multiple windows for very often is referring to one file (or other inforamtion) while editing another. This can be done by flipping from one screen to another but that's usually more time consuming and messy than having both on the same screen.
Hence my comment about tabs.
Same applies with tabs, you still can't see both bits of information at the same time. It makes little difference if you have to click between screens or click between tabs to see what you want.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:01:20PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Same applies with tabs, you still can't see both bits of information at the same time. It makes little difference if you have to click between screens or click between tabs to see what you want.
I don't click between screens on Gnome, I use the keyboard... just the same as I do to get between virtual terminals which I tend to run inside of a screen (man 1 screen, if you have it installed). I tend to drive most of Gnome by using a keyboard, the only thing I find I can't really navigate very well by the keyboard is the Web (and graphics apps, but that's obvious really).
Thanks Adam
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:37:14PM +0000, Adam Bower wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 06:01:20PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Same applies with tabs, you still can't see both bits of information at the same time. It makes little difference if you have to click between screens or click between tabs to see what you want.
I don't click between screens on Gnome, I use the keyboard... just the same as I do to get between virtual terminals which I tend to run inside of a screen (man 1 screen, if you have it installed). I tend to drive most of Gnome by using a keyboard, the only thing I find I can't really navigate very well by the keyboard is the Web (and graphics apps, but that's obvious really).
OK, same different, you could equally well swap virtual screens with the keyboard but it's still one more action required than having the information on side-by-side windows on the same screen.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 07:06:15PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
OK, same different, you could equally well swap virtual screens with the keyboard but it's still one more action required than having the information on side-by-side windows on the same screen.
Ummm.. not really no. The only real final thing I can say is that I would hate to have your idea of a good working desktop environment forced on me!
Thanks Adam
The message 4388845E.3010606@ukfsn.org from Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org contains these words:
/snip/
And as for multi-tasking, in reality very little of it occurs on the average PC.
And when it does, it's sometimes accidental.
A truly non-techy friend had his box slow right down on him, and someone mentioned spyware and viruses (He already had AVG, but with woefully old definitions) so he googled for 'spyware', was duly impressed and downloaded two more AV progs and two anti-spyware ones - none of which I'd even heard of.
Unfortunately, he gave them their head while installing so managed to get them all multitasking on bootup: and you can imagine the confusion, contention and contumacity...
Since his box is a PI 90, you may imagine how long it took to load Win98 - well, it was over 30 minutes, and then half his programs wouldn't work at all, and those that did took minutes to get going. DUN wouldn't, which was a bit of a bind.
I uninstalled all the AV/spyware stuff except AVG, and things were back to normal. Then it was time to go home.
The upshot is that I'm putting together a PIII 450 for him, and that will have the latest AVG and definitions up to date, SpyWareBlaster to filter the incoming stuff and Spybot S&D and AdAware to clean up afterwards - run on demand.
There's no chance of weaning him off the Evil Umpire, he genuinely doesn't have the time to get his head round Linux. (I do, but I keep procrastinating...)
The message 20051126145202.GB6331@areti.co.uk from Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk contains these words:
Also a lot of Windows users I know don't tend to multitask...they will fullscreen one application and work on that, finish save their work and close it...open something else.
Yes, I find that wierd too, the number of people who run everything full screen. One of the basic powers of a GUI is multiple overlapping (or maybe tiled) windows and many users aviod using it!
I avoid everythung like that - I might revise my practice when I get a new pair of glasses - ATM, my driving glasses aren't any good for anything nearer than about ten feet, and I've borked my varifocals...
And working this thing without glasses is OK, but until I discovered the right-click (X) on a black terminal with white script turns it grey with black script, I had to get up and peer at the screen to read it when it was full sized, let alone tiled.
I see where you're coming from, and I do often have overlapping docs open in some Windows apps, usually in fact, when doing web pages.
However, I do like to have things legible, so it's not a great burden to minimise a program from time to time to look at what's underneath - and refresh it.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:52:02PM +0000, Chris Green wrote:
Yes, I find that wierd too, the number of people who run everything full screen. One of the basic powers of a GUI is multiple overlapping (or maybe tiled) windows and many users aviod using it!
Heh, I tend to avoid running multiple overlapping windows as it makes finding things a pain. I have multiple windows on the the same screen (on this one I have irc+mutt in a terminal, a music player and an instant mesaging client) but the windows don't overlap as it makes finding things a pain. Other apps get run fullscreen in their own virtual desktops, in the plethora of them I have available.
Thanks Adam
The message 20051125084315.GA32099@areti.co.uk from Chris Green chris@areti.co.uk contains these words:
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'?
Personally, I call directories directories. What else can you call a file? [1]
[1] Apart from a document, which would in most cases be more accurate.
I suppose if you were to be really pedantic, a directory would just contain a list of what's present, and amounts to a partition.
A file would be what is normally called a directory. My three-decker basket files on the desktop - that is, on the top of my desk - have in them:
a) A4 paper b) some magazines c) unenclosed printed stuff waiting for attention (usually in vain) d) some folders containing documents e) a small board with some stretched watercolour paper on it f) some computer internals g) a small quantity of dust
My box files on the shelf contain:
a) documents b) envelopes c) glossy photoprint paper and Conqueror laid writing paper d) press cuttings
My disc files contain:
a) 5Œ" floppies b) 3œ" floppies c) zipdiscs d) Linux CDs and DVDs
So, on the box, why call a file a file? It is only one item, which if one is tidy, belongs in a file.
The message 20051124145241.GI60741@amnesiac.heapspace.net from Brett Parker iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk contains these words:
*SIGH* - personally, I have no desktop, but then I run ion3, I don't have floating windows (except gimp, and that lives on a floating workspace, which is only created when I need it). I don't follow why people have become pointy clicky beasts, it's giving less control, and more frustration if anything goes wrong (had to deal with openoffice the other day, that frustrated the hell out of me, gimme LaTeX any day).
OpenOffice is pretty good in many ways, but is not exactly intuitive, and AFAICT some features are either missing (line-spacing) or can't be transferred to the toolbar (superscript/subscript).
Perhaps mine is a bit elderly...
Brett Parker wrote:
*SIGH* - personally, I have no desktop, but then I run ion3, I don't have floating windows (except gimp, and that lives on a floating workspace, which is only created when I need it). I don't follow why people have become pointy clicky beasts, it's giving less control, and more frustration if anything goes wrong (had to deal with openoffice the other day, that frustrated the hell out of me, gimme LaTeX any day).
Personally I cannot undestand why people cling to keyboard only interfaces. I tried Emacs sveral times but having to remember weird key sequences to do even the simplest of things frustrated the hell out of me. Give me pointy clicky any day.
YMMV
Ian
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 05:55:14PM +0000, Ian bell wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
*SIGH* - personally, I have no desktop, but then I run ion3, I don't have floating windows (except gimp, and that lives on a floating workspace, which is only created when I need it). I don't follow why people have become pointy clicky beasts, it's giving less control, and more frustration if anything goes wrong (had to deal with openoffice the other day, that frustrated the hell out of me, gimme LaTeX any day).
Personally I cannot undestand why people cling to keyboard only interfaces. I tried Emacs sveral times but having to remember weird key sequences to do even the simplest of things frustrated the hell out of me. Give me pointy clicky any day.
Hmm... if you run emacs (or xemacs) under X, you get a hell of a lot of stuff for pointing & clicking...
The objective reason behind preferring "keyboard" over "point & click" is that symbolic communication (with the computer) is more powerful than icon- or index-oriented communication -- see
http://gwa.municipia.at/files/semiotics.html
for an interesting discussion of this. More specifically, while the advantage of not having to move a hand away from the keyboard may be a relatively insignificant one (to some people, at least), the advantage of being able to properly program your system (such as e.g. provided by emacs and LaTeX, but not by OpenOffice) is so large that I haven't ever seen anyone revert back to point & click after starting to use scripting and programming features -- and for obvious reasons, programmable systems tend to be keyboard-driven.
Best regards, Jan
-
Adam Bower -
Anthony Anson -
Brett Parker -
Chris Green -
Ian bell -
James Taylor -
Jan T. Kim -
Jon Dye -
Paul -
rob page -
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood