On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: > On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 01:25:24PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > >> > >> On the other hand, both Unix and Linux have a long way to go before > they > >> can match Microsoft's ease of use on the GUI. I believe the best way > >> to attack that problem is to find a new paradigm to replace the > desktop, > >> which is not a great interface model to begin with. > > > > I guess that depends on your definition of "ease of use". In my > little > > world, "ease of use" involves the ease, efficiency, and speed of task > > completion via an interface with which I'm familiar. It seems from > what > > you said that in your little world "ease of use" means "familiarity", > > since that's really the major win for MS Windows interfaces, to the > > majority of its users. > > Here are two simple tests for ease of use. > > 1. View a tree of files and directories, some local some remote mounts. > Highlight a random group of those objects. Move the entire group in one > motion by dragging and dropping the collection to a new location in the > tree.
That's easy. Actually easier with just a simple mv command. Who cares about drag and drop. That is harder. > > 2. Do an SMB mount of remote directories onto the desktop or your home > directory. Open any application and access files in that directory as > easily as when they are on the local drive. Works fine around here. ////jerry > > I have not been able to do either of these on Ubuntu 7.10 or > XFCE/Slackware 12. In the first case, I need to cut and paste the > individual files one at a time. I can't even move a directory. In the > second, I have been unable to get Amarok, vlc, xine or any other > multimedia application I have tried, to recognize the SMB mounted > directory. It is invisible to them. At the application level there > should be absolutely no difference between a local drive and a mounted > remote drive, no matter what protocol was used to mount it. The > application should not need to implement smb:// itself. > > I am not even going to talk about how difficult it is to find and modify > basic configuration files, particularly after the LSB crowd really > screwed everything up. > > Once you fix basic problems like these, then we can talk about how to > redefine ease of use. > > Bob McConnell > _______________________________________________ > email@example.com mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"