Re: Feature Request

[Raul Acevedo <raul cantara com>]

Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:

 > The current stuff only serves to break the spatial feature.  If you
 > implemented it wouldn't be spatial anymore it's more of a runaround
 > to get spatial to act more like a browser.  Maybe it would be better
 > to just make the browser portion better.

Some of us are intrigued by spatial mode, and just want a few options to
get the best of both worlds.

 > Spatial does require you manage your data differently.  For instance,
 > as an old unix hat I don't have directories with any depth greater
 > than 4.  Mostly because I don't like typing more than that.  I don't
 > see how anybody would want to type long paths..

Having a program require you to change how you manage your data is
terrible.  But I think spatial is not about making you change how you
store your data, it's about assuming that most people store data a
particular way.

The problem is that (1) there are a LOT of people that don't have four
level hierarchies and (2) the annoyance level of spatial when you don't
fit the model is extremely high.  You put those two together, and the
argument for making spatial be the default --- or certainly for not
having provided an option to turn it off --- goes out the door.

Fortunately this is all being addressed.  Thank you developers!  :)

 > Before spatial I hardly used nautilus because I tended to use
 > nautilus to do file operations and browser mode sucked for that.  I
 > use it a lot more now and it's great!  Try it for awhile.

I did, and hated it.  Too many freakin' windows.

 > Anyways, retrofitting spatial into something it's not isn't the right
 > solution.

Again, the idea isn't to change spatial, it's to give a few options on
its behavior.  If you don't like the options don't change them.  At
least with them both the spatial purists and the rest of the world can
be happy. 

Raul