Re: $HOME as desktop

[nestor d v <nestordiaz misfotos de>]

El lun, 19 de 05 de 2003 a las 12:18, Rui Miguel Seabra escribió:
> On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 21:56, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > I'm saying, that Linux has somewhere on the order of a million people
> > using it on the desktop currently. I'd be pretty sure that most of those
> > people have a large number of files in their home directory.
> 
> Well, I certainly used to have a lot more chaotic home than I currently
> do (thank you Nautilus and home-as-desktop ;))!
> 
> > We have to have a plan to deal with those people upgrading to new
> > versions of GNOME.
> 
> Known broken applications =>
>   easy to solve by having a default "hide from view" list.
> 
> And one way to do the migration path from $HOME/Desktop -> $HOME  is:
> 
>   if [ (! -z $HOME/Desktop) && -d $HOME/Desktop ]; then
> [1] "mv" $HOME/Desktop/* .
>     rmdir $HOME/Desktop
>   fi
> 
> Plus release notes, etc.. etc...
> 
> [1] this would have to be smart enough to add some -N suffixes before
> the extension in case of duplicates. I don't advocate
> 
> 
> > Hmm, using a subdirectory for the Desktop works well enough for
> > everybody else (MacOS/Windows/KDE) that I think it is a *big* stretch to
> > call it broken.
> 
> Well, both MacOS and Windows went a long way before even starting to
> grasp the meaning of a multi-user os. So they are not really very good
> examples.
> 
> And I don't think that following what I consider a mistake just  because
> "everyone" else does is a good idea either.
> 
> > What I'm saying is that using $HOME as the desktop is going to
> > cause substantial migration pains for both users and developers
> > for relatively minimal gains.
> 
> On short run maybe so, but surely not on the long run. I think that your
> opinion is largely based on faith rather than arguments. I can't see how
> having ONE extra directory can be simpler that the metaphor that your
> home is your desktop.
> 
> Most users consider their home what they see from the desktop on. Most
> users aren't even aware of a /home/$THEIR_LOGIN directory. For these,
> the Desktop _is_ their home. As they start getting more experience, they
> eventually find that it exists (by opening a terminal, or exploring
> through nautilus) and then they find that their home is _not_ what they
> see... that their home is a place they have to imagine, which may also
> have some of their files, and that it has their desktop... confusion..
> confusion... confusion... *sigh*
> 
> Even Microsoft started to see that... so for all effects, the Desktop is
> the home of the user (look at the file selector, it displays the Desktop
> as the "root" of everything)... confusion... confusion... confusion...
> 
> We come from a system that _was_born_ with multiple users in mind. Why
> not take the hint? The home is the root of all the user's files
> (visually, that's the Desktop). Why invent more complicated things
> (user's Home icon, danger of circulating paths, etc... etc...) when
> there's something _so_simple_?
> 
> Ok, there are some problems. Well, roses have thorns too. They don't
> stop being beautiful or having a nice smell.
> 
> > And if there isn't *agreement* in the Linux/Unix desktop community on
> > the subject, than we aren't talking minimal gains, we are
> > talking substantial regressions. 
> 
> Most of these people are technical people who _know_ the difference
> between $HOME and $HOME/Desktop. So you're talking about less than 1% of
> the people out there.
> 
> Wasn't this one of the premises for many of the benefits brought in
> gnome2? I can't see why this suddenly become wrong...
> 
> Those who are not even familiar with a computer, assume that what they
> have is available from the "Desktop". That's their home.
> 
> It's _very_ weird to see a desktop and still see, for instance, that
> icon there... "Home" huh? I mean, my files are visible from here, so I
> still have another place called home? What's that?
> 
> Ever since there was the option of using $HOME as the desktop I've used
> it. Notice that it never was a default option. I simply clicked on it to
> try it out, and immediately felt at ease. It just works. Open a terminal
> *by default* you're at $HOME. Having $HOME as the desktop is the exact
> equivalent from that. That's from where you start.
> 
> Sure there are broken apps. There are two ways, I think, to solve that,
> that can even be used at the same time:
>   1) convince the authors to solve that usability problem
>   2) provide a default "hide from desktop" list with _known_ broken
>      folders.
> 
> I currently do 2) by editing the xml for /home/MYLOGIN and putting
> coordinates that are outside my view. But this isn't easy for novice
> users and, I suspect, for some self proclaimed "advanced" users... (it's
> not a good way to do it anyway, but it's quite easy).
> 
> However, this is my opinion, and as long as I can change the Desktop dir
> to become $HOME, I won't have any problem.
> 
> Regards, Rui
> 
> ps: to those who will start flaming that this reasoning is "crack", I
> have to inform you that I have about 10 desktop users I've set like
> this, and they're not one bit confused.
>     if I ever became responsible for the local network systems and
> desktops running GNU/Linux, I would set them up like this, and I'm
> pretty sure nobody would feel more confused. But maybe it's natural
> Portuguese brightness ;)
I completely agree with you. I had had several experiences with windows
users that cannot find files, in windows, because when downloading from
the internet or what ever they don't know where are downloading.
Having a Home for everything is the best choice.
And furhter more, hidden .something files should go away. Just a folder
System or Programs (Macos and Rox desktop) and a warning message when
entering.
Yours:
nestor diaz