Re: Icons of program

[ruebe heimat de]

Hi!

On 18 Apr, robert havoc pennington wrote:
> 
> (Note to no one in particular: some people seem to be missing that there
> are already foo.desktop and .directory files which keep icon information,
> among other things. See share/apps and libgnome/gnome-dentry.[hc].) 
> 
> What about this idea: it would keep everything nice and simple if these
> files and regular files simply weren't allowed to exist in the same
> directory. That is, the .desktop files are "shortcuts," and are in their
> own directory tree.  Naive users should never even see the real file
> system. If they create new files, Gnome will invisibly put the data
> somewhere like ~/.gnome-stuff, and create a new .desktop entry.  By
> default, it shouldn't even be possible to view the real Unix file system
> from gmc, only the tree of .desktop entries. 

Hm, what if I just copy with a bash a file. Will the icon still be
found?

 
> I'm not sure this particular solution would work but something like it has
> to happen IMO. The Unix fs with system dirs, symlinks, mount points, . and
> .., dotfiles, etc. needs to be hidden.

I am just afraid that in doing so we might get another complexity like
not knowing where icons are actually stored now, etc. So if you are on
a more low level access (like telnet) and you want to change things
this might get more complex as it is now.
Imagine Windoze where everything is hidden in the registry and you
don't know how to change anything without the risk of corrupting your
system. So I would like things stored in dotfiles as usual and if
they're shown in the filemanager should be up to the user (same with
icons).

best,
  Christian