Re: Major change in desktop handling

[Daniel Borgmann <spark-mailinglists web de>]

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 01:32, MArk Finlay wrote: 
> > I'm currently using $HOME as desktop because people argued that I would
> > have to do that (again) for a while to form an opinion. ;) And yes, it's
> > more convenient right now than using .gnome-desktop. BUT, that's mostly
> > because .gnome-desktop is almost inaccessible from our file selector.
> > Once we get a new one which defaults to ~/Desktop, this problem would be
> > solved and having this as a human readable directory should also work
> > reasonably well for "legacy file selectors". 
> > 
> > I still think that ~/Desktop is the way to go for very simple reasons:
> > * You can get exactly the same result as "$HOME as desktop" by simply
> > defaulting Nautilus and the file selector to ~/Desktop (if you want
> > that). 
> 
> No, that's not the same. Almost ALLL applications default to ~/ for
> creating or saving files. 

Wait a minute, I thought we do _not_ want applications automatically
creating files in ~/ for this particular reason.

> And not everything will be using the new gtk
> file selector, 

But if we can make ~/Desktop a common standard, we have a good arguments
for asking third party file selectors to use it. This certainly isn't a
better argument than applications writing their stuff to $HOME is a good
argument against it. Especially considering that the easy workaround is
to doubleclick on "Desktop" everytime you use a legacy fileselector.

> and what about the console? I dont want to "cd Desktop"
> all the time. 

Well... :)

> The bigest benefit of $HOME as desktop is having all these
> files appear on the desktop so I can organise them, instead of having
> them appear in my "home directory".

"These files"? 
What I'm saying is, that you can just as well use the Desktop for all
your files if they are in ~/Desktop. Without pissing anyone off and
without introducing further inconsistencies among free desktops.
The only arguments against this so far seem to be legacy file selectors
(forcing you to click on "Desktop" first) and that the terminal defaults
to $HOME instead of $HOME/Desktop.


> > * Most people aren't used to be restricted to their desktop as
> > "everything they have". They use the desktop as a workspace which is
> > often as chaotic as their "real" desktop. :) 
> 
> And most users aren't used to our reversed button order - that didn't
> stop us then. I totally agree with you that most people desktops are a
> mess - and so are their home directories. That is partly because the
> desktop/home dir system does not help them to keep themselves organised.
> See my other e-mail for more waffle on that...

On Windows, most users end up placing almost everything on the desktop,
because that's where the file dialogs default to (in the versions I
know). Why would this be any different for us? 


> > By making this impossible,
> > you just remove a feature for no particular reason other than "people
> > don't need to learn that they can use more than their desktop".
> 
> I really don't concider this a feature. Was the old gnome control center
> a feature? ;)

The feature is "beeing able to archive data at a place where it isn't in
your way while working on your desktop". How would you like it if you
would be forced to place everything on your real desktop? Sure, you
could archive everything in a folder on your desktop, but this folder
would still be there and there is no good argument why you shouldn't
archive this data somewhere else in your room, in a shelf for example.
I just don't want my "Music" folder on the desktop, it's just pointless
there. :) An even more extreme example is my "Sources" folder. Why
should I ever want to use this from the GUI? It's just in my way and
placing it inside another folder called "Archive" or anything would only
make matters worse.
Another "feature" that would be lost is the ability for applications to
create user visible files without cluttering the desktop.


> > * Considering that this isn't providing any new functionality and only a
> > very questionable simplification, I just can't see why this is worth
> > fighting for with all opponents (those who want a "clean" desktop, those
> > who don't like having their secret loveletters in a folder on their
> > desktop, those who want their desktop free for temporary work, etc) and
> > "the other large desktop environment" instead of just going on for the
> > sake of progress.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I'm here because Gnome is all about doing
> things the "Right Way(Tm)" even if it means going against the crowd :)

But we are not alone here and ignoring this would be a shame for all the
great work that is done by many people to improve interoperability.
Living with neighbours means to make compromises and sometimes to fight.
But the decision to fight shouldn't be taken lightly and you should look
at every possible alternative first. That's just my opinion though...

You also have to consider that those fights take a lot of time
(sometimes they never end). Time which could just as well be spent on
improving the interface for everyone. :)


Daniel