Re: Proposal: gnome-user-share

[Kai Willadsen <kaiw itee uq edu au>]

On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 08:26 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:44 +1000, Kai Willadsen wrote:
> > 
> > > $HOME should not be used for "implementation detail" files, with the
> > > exception of dotfiles. Only user-should-care files. But ~/Public should
> > > contain user-should-care files, so it makes sense in a $HOME non-
> > > dotfile.
> > 
> > How is the fact that files can only be shared from the ~/Public
> > directory *not* an implementation detail? That's like saying that the
> > fact that xchat (used to, iirc) download to ~/dcc is fine, because the
> > user cares about the contents of ~/dcc.
> > 
> 
> It's an implementation detail but a reasonable-to-be-user-visible one.
> i.e. not *just* an implementation detail.
> 
> Homedir *is* where I'd put ~/dcc if I had a download dir named dcc, but
> of course I would not name it dcc and probably would try to copy the
> epiphany approach for this.

I was deliberately trying *not* to argue for a particular solution, but
since you bring it up, epiphany (at least in Gnome 2.8) allows you to
select your preferred download directory.

Basically - why is hard-coding this directory name any better than
saying that shared files go in public:// and proving a link to this fake
URI from the desktop? (not that I'm advocating such an approach)

If the single-shared-location is the chosen path [1], wouldn't it be
more logical to have this capability exposed through 'Network' or
'Computer' under nautilus? Particularly since, as people have pointed
out, you probably want the drag & drop semantics on this location to be
more like a remote or virtual location than a real folder (i.e., you
probably want copy or link by default, rather than move).

-- 
Kai Willadsen

[1] Not that anyone has bothered arguing about the usability of a
'single shared folder' vs. a 'manually select shared folder' approach.