[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: Again - UI
From:       "Tomas Furmonavicius" <f1926 () kaunas ! aiva ! lt>
Date:       2000-04-19 20:41:53
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 04:22:12PM -0400, Philip Rackus wrote:
> 
> That's a totally elitest comment.  I would expect to hear something like that on /. \
> but not on group that has defined its mandate as "In short: KDE will bring UNIX to \
> the desktop! " (straight from the KDE FAQ) Note that it doesn't say bring UNIX to \
> the desktops of power users only. Besides I didn't suggest that the Unix filesystem \
> be changed - Just the representation of that filesystem be a little easier to \
> understand from the new user point of view.

I'm sorry if my words sounded rude - my english is not too good.
Anyway I expressed only my opinion, as I'm not a member of KDE project. 

Imagine networked workstation where some filesystems are local, some
are mounted from network. Why should user care that his home directory
is physically located on some remote server, or workstation's /tmp
filesystem is on MFS? Should we create some "Filesystem Neighborhood"
in the style of Windows's "Network Neighborhood"?

I can't see why Unix directory structure is hard to understand ?
When user starts using DOS/Windows he must learn, that floppy drive is
A: or B:, hard drive partitions are C:, D: ... Why it's OK to expect
user to know and understand DOS disk naming scheme, and it's not OK to
expect user not to care too much about Unix filesystems, managed by 
administrators, not users? 

Tomas 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]