| |||||||||||||
Updates to the File Hierarchy StandardUpdates to the File Hierarchy StandardPosted Nov 13, 2003 11:25 UTC (Thu) by amtota (guest, #4012)In reply to: Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard by cdamian Parent article: Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard
I agree. If we ever want to have linux on the desktop, we need to have a readable root filesystem for basic users, at the moment it isn't. Either we have a gui wrapper that hides all the details, or we need to move things around (Gobelinux does this?) I have been using linux for over 9 years, and I am sorry to say that I still hate the filesystem layout combined with the average X gui, how many times have I had to go .., .., ./mnt, ./cdrom, ./XXX , ./YYY to get to some file through some very ugly file selector: think all non-kde non-gnome apps (that's quite a few) and the old gnome file selector is hell too.. Not to mention all those apps with their own crap fileselectors...
(Log in to post comments)
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 13, 2003 12:32 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] Not to mention all those apps with their own crap fileselectors...OpenOffice.org among them. You cannot go directly to your home directory, which is a pain in the ass, for example, if you opened a remote file from the browser (which often put the temporary files in /tmp/). You have to walk up to the root and then walk down to you home dir just to save the file.
Open Office file selector Posted Nov 14, 2003 13:33 UTC (Fri) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link] Not to mention all those apps with their own crap fileselectors..OpenOffice.org among them. You cannot go directly to your home directory, which is a pain in the ass, for example, if you opened a remote file from the browser (which often put the temporary files in /tmp/). You have to walk up to the root and then walk down to you home dir just to save the file. Huh? I just clicked "File" then "Open" and on the upper right is an icon that takes you to your "Default Directory", which is my home directory. Don't rant about Open Office - it's a fantastic piece of software. It keeps me sane at my work, where about 1/3 of the company uses Windows and is obsessed with doing everything in Microsoft Office. :-/
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 13, 2003 12:44 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] If we ever want to have linux on the desktop, we need to have a readable root filesystem for basic users, at the moment it isn't.That can be argued both ways. My gut feeling is that for an unsophisticated user, avoiding deep hierarchy for such common things as removable media is easier. Besides the /mnt/media/floppy may look too "complex" and long ("/mnt? what does that come from. Mountain?") I used to have root directories /a and /b for mounting the first and second floppies. "Heretical", but very convenient. But eventually I got tired of re-creating them and the fstab entries after each Linux update, and my usage of floppies decreased anyway. .. Not to mention all those apps with their own crap fileselectors... Agree about the file selectors. Most have the basic errors of not remembering the directory you last used (which quite often is where you want to go again), and not providing a LRU list of recent directories and/or files. I wonder how much it would help if there was for all file selectors a global easily selectable list of 4...8 recently used directories (per user of course). It would make it simple to save a file with one app to some directory, then open it from there with another app. It would also be a big help when alternating between working on files in some typically narrow set of directories. I commonly do that. I really should test this concept myself, unfortunately I have very little experience with GUI coding.
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 13, 2003 14:22 UTC (Thu) by vegge (subscriber, #6926) [Link] > Agree about the file selectors. Most have the basic errors of not> remembering the directory you last used (which quite often is where you > want to go again), and not providing a LRU list of recent directories > and/or files. Please! Are there technical barriers to implementing this? I think it would be a big improvement in terms of usability.
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 13, 2003 20:13 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] [...missing list of recently used directories...]When I first started to use the mplayer GUI, it was already implemented there - about two years ago, I think.
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 14, 2003 8:17 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] The actual challenge is not implementing it in some single program like mplayer, or even in some single GUI toolkit, but getting all GUI apps to do it in a consistent way. I think the way to go would be to freedesktop.org to agree to a standard about this, and getting it to both GNOME and KDE toolkits.
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 13, 2003 18:41 UTC (Thu) by guardian (guest, #16832) [Link] Think Aqua!Okay, Okay... I know it's not nice to suggest that other OSes are ahead of Linux on the desktop, but let's face it, if you want to see a huge step in the right direction for simple usability on UNIX, take a look at OS X. When doing normal end-user work on my PowerBook, I never have to deal with most of the crap in /. It's still there... and if I'm setting up a UNIX service, I can do it right, but the whole user interface is consistent and easy to use.
Linux != MacOS X Posted Nov 14, 2003 15:12 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] One thing to keep in mind when comparing Linux to MacOS or Windows - Linux is literally a collection of largely independent programs, GUIs, file selectors, shells, etc. There is no one person or corporation in charge of all of them that can mandate: thou shalt do file selection like this. This is both a blessing and a curse of open source software. Trying to get everyone to agree on "the one true GUI" is like trying to herd cats. It's quite chaotic, but it means choice.I too wish that there would be a consistent GUI for Linux - it would go a long way towards making it much more usable, especially as a Desktop. But it's rather like comparing apples to oranges in trying to compare Linux to MacOS.
Linux != MacOS X Posted Nov 14, 2003 19:41 UTC (Fri) by guardian (guest, #16832) [Link] You can't say "we want to build the best desktop workstation ever" and then turn around and say "but Linux can't be it because the availability of choice makes it impossible." Choice is a wonderful feature to have for power users. The majority of people using computers for productive work, besides developers, aren't power users. For them, you have to give them the choices they want and not clutter up their minds. A well designed interface is one that allows the user to do what they want to do without having to learn the inner workings of the operating system. This is the obstacle before every OS... and it's the obstacle that keeps Linux in the power-user-only market. MacOS X is a great model... yeah Apple is a commercial entity, and as you said it's easier for them to do it because of that. MacOS X is still further than anyone else has gone down that road. It's a great model for a user interface. I'm not suggesting duplicating it... but it could be an inspiration to gnome and kde. And for what it's worth, MacOS X is still UNIX... it too is still very much a collection of a bunch of single-purpose tools, and it still has to deal with the basic rules of UNIX.
Updates to the File Hierarchy Standard Posted Nov 14, 2003 5:51 UTC (Fri) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link] I don't think any UNIX filesystem will be "easy" for "basic" users. But then, maybe I don't know what you mean by "basic". Understanding UNIX(-like) filesystems requires understanding1) files (this is hard for many people) At some point after those concepts are settled, one can talk about conventions for how to arrange the directories and files. And with this level of sophistication, it probably doesn't matter too much where things are as long as there is some non-trivial amount of consistency. -Paul Komarek
|
|||||||||||||