Re: Volume handling proposal

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 13:29, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> On mar, 2003-09-16 at 15:40 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> 
> > Three new concepts are introduced:
> > 
> > First concept is a virtual location called "Computer", which is a
> > "root" of all the volumes in the system, much like "My Computer" in
> > WinXP and "Computer" in MacOSX. 
> 
> <cut>
> 
> > In the gnome menu there are menu items for "Computer", and
> > $HOME. And probably "Navigate Filesystem" or something like that which
> > opens a navigation-model window (see recent nautilus post) which
> > probably opens in $HOME too.
> > 
> 
> I dislike it, sorry. "Computer" and "Home" don't fit Application or
> Action menu.

Yeah, the names aren't all that great for the menu. But i like it to be
in the menu, since thats a good way to get there if the desktop is
covered by windows. 

> And if we want NavNautilus as a 'separate' app (from user prospective)
> it should be under Application -> [Accessories|System] -> File[system]
> Browser.
> 
> "Navigate Filesystem" is an action, not an application

Yeah. Making the nav window app-like sounds good to me.

> > The desktop will contain the current Home link and trash can. Home is
> > here since it is a really frequently visited location, basically being
> > the unix version of "My Documents". Some people dislike this because
> > it creates a loop (Desktop is in Home, Desktop points to home), but I
> > think its more important to have quick access to home than being
> > "loop-free". 
> 
> IMHO we need another label for home too. There was a thread on list on
> July (Sub: Remove some stuff from application menu), take a look,
> please.
> 
> What about a "Resource" icon/vfolder on desktop with "Computer",
> "Network", "Printers" and similar stuff inside? IMHO is the best and
> more logical place. 

Personally I'm leaning against printers-as-files, so I don't think they
should be in "Computer". So I think "Resource" is a bit to generic, as
it describes all sort of things related to computers. Not that
"Computer" is a perfect name in any way, I'm interested in other ideas
for it. 

> > The desktop will also show icons for:
> > * removable media (cd/dvd/floppy) with media mounted.
> > * all the connected servers
> > * mounted removable hardware filesystems
> > * active non-mountable external/removable hardware (i.e. mp3 players,
> >   etc). These are basically links to non-file uris like
> >   "camera://foo_cam/1/".
> 
> I've no idea about networked environment, but don't you think there is
> the risk to have a desktop full of unused icons?

Not really, the idea is that you only connect to the servers you're
currently using. And removable media isn't normally mounted. 

> Is a connected server in use or just is here waiting to use?

Its just an icon, and if you click on it you go to the location. Its not
"in use" in any way. I mean, there is no connection to the server or
anything.
  
> > The navigation file manager windows will have Home and Computer on the
> > toolbar and in the Go menu. Spatial windows will only have the go
> > menu.
> > 
> 
> Go menu in spatial window ?????????????
> 
> What it should be? Open another window, I hope. Do we really need it? 

Yeah, it opens another window. The spatial UI is far from finished. It
needs experimenting and polishing. Maybe it shouldn't have a Go many,
maybe it should. We'll see.

> > The Computer location will contain all the items on the desktop, plus
> > filesystem (/) and a link to "Network". It will also contain all
> > removable media devices that doesn't have media mounted, and will
> > allow them to be mounted if there is no support for
> > auto-detecting-and-mounting. It might be a good idea if just clicking
> > on an unmounted icon here tried to mount it before opening.
> > Basically, "Computer" a sort of user-level root where you can get to
> > all the usable mounts in the system. 
> > 
> 
> I like the idea, don't like the labels. You are calling "Computer" an
> icon, then an object in new default implementation, to access to stuff
> other-then-home. So resources available to the user but not totally
> owned.
> 
> I think is important to show the opposition between this object (and its
> contents) and the $HOME object (personal stuff) and put both them on
> desktop, as it should be on XD2

You want the "computer" (or whatever its called) on the desktop? I
dunno. I think it will be cluttering the desktop a bit, since that is
not gonna end up being used that often. Most of the usable items in it
are already availible directly on the desktop. 

> > -----------
> > 
> > How do we handle burn:? I really like the way where its sort of
> > invisible in the UI until you insert a blank cd and magicdev detects
> > it. This doesn't work without magicdev, but maybe clicking on the CD
> > in computer could try to detect a blank cd and go to burn:. Of course,
> > this gives problems with rewriting CD-RWs and burning .iso images, so
> > i guess this has to be visible some other way in the UI too. Maybe
> > right click on the cd device icon and select "burn to cd"?
> > 
> 
> Adding a "CD Creator" icon in "Resources" (or "Computer") vfolder?

Thats an easy solution, but it doesn't feel integrated. More like a
grafted on app. In XP, the burn: really has the same name (drive letter)
as the device that will end up burning the CD. Its very slick.

> > Still not sure what roots make sense in the file selector. Do we want
> > to allow mounting of e.g. floppies from the file selector?
> > 
> 
> 'cause the first place you 'use' and see is the desktop, I think is a
> good idea if the file selector start from desktop too.
>
> But I can't explain why, just a personal taste.

There are two things here. The director the fileselector shows by
default, and the lists of places you can go quickly to by clicking a
button or an item on the list. This is more about which quick-locations
to show in the file selector. The Desktop might be one of them.

> > I've deliberately avoided mentioning start-here:, applications: and all
> > the software gnome-vfs locations we currently have. This is because I
> > don't think we should get them tangled up in the volume handling
> > model.
> > 
> 
> Under "Resouces" too? :-))

I hope you're not in any way serious with this. That would totally
confuse the volume handling model by mixing it with lots of irrelevant
things. I mean, how often do you save files in applications://?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's an unconventional dishevelled jungle king moving from town to town, 
helping folk in trouble. She's a manipulative tomboy cab driver with a 
flame-thrower. They fight crime!