Re: Proposal, and about icons in the path

["Wesley Felter" <wesf cs utexas edu>]

>>4. i look forward to reading your reasons for using icons in the
>>pathname. i disagree but will reserve argument until after i've read
>>your proposition.
>
>The short version is: the unix file hierarchy is great for sysadmins,
>not so great for my grandma.  I want to hide the system's file tree
>(though not prevent the gui user from accessing it).  I think we should
>build a new hierarchy in each user's home directory.  When my grandma
>wants to read the PPP HOWTO, instead of winding her way to
>/usr/doc/HOWTO/other-formats/html/, I want her to be able to open a
>documentation folder straight of the desktop, perhaps under
>[desktop]/reference/HOWTOs.  In this respect, I hope we emulate OS/2's
>WPS.

(I will probably get flamed for this, but I think this discussion needs to
be had at some point.)

If the filesystem layout is too confusing, why not simply change it? To
illustrate my point, let's compare the two systems with which I'm most
familiar: MacOS and Windows. I apologize for ignoring other systems like
OS/2, but I can't speak about something I haven't used.

For a long time, Windows has had the infamous File Manager/Program Manager
dichotomy. Recent versions are even worse, with Explorer replacing File
Manager, the Start menu replacing Program Manager, and the desktop serving
some other purpose. The desktop and Start menu are just folders in the
filesystem, but they are represented in different ways. I find that starting
programs using the Start menu is the easiest way for me.

Now look at MacOS. The Finder is the primary way to browse the filesystem,
and also a convenient way to launch applications. The Apple menu is very
similar to the Start menu, but installers don't usually add things to the
Apple menu, and I'm usually to lazy to add them. (Besides, it takes up
almost the whole screen already; there isn't room to add much.) The one
feature of the Apple menu I do use is Recent Applications, but that's
probably a power-user feature.

My point is that it is as easy for me to launch an application using the
Finder as it is with the Start menu. And I haven't even mentioned that many
applications can be properly installed even if they don't come with an
installer (and MacOS has no package manager, probably because many people
wouldn't need one). So why does Windows have Program Manager/Start menu?
Because the filesystem is cluttered and most files are poorly named.
(Windows supports long file names, yet I have files with names like
msimn.exe. Why?)

Thus there are two general choices as I see them: you can hide the
filesystem, which does not actually reduce its complexity, or you can make
the filesystem simple enough that the user can manipulate it directly
without confusion or danger.

Wesley Felter - wesf@cs.utexas.edu