Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2006, 11:12 +0100 schrieb Alexander Larsson: > On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 01:26 +0100, Christian Neumair wrote: > > The attached patch is meant to implement recursive file permission > > changes [1]. I'm eagerly awaiting feedback, in particular whether the > > GUI offers enough usability for you. > > > > [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44767 > > I must say I much prefer your later blog posting. I still don't think > its ideal though. Also, i very much like this: > http://www.foo-projects.org/~benny/tmp/thunar-permissions-chooser-20060108.png > > One thing I think that can help a lot, both in the normal UI and in the > recursive apply mode is to separate out executable into two widgets, one > that handles "executability of files" and one that handles "listability > of folders" (the last one won't be visible if you only select files of > course). That way you don't have to know what executable bit means for > folders, and you could set different execute bit for folders and files > in the recursive case. I agree that the Thunar guys did a very good job at the permissions GUI. > Also, i don't think instant apply recursive apply of permissions is > right. Its gonna be very slow to apply each change you make (you might > want to make multiple changes), and you can easily loose a lot of data > (permission settings) if you accidentally do something wrong. I disagree that Instant-Apply is wrong here. In Thunar, you're asked after each change whether to apply it recursively or not. I think we have two user groups: Those who know precisely what they're doing, and those who have a basic glimpse about what granting permissions means in practice but don't know about UNIX permissions. We should offer something to both, with the basic dialog being identical to Thunar's. I'll explain the advanced mode down below. > My current opinion is that we should take the thunar dialog, with is > pretty similar to yours, but with the execute bit moved out of the > access dropdowns. It also has IMHO better layout and nice icons. > To this we add: > 1) Checkboxes under group and other access that says "Allow these users > to list files in folders" (or something like that). (We assume that > users always wants the execute bit set for themselves on folder, but if > a selected file has this off we can add it in so that the user can fix > it). > 2) Add an "Apply to files in enclosed folders" (want better string?) > button that applies the permission settings to files and folders inside > selected folders. > 3) Add a "details" button > > Some notes: > > We don't want "None" in the list of alternatives for the user > permissions. There is no need to make your own files non-readable to > you. Nor is there any need to make your own folders non-listable to you. > > The execute checkbox toggles all execute perms. I don't think there is a > need for more detailed exectute rights in the standard perms view. I agree. > The advanced dialog looks a bit like yours, but without the subfolder > settings. Instead it has two columns for the execute bit "execute file" > and "list folder contents", and there is a recursive apply button. > > Also, maybe we should have the advanced widget ("details") appear in the > same place as normal widget instead of its own dialog. Dialogs from > dialogs is a bit weird, and i think it makes sense to "switch to > advanced mode" even if looks a bit like tab-in-tab. I'd prefer a chmod GUI which allows you to enter something like +rwX and displays the octal permissions, umask etc. I don't see any target audience for an advanced mode similar to that one proposed in my blog, but maybe I just don't know our user base well enough. Maybe you could explain under which circumstances it would be useful? -- Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
