On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 01:44 +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:04:44PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > (remember: constructiveness is NOT defined by attached patch, but by > > > having a possible solution path provided, > > > > What is wrong with the solution path provided with > > nautilus-open-terminal? > > That it is again another PACKAGE to implement a simple entry in the > right-click menu. And as far as I've read, it tries to do "a whole lot > more". The "whole lot more" includes being able to right-click a folder and open a terminal in that $PWD. > People here just want to start a shell window as effectively as > possible, as it's their main tool working with the desktop systems all > day (and no, it's not a very special application like Audio Editing > suite). Asking people to install another package (first they have to know > that it actually exists and how it's named - IIRC someone else pointed > out this very obvious way) for something that simple is ridiculous. By "effective," don't you mean efficient? All ways of opening a shell are equally effective, assuming each way actually results in a shell opening at all. It either works or it doesn't; it's effective or it's not. If you wanted to start a shell as *efficiently* as possible, you wouldn't use the GUI at all; you'd be working in a tty all day. If you *had* to use the GUI for some other reason, the most efficient way to open a shell would be by assigning a keyboard shortcut. The amount of time it takes to move your hand away from the terminal -- where you're probably working already, judging by the fact that it's your "main tool" -- and then maneuver the mouse and click it twice is *MUCH GREATER* than the amount of time it takes to hit Shift+Ctrl+T (for example). > The path I could live with would be an option somewhere (not too hidden) > to enable the "Open Terminal" option again. For whatever's sake, disable > it by default, if you really think you need to hide essential tools to > get things done very effectively from users if you think they aren't > intellectually ready for that. There are discussions taking place elsewhere about new methods for combining useful packages in a meaningful way. There is no reason nautilus-open-terminal couldn't be a part of one of these combinations. If you truly want to act constructively, and you're not willing or able to convince the GNOME folks that this traditional shortcut is worth retaining, then simply follow those discussions. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
