Re: $HOME as desktop

[textshell neutronstar dyndns org]

On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 11:29:17AM +0200, Ole Laursen wrote:
> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 17:29, Ole Laursen wrote:
> > 
> > > So currently $HOME-as-desktop sucks a little because of this legacy
> > > problem, but a general solution seems to be extremely easy to
> > > implement. If it were in fact implemented, would that change people's
> > > mind about the subject?
> > 
> > I thought whole point of the $HOME as desktop exercise was to
> > present an easy-to-use model to users; having directories called
> > Mail/ in the desktop mysteriously (to novices) not be visible
> > doesn't really seem to achieve that for me.
> 
> I don't think novices are that likely to run Gnus or Mutt. Really. As
> I see it, using $HOME as desktop can be painful for old-time Unix
> users, but is much easier to explain to novices. Currently, Nautilus
> is catering to the first group of people, which seems backwards since
> that group is much more likely to be able to configure themselves out
> of the problem.
> 

I think this is a stupid attitude. We can't say gnome (or nautilus) is for
novices only. Everyone else needs a "please unbreak me" gconf trick! I think one
thing that inherently wrong with this novice/expert thinking is that a person
usually learns in small steps. So he gains experience und understanding into
"expert" topics. We shouldn't do things that complicate this way. Sure it is a
good thing to lower the entry barrier even more, but don't artificaly create
barriers in the way to better computer usage. If $HOME as desktop is a problem
for advanced users (i.e. not only for people that learned unix before gnome did
this) than we should not do it.

And the Home icon on the desktop isn't that confusing anyway: It is just a link
(of some kind) into a different folder. And users have to understand links anyway.

> And is the concept of having a list of hidden files more confusing
> than a magic desktop folder? I don't think so.
> 

Why is the Desktop folder magic?

> > I don't know what you mean by "enforced". If GNOME and KDE
> > are using the same directory by default, app developers will
> > catch on pretty quickly.
> 
> I think GNOME has momentum enough to make applications stop putting
> silly things in $HOME, even if KDE isn't following the same direction.
> And then "getting it right" wouldn't matter anymore for GNOME at
> least, since all applications are using $HOME as the base directory
> right now. They've already got it right. :-)
> 

First, i think a few standard non-hidden directories in $HOME for all the
configuration, cache, internal data, etc stuff of the applications is way better
than the current dot file mess. (and yes they should have names like etc and var
because then we can keep the untranslated without being 'unfriendly' to non
english speaking people(FYI my native language is german)).

I think we can get most older applications to default to $HOME/Desktop in the
load/save dialogs by starting them with $HOME/Desktop as the current working
directory. So if we want most applications to default to the desktop it's as easy one
line in gnomes startup scripts (or gnome-session).

<rant ugly>
Anyway I think the desktop concept as done in all major desktops at the moment is a
broken one. I don't want to dig below all my windows just to get to my files and
applications(ok, in unix they tend to be a bit more an the panels). To me the desktop is
quite useless (i even disabled  to on all my linux logins). A file manager (or terminal)
is more functional and flexible(i can even more it around) then to put something below
all windows. It's just a kluge that asks for more kludges (show desktop button, etc).
So everyone out there who wants inovation: How could we serve our users better without a
desktop? 
</rant>


Martin H.