Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
It seems a few points about the spatial mode need to be clarified
first. And btw, I didn't invent these things and I may have gotten
some things wrong, so please correct me if need be.
The spatial paradigm is a shift from application centric design to an
object centric one. It requires every object to have a consistent
state which is remembered.
OK, but that's never what I want to happen. I don't want to observe the
inherent clutter of the objects. I want to open windows only to
specific places, and I want the windows to be positioned where I want
them _now_, not where they might have landed some other time.
When a new directory is opened, it is
exactly where the user left it last time.
For some tiny number of directories, that might be handy. But then
again, how much time can it possibly save if all you are visiting is a
tiny number of directories?
Actually the user doesn't
open a new window, but a folder instead. Opening a folder shouldn't
affect another folder's state, which is why the existing folder is
left open.
But except in rare cases the reason I navigate to a new location is that
I'm done in the current one, or it was just an intermediate node in a
long path. So leaving it open is nearly always the wrong thing to do.
Tendency to create create lots of windows.
The whole mess could have been avoided simply by keeping the standard
mechanism to move to a new directory in the current window and adding the
oddball method for the less likely circumstance when you want a new window.
Why did all of the behavior changes have to bundled into one choice that
includes backwards-incompatibility?
If the spatial mode did that, it wouldn't really be spatial.
You lost me there. What does the specific click-mechanism that leaves 1
window open vs. 2 windows have to do with being spatial or not? I might
be able to tolerate the window shifting location/size as long as it
didn't leave the unnecessary open windows down the path. But that might
depend on the defaults for new locations since a lot of places are only
visited once.
If you only repeat operations among a few directories you could just throw
symlinks on your desktop and never navigate at all...
I can set every remote resource I use to have a list view at its root.
Alternatively, I can also use the browser mode to deal with that kind
of situations.
If you have to set options to make them reasonable, discussing the
defaults doesn't make a lot of sense.
Somewhere it was mentioned that all the other major distros have the
browser mode as default. However, I think at least Debian has spatial
mode as the default mode for Nautilus.
Maybe - there are plenty of things in debian that Ubuntu has to fix to be
usable.
In my opinion, Debian is at least as usable as a desktop software
distribution as Ubuntu is.
That makes one of us. I can't think of any change in Ubuntu that wasn't
needed or that makes it worse than debian.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
