Re: Proposal for bug 73937 / symlinks in nautilus

On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 23:26, Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 14:42, MArk Finlay wrote: 
> > > Let me reclarify my proposal into "Lets do what the shell does by
> > > default" as pretty much that is what people are expecting.
> > 
> > I agree with you, but would reprase to say "Lets do what the shell does
> > by default" because that's the right way to do it.
> > 
> > Syslinks are not windows shorcuts. They are entities in themselves and
> > should be treated as such.
> I can't see any difference between a Windows shortcut and a Unix
> symlink; could you please elaborate?
> FWIW, on OS X they have Unix symlinks, and the behavior is exactly the
> same of the old Nautilus (except that they don't have an up arrow
> button; rather, they have an drop-down menu with the list of ancestor
> folders).
> Note that if you leave the way it was the Unix shell guy can still
> achieve what he wants:
>       * If he got into a folder through a symlink in Nautilus, he can go
>         back to where you were before by using the left arrow ("cd ..").

And what if you browsed to that symlinked folder by typing in the path
in the location bar or by tree view? So "back" won't work, because you
did not came from ".." !
Think you are in /home/xxx and typed in /pub which is a symlink to
/misc/pub pressing "back" does not navigate me to / but to /home/xxx and
pressing "up" takes me to /misc.
Perhaps I misunderstood you.

>       * If he wants to go to a folder using a specific path possibly
>         containing symlinks, he still can (and in that case, the up
>         arrow button will work just like in the shell).

I can't follow you, because nautilus 2.1.5 for example did not behave
like the sehll. It expanded the symlink path to its physical path and my
shell does not. 

Ettore, what is the point now?

I'm a bloddy user(going to become a hacker slowly) and I expect a
behavior in nautilus browsing directories like in the shell. To say it a
little bit clearer - the old behavior(expanding symlinks to real path)
annoyed me very much. And lots of comments in the bug report show that
other users/developers think the same as me.

Saying that shell users are no target audience for nautilus is not that
nice. What if a "silly" user learns to use a shell? He would be confused
by the different behavior of "cd" concerning symlinks, because nautilus
did it in a completely different way.

-- Rolf Kulemann

"He flung himself on his horse and rode madly off in all directions"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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