@Krzysztof Kosinski: > The simple user doesn't recognize the difference between > compression and archiving, because he has no use for > archiving. Why would anyone want to clump files together > if it offers no savings in disk space?
On the contrary, the simple user nowdays doesn't care about file sizes and disk space, but does care about attaching a dozen files to an email vs. attaching one archive. (The ideal fix for that use case would be to support attaching whole directories. They can be transparently converted to an archive when you attach them and exploded to a directory when you save an attachment. But this won't be ubuquitous any time soon, so we still need an easy way to explicitly handle archives.) Anyway, I agree with your analysis of "Compress..." being best. -- "Archive Manager" doesn't mean anything if you don't know what an "archive" is https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/15495 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
