On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:07, Albert Cahalan <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/5/28 NoiseEHC <[email protected]>: >> >> I think it's very important if we want to keep pushing Sugar that we >> distinguish between design decisions and bugs and unimplemented >> features. If we bring down good design ideas not by themselves but >> because of its implementation status, we risk ending up with nothing >> that brings new value compared to existing desktops. >> >> >> You say that like it would be a bad thing. The existing desktops >> are at least time-tested. Learning to deal with the common features >> of modern desktop systems is very valuable for children. >> >> >> This relies on the assumption that 8 years from now when children grow up we >> will still use directories. I do not dare to predict the future so I will >> leave it to you... :) > > In graphical environments alone, directories are over 25 years old. > Since 8 is less than a third of that, there is only one safe bet. > > It'd be way more than 25 years, except that we didn't even have > graphical environments much beyond that. Directories go back > about 40 years. 8 years is just another 20%. > > This isn't the "Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2" feature set. > This is a concept that is pretty fundamental in computing. > It crosses platforms, it's in our network protocols, and it's even > required for all the programming languages that implement Sugar. > >> The following things unfortunately cannot be done with a flat filesystem >> view: >> 1. Revision based view. >> 2. Tagging. > > First, I think you didn't mean "flat". That's the Journal. > Second, both flat and tree systems can handle that. > >> It is a totally different problem that the current Journal barely implements >> those things but dropping it in favor of "time-tested" solutions is a >> mistake IMHO. (Note that no filesystem solves those problems I have >> mentioned.) > > No filesystem should! It looks like GNOME 3.0 will get you those > features on top of a plain old UNIX-style filesystem tree though, > without making the filesystem incompatible with both software > and humans.
As I said earlier, I would like to see hierarchical views of filesystems in Sugar. They are waiting for someone to implement them. I think we are beating a dead horse here. http://coreygilmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg Regards, Tomeu _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
