Re: Feature Request

[Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 00:17, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:54:35AM -0700, Raul Acevedo wrote:
> > Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> > 
> >  > Please, can you read the whole thread (come on, it's 10 mails,
> >  > shouldn't take that much time) before asking for those "spatial
> >  > settings" ? I'd recommend in particular the second mail:
> >  > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/nautilus-list/2004-June/msg00107.html
> > 
> > And people wonder why developers don't get "users".  Sigh.
> 
> 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.

Its more of an attempt to let the users decide how it behaves rather
then being dictated to by the developers. All my proposed changes are
optional and wont affect the default settings at all. OS/X combines
spatial and browse mode very effectively so why cant we optionally have
the same?


>   Maybe it would be better to just
> make the browser portion better.

Could do but browser mode has more shortcomings - namely you cant open a
window spatially from it (so you cannot effectively mix spatial and
browse modes when using the "Browse Folder" right click menu as some
have suggested before). Its also older code, a completely different code
base to spatial and its a lot more complex too so it would be harder and
more time consuming for me to alter. 

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

its not retro at all- I see it as tweaking it into something more
practical (and making Nicholas Petreley eat his own words at the same
time too). 

jamie.

> 
> sri