Tigger-oN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You want to build a file-manager that does what, then? If it already
> > uses 'df','du','ls','rm' and 'mv', as well as provide a command-line for
> > things like 'tar', then what exactly is the advantage of the
> > file-manager?
>
> A GUI is a lot easier for a lot of 'different' people with different levels
> of experience to use.
That is an old myth. It may be easier for people who have gotten used
to Windows File Manager (or whatever it's called), but from a User
Interface point of view this is simply not true.
Have you seen a person who has never used a computer try to use the
mouse? They pick it up and point it at the screen and similar
refreshing things.
A filesystem is a very complex thing; pretending it is easy by
displaying it using flashy icons does no good to the user.
> Its also a lot easier to 'see' the folder structure at
> a glance then to become personally attached to PC in question.
How that? Almost alll I need to know about a file (that includes
directories, devices etc, which all are files) I can gather from "ls"
and it's various command-line arguments. I can do that much faster than
I can push the rodent over the desktop.
If you want to make good use of your Operating System, then you need to
know it. Hiding important information will only lead to obscurity,
which can not be a good thing.
> some files may be in /etc while others will be in /usr/local/etc depending
> on the version and distro of *nix involved. For an novice user being able to
> visually display the contents of both directory's would be easier than
> trying to remember 'ls /etc /usr/local/etc' (along with every other command
> they learned that day)
Clearly, such a graphical file manager could only be of advantage to the
novice user, somebody who has no business tinkering around in /etc or
other system directories. Similarly, an administrator who needs to
manipulate these files should be expected to know what she's doing.
Furthermore, a GUI is only helpful if you have the necessary "G".
Remotely logging into a machine renders you helpless if you are used to
a particular graphical interface.
> > No offense, but I simply can't see a single reason why a "file-manager"
> > would have advantages.
>
> No offence taken, but what is the advantage of BB? You can use ALT+F2,
> ALT+F3 etc... Same argument really.
Not quite. You could argue that screen(1) could obsolete a
WindowManager, but not the virtual consoles. I do need to have several
terminals open almost at all times, and I do like to have some of them
on the same screen, so I can look at one while performing actions in the
other. In addition, a few graphical goodies, while not needed, make it
look nice. But this is clearly an aesthetic argument. screen(1) would
not do it for me, b/c I also like to stack windows, that is, have some
hidden behind others, yet on the same workspace.
In addition, some applications I use require X, so I do need a
WindowManager, but one that does not add all the clutter.
Blackbox is a great windowmanager, b/c that is exactly what it does:
manage windows. Nothing more, and nothing less.
> Also is this not the same approach many
> people have taken throughout history. The classic quote comes to mind: 'Why
> would people want to look at images in a web browser?'
Which again I can completely understand. 90% of my webbrowsing I do
with links; I only use a graphical browser if the site is designed in
such a crappy way that it requires flash or javascript or can not be
navigated without images.
> > And basing it on a static file that needs
> > continous updating does not seem like a sound idea, I think.
> >
>
> how often do your files change?
Continually. As I write this, a file was created, which will be deleted
after I sent this message. Just as a example.
> The entire XML file would not be continually
> updated only child nodes and only when requested (if built on the fly)
So if I _really_ want to know which files are available, I do need to
perform an additional action. If I'm fine with a rough estimate from,
say, 15 hours ago, then I can use it? That doesn't sound ideal to me.
> > P.S.: How was this related to
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to
> > which you replied?
>
> I hit the 'reply to all' button then changed the subject line and removed
> someone's name - easy of use again :]
Yes, but wrong. Your client should have told you that you are replying
to a certain article -- if that is not your intention, you should have
deleted the reference. As a result, this thread is now linked with the
"bbkeys segfault" thread. This "ease of use" did hide information with
a flawed result. (Not that it's a desaster, but it's a simple example
proving my point.)
If you want to compose a new message to a list, you should either start
with a blank message (which is not much harder than changing the subject
line and removing someone's name) or you need to delete the references
as well.
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann
http://www.netmeister.org
