So if only people migrating from Gnome 2.4 and below, KDE, Windows, and MacOS X (that is, a lot of people) would want to change an option, it's not really that important, so you should put a checkbox in a separate program that looks like regedit?
I'm happy you've found something you like, but it seems to me that this is an important sticking point for many users, so it deserves a more accessible toggle than digging through options in gconf.
Thanks, but please, re-read my post or read my answer to your sibling post.
It's only those religious/nostalgic enough to completely want to banish the spatial nautilus that needs to dig through gconf (and yeah, migraters most of them, sure), which I think is fine. The "explorer-like" interface is readily available, without gconf, for all who needs it.
(In fact, when I first tried Gnome 2.6, I thought that the old interface was a little too readily available, and I thought people would enter it by mistake. This discussion, and the fire people have been pouring on my beloved spatial, has changed my mind. It's fine as it is now - spatial as default, "exploring" easily available.)
I haven't had a windows installation of my own since win 98, but back then I there was no way to remove the "open as folders" behaviour. You could only toggle whether or not it should open as a new window or not.
If you wanted the file view, you had to choose the "explorer" program from the start menu, or right click and choose "explore files" - and the same thing is possible with gnome without using a gconf editor - just choose "browse the file system from Gnome's main menu and you're set - or you could right click any folder and start browsing there.
You can also easily create a "browse the filesystem"-launcher on your desktop.
No need for gconf unless you want to completely disable the spatial interface and banish it from view, which I would classify as a "dangerous and esoteric preference".
I think it's great that the "explorer-like" interface and the spatial interface have separate access points. The best of both worlds. You can still drag and drop between the two interfaces, and they share the same viewers, mime-types and metadata.
[discussion about an easy way to view hidden files]
Yeah, I agree. That's one of the things I miss from ROX-Filer - an easily reached, per-directory settable way to view hidden files.
Other things I miss is an easy way to drag things to the parent folder (In ROX, you can drag to the "parent folder"-toolbar button, the one you use to go upward in the file system. Perhaps nautilus could do this by allowing us to drag to the parent list in the lower left).
Another thing in ROX-filer is that the most recently changed files are highlighted, which is sweet.
A fourth ROX-delicacy is that you can easily do shell commands in a little directory-specific mini-buffer. Dangerous but nice. (I mostly used this with the rename script that comes with the perl distribution.)
Something else that I miss is the ability to define bookmarks. (Both local and remote.)
If there's an option you're likely to want to change, or modify, put it in the damn application, not in the registry style gconf-editor.
And if there's an option that only those familiar with computing is likely to want to change or modify, gconf is a fine place.
You already can browse your files the old way either by choosing "browse the filesystem" (not sure of exact name, using an non-english locale) from the file menu, or right clicking a directory icon and choose the corresponding option.
The only reason to go into gconf is to completely disable the spatial nautilus features. Only people likely to want that, are the non-newbies longing for the "good old days" of "exploring" the filesystem.
Nautilus, as it is, already has five tabs of options in a rather cluttered options dialogue. I'm glad that this rather annoying option isn't in that.
A lot of old Gnome and Windows users hate the new spatial Nautilus. Understandable. It's very different.
On the other hand, I always hated the old Nautilus - with the spatial one it's the first time I've begun using an actual file manager (as opposed to just the gnu file utils from the shell) in bloody ages. Many of my friends feel the same way. (And some, like you, hate it.)
The article was considsending. The Gnome group seems to think [...] that if their system doesn't work with me, then I should look elsewhere, and so I have.
Sure, there needs to be people that build upward and just "trust" the layers beneath, but I'm talking about those who can still improve on the layers beneath.
A few examples
GCC could use optimization.
Psyco still only works on x86
Mono could use work on non-x86-platforms.
No, its just the realistic understanding that I cannot write a kernel demonstrably superior to FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
If I'm turning on my computer at an airport or a bus, there's no way I'm going to go get coffee.
I don't know the technical details of how windows does it, so it might already work like this, but: "correctly" implemented, it would show the login screen and then continue working while I'm typing my name and password. Multitasking, don'tcha know?
Blogs of friends and relatives are often (not always) interesting.
It's like saying that there aren't any interesting phone conversations.
My blog, when I kept one, was probably indecipherable to people who didn't know me. Strangers, while welcome to read if they (however unlikely) were amused, were not the target audience.
Prettiness isn't necessarily bloat. It's all up to the implementations and functionality.
I get the impression that none of the speed problems with Gnome are related to prettyness, it's all either functionality (fonts, internationalization, the automatic-apply feature) and/or bugs (misoptimizations, linker issues).
A simple, fast UI can still look good.
(Another thing I've noticed is that using Openbox as a Gnome WM instead of Metacity seems to be (atleast subjectively) faster.)
But it isn't so fast (AFAIK it still uses the so-called "slow" render extension for AA-fonts, for example) and it isn't so nice (annoying non-Fitts-y taskbar, for one).
Note also that Windows uses a lot of "cheats" (or clever programming, depending on who you ask) to make the system appear fast, for instance showing the login screen for Windows 2000 and its successors BEFORE the system has finished loading and all daemons have started running.
Speaking of which - this debacle kind of proves which license is really "viral". It's the proprietary ones, such as the one half-assedly half-granting Sun use of the Unix source.
"You can use it, but you can't give it away." So much for ownership.
I guess it's primarily your (ESR's and PG's) view on the ethics concerning monetarian wealth that I react against, since I believe (possibly erroneously) that in a capitalist (meaning employment hierarchy) system, one man's gain is another man's pain, to the extent of increasing divides between rich and poor.
I do think that both you and Paul have great writing styles so I read most of what you publish, but I definitely disagree on your views on economy.
Some of the things you've written, especially Homesteading the Noosphere, gives me the impression that you think that gift economies are nothing but trade economies in disguise - trading "status". While that's may or may not be true (my view is "not") for economies historically regarded as gift economies, it robs us of a way to think about the economics of "you owe me nothing in return" markets.
Personally, I consider myself an anarchist, but unlike some pro-capitalist libertarians I've encountered, I want people to (voluntarily) work with cooperation rather than competition, and veer away from the corporate hierarchies of modern society.
First, nothing in the constitution says anyone has a right not to be offended, so if militant homosexuals can march in gay pride parades dressed as nuns and we Christians just have to shut up and take it because they are exercising their right to free speech, when we evangelize and preach the gospel of the Risen Christ, Savior of the world, you are going to just shut up and take it while we exercise our constitutional right to free speech.
What now? You speak as if the gospel of the risen anointed somehow contradicted the notion of proud gay nuns.
Saddam Hussein was and is an evil and dishonest one
Who said he wasn't? Saddam's evilness isn't necessarily questioned just because US foreign policy is.
Barring students from exercising their constitutional right to pray at school because you don't like it.
Last summer, whenever my flatmate would play obnoxious music at 3 AM I'd just ssh into her box over 802.11b and tell her XMMS to skip to the next song, and ocassionally lower the volume.
Because of the Broadcom/Linux issue I guess it's back to ethernet this summer.
I've seen awful themes with both engines, and I kind of dislike both.
I was only discussing the "clutter vs emptiness" situation.
I do like it calm, clean and simple, and yes, I've been known to faint at cluttered desktops/panel configurations. I have so many open applications anyway, so I'd like them to be as polite as possible.
I occasionally have lavaps running since that's one of the easiest, calmest way to both see if there's something wrong going on and to do something about it (e.g. send signals to processes). I don't like gkrellm.
Installing a DE and finding it empty vs cluttered is somewhat like moving into a new room or apartment. If it's empty, I'll gladly mess it up myself, adding what I want - or (not bloody likely, but one can dream..) keep it clean.
Finding it already cluttered is a fun place to visit but I don't want to move in there.
While there still are plenty of bad GTK-apps out there, I'm talking about the "good" ones like Totem, the new Nautilus, or Sound-Juicer.
A good program can look minimalistic, simplistic - like something an artist would sculpt out of clay. (Is this what you mean by childlike?) The widgets that are needed, and no more.
On the other hand - Konqueror. Oh, please, no! I've tried to use it (as a web browser) but it's just so hurting. One thousand icons, menus, and frames. I don't want to bother.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, gconf-editor is easier than regedit, but you could think of other ways to access the gconf database.
Thanks, but please, re-read my post or read my answer to your sibling post.
It's only those religious/nostalgic enough to completely want to banish the spatial nautilus that needs to dig through gconf (and yeah, migraters most of them, sure), which I think is fine. The "explorer-like" interface is readily available, without gconf, for all who needs it.
(In fact, when I first tried Gnome 2.6, I thought that the old interface was a little too readily available, and I thought people would enter it by mistake. This discussion, and the fire people have been pouring on my beloved spatial, has changed my mind. It's fine as it is now - spatial as default, "exploring" easily available.)
I haven't had a windows installation of my own since win 98, but back then I there was no way to remove the "open as folders" behaviour. You could only toggle whether or not it should open as a new window or not.
If you wanted the file view, you had to choose the "explorer" program from the start menu, or right click and choose "explore files" - and the same thing is possible with gnome without using a gconf editor - just choose "browse the file system from Gnome's main menu and you're set - or you could right click any folder and start browsing there.
You can also easily create a "browse the filesystem"-launcher on your desktop.
No need for gconf unless you want to completely disable the spatial interface and banish it from view, which I would classify as a "dangerous and esoteric preference".
I think it's great that the "explorer-like" interface and the spatial interface have separate access points. The best of both worlds. You can still drag and drop between the two interfaces, and they share the same viewers, mime-types and metadata.
[discussion about an easy way to view hidden files]
Yeah, I agree. That's one of the things I miss from ROX-Filer - an easily reached, per-directory settable way to view hidden files.
Other things I miss is an easy way to drag things to the parent folder (In ROX, you can drag to the "parent folder"-toolbar button, the one you use to go upward in the file system. Perhaps nautilus could do this by allowing us to drag to the parent list in the lower left).
Another thing in ROX-filer is that the most recently changed files are highlighted, which is sweet.
A fourth ROX-delicacy is that you can easily do shell commands in a little directory-specific mini-buffer. Dangerous but nice. (I mostly used this with the rename script that comes with the perl distribution.)
Something else that I miss is the ability to define bookmarks. (Both local and remote.)
I find it's the other way around - that the tree view in "explorer"-type file managers becomes unweildy on LSB systems.
And if there's an option that only those familiar with computing is likely to want to change or modify, gconf is a fine place.
You already can browse your files the old way either by choosing "browse the filesystem" (not sure of exact name, using an non-english locale) from the file menu, or right clicking a directory icon and choose the corresponding option.
The only reason to go into gconf is to completely disable the spatial nautilus features. Only people likely to want that, are the non-newbies longing for the "good old days" of "exploring" the filesystem.
Nautilus, as it is, already has five tabs of options in a rather cluttered options dialogue. I'm glad that this rather annoying option isn't in that.
A lot of old Gnome and Windows users hate the new spatial Nautilus. Understandable. It's very different.
On the other hand, I always hated the old Nautilus - with the spatial one it's the first time I've begun using an actual file manager (as opposed to just the gnu file utils from the shell) in bloody ages. Many of my friends feel the same way. (And some, like you, hate it.)
Well, doesn't that make everyone happy?
That sucky security is in essence being grandfathered in is no excuse for new products and solutions to lack in that department.
A few examples
But maybe improve on them?
But if you want to become one of them?
There has to be (and will be) a new generation working on kernels and compiler tech.
If I'm turning on my computer at an airport or a bus, there's no way I'm going to go get coffee.
I don't know the technical details of how windows does it, so it might already work like this, but: "correctly" implemented, it would show the login screen and then continue working while I'm typing my name and password. Multitasking, don'tcha know?
Blogs of friends and relatives are often (not always) interesting.
It's like saying that there aren't any interesting phone conversations.
My blog, when I kept one, was probably indecipherable to people who didn't know me. Strangers, while welcome to read if they (however unlikely) were amused, were not the target audience.
Prettiness isn't necessarily bloat. It's all up to the implementations and functionality.
I get the impression that none of the speed problems with Gnome are related to prettyness, it's all either functionality (fonts, internationalization, the automatic-apply feature) and/or bugs (misoptimizations, linker issues).
A simple, fast UI can still look good.
(Another thing I've noticed is that using Openbox as a Gnome WM instead of Metacity seems to be (atleast subjectively) faster.)
But it isn't so fast (AFAIK it still uses the so-called "slow" render extension for AA-fonts, for example) and it isn't so nice (annoying non-Fitts-y taskbar, for one).
Hmm, seems like a good enough idea to me.
In that case, I wish for Unix to fall into the public domain!
I live in a town called Visby, you insensitive clod!
This makes me so angry.
I use Debian unstable too, but I think that a few days is a bit optimistic.
Speaking of which - this debacle kind of proves which license is really "viral". It's the proprietary ones, such as the one half-assedly half-granting Sun use of the Unix source.
"You can use it, but you can't give it away." So much for ownership.
That's an additional advantage for all parts involved, yes.
I guess it's primarily your (ESR's and PG's) view on the ethics concerning monetarian wealth that I react against, since I believe (possibly erroneously) that in a capitalist (meaning employment hierarchy) system, one man's gain is another man's pain, to the extent of increasing divides between rich and poor.
I do think that both you and Paul have great writing styles so I read most of what you publish, but I definitely disagree on your views on economy.
Some of the things you've written, especially Homesteading the Noosphere, gives me the impression that you think that gift economies are nothing but trade economies in disguise - trading "status". While that's may or may not be true (my view is "not") for economies historically regarded as gift economies, it robs us of a way to think about the economics of "you owe me nothing in return" markets.
Personally, I consider myself an anarchist, but unlike some pro-capitalist libertarians I've encountered, I want people to (voluntarily) work with cooperation rather than competition, and veer away from the corporate hierarchies of modern society.
What now? You speak as if the gospel of the risen anointed somehow contradicted the notion of proud gay nuns.
Who said he wasn't? Saddam's evilness isn't necessarily questioned just because US foreign policy is.
It's only mandatory praying we're opposed to.
Well, they are. If that's the word you want to use for complete klutzes.
There are exceptions, of course.
Well, for you 802.11b is as close as it gets.
Last summer, whenever my flatmate would play obnoxious music at 3 AM I'd just ssh into her box over 802.11b and tell her XMMS to skip to the next song, and ocassionally lower the volume.
Because of the Broadcom/Linux issue I guess it's back to ethernet this summer.
Maybe we should just set up mpd.
I've seen awful themes with both engines, and I kind of dislike both.
I was only discussing the "clutter vs emptiness" situation.
I do like it calm, clean and simple, and yes, I've been known to faint at cluttered desktops/panel configurations. I have so many open applications anyway, so I'd like them to be as polite as possible.
I occasionally have lavaps running since that's one of the easiest, calmest way to both see if there's something wrong going on and to do something about it (e.g. send signals to processes). I don't like gkrellm.
Installing a DE and finding it empty vs cluttered is somewhat like moving into a new room or apartment. If it's empty, I'll gladly mess it up myself, adding what I want - or (not bloody likely, but one can dream..) keep it clean.
Finding it already cluttered is a fun place to visit but I don't want to move in there.
While there still are plenty of bad GTK-apps out there, I'm talking about the "good" ones like Totem, the new Nautilus, or Sound-Juicer.
A good program can look minimalistic, simplistic - like something an artist would sculpt out of clay. (Is this what you mean by childlike?) The widgets that are needed, and no more.
On the other hand - Konqueror. Oh, please, no! I've tried to use it (as a web browser) but it's just so hurting. One thousand icons, menus, and frames. I don't want to bother.