Re: Killing views [Was: Dealing with files in Gnome]

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:27, Julien Olivier wrote:
> > But that's the point!
> > 
> > Konqueror's UI elements are not crippled. Basically Konqueror is nothing else 
> > than just a Window frame and nothing else. Without KHTML embedded as KParts 
> > (?) it wouldn't even act as a Webbrowser. All those KParts thingies are what 
> > gives it the powers e.g. act as SQL query analyzer, Pop3 email browser, 
> > Filemanager, Webbrowser, Movieplayer, PDF viewer and so on.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I know that. But that's only theory. In practice, konqueror IS
> crippled. For example, it has a location bar, previous/next icons which
> come from the fact that it may be a web navigator. It has a "print" icon
> which is useless when browsing your files etc...
> 
> Of course, that's just my personal opinion and I also feel that Nautilus
> has herited some UI crippling from the time where it was a web
> browser...
> 
> Now if you say that GNOME needs a plugin-embedder comparable to
> konqueror, why not but then I need a file manager that does what its
> name claims: manage files.
> 
> I just don't like hybrid apps because their ployvalence is often
> compensated by bad UI design.
> 
> > Real live scenario:
> > -------------------
> 
> (snip)
> 
> About burn://
> 
> Isn't it possible to easily build a standalone app that would simply
> embed the burn:// view ?

Anything that uses gnome-vfs can really easily copy files to burn:///.
They can't provide the nautilus icon view for it.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp