Your comments remind me of another article I read awhile ago about having different setting levels for different types of users. This was something that was origionally in Nautilus, but was taken out for 2.0. Check it out: http://www.erick.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3 If the fs was "hidden" I don't think it would be too much of a problem for power users. You would still see / in the tree view (according to the article) and it would npt be hard to point your file manager or terminal to any place on the fs that you please. However for a normal user you would not have to worry about these types of things as you could live confortably within your "userspace" world.
Jesse Quoting b-r-i-a-n - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm all for hiding the FS but my only fear with that is that some > distributions might take it too far. If the FS is going to be hidden to the > > average user, that option would also need to be easily turned off for power > > users and administrators. Actually, it probably makes sense to have FS > hiding set on by default for normal user accounts, but disabled for Root > accounts. > > Anyway, just a thought. > > :-) > > Brian H. > > > "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." > -- Ozzy Osborn > > > > >From: S�bastien Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Should the unix fs be hidden from desktop users? > >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:23:53 -0700 > > > >I don't personally think that the 'It can be explained easilly enough' > >argument is a very good one, if someone told you 'You have to hit the > >clutch > >pedal three times, then turn on your brights on then off, before gearing > >into > >reverse' you probably would think they were insane, or trying to sell you > >some sort of american car. There's no reason why a user need to look at > >files in /usr/lib (for example) unless he's a developer or he knows what > >he's > >doing...and in which case probably knows how to use a terminal. I like > the > >idea of devices appearing onto the desktop, one rarelly cares where the > >device is actually mounted. > > > > > >Le 26 Novembre 2002 12:04, vous avez �crit : > > > One of the first things I noticed when I first tried MacOS X was that > >you > > > would never know that it was a Unix system unless you opened a terminal > > >and > > > hit cd /;ls I think that Apple has achieved a good balance between > >keeping > > > the layout easy to understand for users of their classic system, while > > > still retaining the traditional Unix infrastructure of the system. > > > I just finnished reading a paper at > > > http://evolvedoo.sourceforge.net/abstract/index.html which argues that > >the > > > same thing should be done with the Linux desktop. I understand that the > > > Linux file hierarchy can be confusing to users of MacOS classic and > > > Windows, but I think that if it is explained correctly it is not too > >hard > > > to understand at least the basics (ie. your files go in you $HOME dir, > > > removable media can be accessed under /mnt, etc.). I was wondering what > > > people on the list think. Do we need to hide the basics of the OS in > >order > > > to make it more user friendly? > > > > > > Jesse > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > >
