Re: Alternative Utensil

[Gregory Merchan <merchan phys lsu edu>]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:21:19AM +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 10:14, Gregory Merchan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:37:03AM +0200, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco wrote:
> > > Gregory Merchan wrote:
> > > >Rather than revisiting GNOME's need for a spatial file manager every so
> > > >often and having so many cross-posted threads, would someone please just
> > > >spoon Nautilus?  Or perhaps spork it?
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but I'm not following you ... :)
> > 
> > I'm hiding a serious request behind a bad joke.
> > 
> > I'm asking for someone to fork Nautilus.
> 
> I thought you were, but didn't believe it.
> 
> Urm... why? It's difficult enough to maintain 1 version (look at
> bugzilla).

Because . . .
  . . . I'm pissed off about having to use a shell so much.
  . . . I don't think GNOME will ever get a spatial file manager any
        other way.
  . . . I'm sick of arguments about it.
  . . . I'm sick of a lot of other things too.
  . . . although revolutions are a messy unpredictable business, I'm
        for taking the risk here where there are no lives involved.
  . . . I'm tempted to do it myself, but lack (at least) the gumption.

Last I looked at open Nautilus bugs, many of them were leftovers from the
days when Eazel's design discussions were done as bug reports. I doubt
bugzilla's count shows the number of real bugs.

The main reason to not fork, IMO, is that gnome-vfs and nautilus were too
tightly knited last I checked.

Anyway . . . sorry for the rant. Please, no more on this thread.

Not-so-cheery Cheers,
Greg