Re: more bugs....

[Calum Benson <calum benson sun com>]

Alexander Larsson wrote:
> 
> I think directory sizes makes more sense from a usability standpoint (you
> may want to delete the largest directory, but you rarely care about the
> number of files in it). But since the cost of calculating the directory
> size if so high (need to recurse into all subdirs) I think having
> directory counts as an approximation is good enough.

Mostly as an aside, what XP does in this situation is to chunter away
calculating the directory sizes in the background, and if you happen to
mouse over the folder icon before it's finished (the size is shown in a
tooltip, not all the time), it just says "at least 300Mb" or whatever. 
Not brilliant, but better than nothing, and almost always more useful
than knowing how many files are in the directory.

> I'm pretty sure the "optimal" sizes picked by nautilus will be wrong
> sometimes, and you would then need to resize the columns each time you
> visit a specific directory, so saving sizes (if you change them) makes
> sense to me.

I agree-- when I've gone to the trouble of sizing something, I don't
want Nautilus (or any other app) to mess about with it.  Often people
are more interested in dates than filenames, for example, and size the
columns accordingly... it's pretty annoying when you have to keep doing
that over and over again.  One of the most annoying things about the
Windoze file dialog is that its default list view always chops off half
the date field-- but no matter how often you resize it, it always does
the same thing again next time you open it.  Grrr...

Cheeri,
Calum.

-- 
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer       Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:calum benson ireland sun com    Desktop Engineering Group
http://www.sun.ie                      +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems