From kde-usability Sat May 08 17:23:48 2004 From: Stian =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F8iland?= Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 17:23:48 +0000 To: kde-usability Subject: Re: Drag and Drop Up-One-Level Message-Id: <20040508172348.GN9150 () itea ! ntnu ! no> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-usability&m=108403703614325 On 2004-05-07 21:44:01, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > > (therefor, if you have created two dirs, with hard-linked > > files, it could be possible to see that files in both dirs are > > hardlinked - and therefore that they MIGHT be the same files - avoiding > > editing a file that should have been a copy) > ??? Ok, I'll try to make it clearer. Just like ls -l prints the reference count, files that have several names should have that indicated in some way: Dir 1: [ ] file1.txt [ 2] file2.txt [ ] file3.txt Dir 2: [ ] file1.txt [ 2] file2.txt [ ] file4.txt [ 2] file5.txt [ ] should be thought of as the normal TXT icon. For files that are hard linked, the reference count could be superimposed onto the icon. This indicates that this file doesn't only appear in this directory. This could be important if you need 700 MB diskspace, and you try to delete your redhat73.iso - but nothing happens since it's also hard linked somewhere else. (There's no easy way to backreference those other file names without searching the whole volume. That could be an option from the "Preferences"-dialog, though.) Another issue is when a skilled user (but not yet an expert user) is learning about this hard linking-stuff, and he needs to know the difference between copying and linking. If he drags a file somewhere with "linking" - and then afterwards both files changes icon - it would be easier for him to understand that what he did affected both files, and that he hasn't created a symbolic link. One issue is if displaying the number is really useful. Most files with more than 1 link (except directories) would have 2 links. More links are less common. User's might expect that the two files are different, that one is #1 and the other #2, specially when only one of them are present. They would then search all over for #1 with no luck. Some other nice icon could of course be used in the superimposing. I don't know what would be appropriate. It would be very important to differenciate it from a symbolic link. If people mess up hardlinks and symbolic links, bad things could happen. Symbolic links are in many ways 'weaker' - you cannot delete the original file and keep the linked version. You cannot move around on the original file - or the linked one if it's relative. On the other hand - symbolic links work crossdevice, so you could have a symlink to a shared resource from your home directory. (in my opinion, symbolic links are best for directories, hard links for files. Hard linked directories are usually not possible without deep hacking.) > AND, konqueror as a File Manager should provide every possible way to manage > files. If the problem is instructing users, put it in the docs, KTips and > tooltips. > It's really strange you can zip, encrypt and do thousand of > non-file-management stuff using konqueror but cannot create a simple > hardlink. I agree that it should be possible to create hardlinks - as an option. Maybe it needs to be called something else since most common users don't understand that ALL file names are links to the inode - that again have the metadata and links to the actual file contents. People feel that when they save a file in a directory - that's where it IS. Maybe "Add another filename (hardlink)" or something like that? -- Stian Søiland Work toward win-win situation. Win-lose Trondheim, Norway is where you win and the other lose. http://www.soiland.no/ Lose-lose and lose-win are left as an exercise to the reader. [Limoncelli/Hogan] Og dette er en ekstra linje _______________________________________________ kde-usability mailing list kde-usability@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability