Re: Icons of program

There's merit in the SimpleVFS idea you propose, but I wonder what you're
really asking for -- I was replying to a post about creating a desktop that
hid most files, and I can see SimpleVFS fitting into that quite naturally.
However, there is also a place for meta-information associated with each and
every file on the system.  It seems that this is possible so what does
SimpleVFS give us that that does not?

On Mon, 20 Apr, 1998 at 12:33:23PM -0500, robert havoc pennington set free these words:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > 
> > I resist this idea because it tends to hide what is really on the system.
> > This is a typically Microsoft philosophy -- it (may) simplify matters in the
> > beginning, but adds confusion later on (So why don't I see the files on my
> > desktop now that I've started using the shell?  Where's the netscape file on
> > my desktop in the filesystem?)  This functionality really needs to be built in
> > from the ground up (as MacOS does.) not added on to an existing system.
> > 
> I think the confusion comes from an insufficient break between the
> new and the old, easy and hard. Mac breaks cleanly, but it does so by
> eliminating the hard stuff and correspondingly some power. Gnome could
> keep both.
> Why not add a new virtual file system, say "SimpleVFS." This is just a
> directory hidden somewhere, but it looks like a separate partition, or an
> ftp site, or a tarball - all things gmc handles now. It behaves just the
> same. If you want to see files from the shell, you have to move them from
> your SimpleVFS to your ext2fs. If you want files from the shell to appear
> in SimpleVFS, you move them there with gmc. (of course some moves would
> just be creating a SimpleVFS link back to the ext2fs, and SimpleVFS is
> really an ext2fs tree of .desktop text files - so manual intervention is
> possible.) If you hate SimpleVFS you don't use it, and if you hate ext2fs
> you don't use it. gmc works with both and if there's no icon info for a
> filesystem gmc does its best to make something up (using 'file' and
> filenames). 
> Personally, I would use both. I'd love to have SimpleVFS to keep all my
> documents and images and apps and so on (stuff most people do with
> computers). It would also be perfect for the equivalent of the Apple/Start
> menu folders and Startup folders. I'd hate it (or any similar scheme, like
> .info files in all directories) for a big source tree like Gnome, or for a
> server, or for /usr/bin. It's slow and cluttered for those purposes. I'd
> like to keep things cleanly separated. 
> Also, you want movement between the Simple and non-Simple environments to
> happen correctly anyway. For example, if I create a web site and upload
> it, gmc should automatically nuke the SimpleVFS information, because
> .info-type files don't belong on my web site. If gmc is leaving .info
> files all over the place, and people are expecting to be able to use
> gmc-tainted directories in a normal way, it's just going to be a mess.
> (One immediate annoyance I can think of is that every single shell
> tab-completion would beep. Another is that I normally won't want grep to
> act on .info files. Another is having to copy them. Another is
> directory clutter - double the files. Another is disk space. etc.)
> So I'm hoping someone will code a clean break - a new VFS based on
> .desktop files. This gives you the advantages of a new filesystem, without
> actually having one. A separate coding project is just gmc-simplification,
> taking out some of the more obscure dialogs, rewording things for newbies,
> more reasonable defaults, etc. This should be independent of VFS choice. 
> GnomeFileSelection should be integrated into the whole scheme.
> So that's what I'm hoping some generous hacker will do, but I'm not going
> to bet on it. :) Maybe a Gnome 3.0 project. 
> Havoc Pennington

badger  \"The Difference between today and yesterday is not so much what has
@prtr-13 \ changed between then and now as what I hope to change by tomorrow."  \~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]