The recently announced GNOME 2.6 has finally brought many features long awaited by the Linux desktop fans. GNOME 2.6 is all about ease of use, performance and unification and while it’s unfortunately hard to say that the GNOME desktop feels fast, it certainly began to be really easy to use and it has consistent look and feel — and that consistency is what makes up for most of the quality of a graphical user environment. UPDATE: Scroll down the article to read some added commentary.
Among lots of reviews of the new GNOME that have appeared on the Web,
there is no single one that does not mention the spatial Nautilius
file browser. While most reviewers find it really faster than the
old one (which is true), they seem to hate the spatial mode and blame the GNOME
developers for not providing an option to switch it off. They say: “you would
not like the web browser to open each link in a new window, wouldn’t you?
so why do you make me open each folder in a new windows and do not provide
an easily accessible option to switch this mode off?”.
Well, that point of view is one-sided. The whole thing about spatiality
is to provide the user with a real-life-alike interface
that keeps objects’ state and does not alter the contents of any
physical object if not ordered to. Browser mode folder windows
violate these rules by replacing physical object (folder,
represented on screen by a window) contents
with new set of icons every time the user opens a new folder,
and not retaining folders’ state (view mode, sort order,
icon placement).
Think of your hard drive contents as of a desk full of drawers.
Every time you put something into a drawer, you may be sure
that the next time you open the same drawer it will be in
the same place (and the drawer itself will remain in the same
place). So, when you open a folder and try to locate a
particular icon, it should be where you put it before.
Simple?
Now I can hear all that “what about the web browser” croud again.
Please imagine, what’s the closest real-life representation of
a web page? Well, it might be a book. While reading a book,
you can see only two pages at once, and every time you turn
the page, the new set of two pages replaces the two seen
before. And that’s exactly how web browsers work: clicking
a link replaces what you are seeing with the new content,
unless the link points to another web site (in which case
it may open a new browser window for your convenience).
Reading the book, you may even put some bookmarks on different
pages and that’s exactly how tabbed web browsing works:
you may keep several sub-pages of the same web site temporarily
bookmarked, switch between them with one mouse click
and get rid of them (remove the bookmark) when they are
no longer needed.
So, people in fact love when the machine works in a way
resembling behaviour of real-life objects, but it seems that only when
the “spatial” application is a web browser: they accept
the book metaphor with web pages, but reject the drawer
metaphor with folders and files. Sometimes they even
abuse the physical metaphor of tabbed browsing by opening
multiple pages – not subpages of the same web site! – in
multiple tabs of a browser window. I even know few people
who never open more than one browser window, viewing all
pages in tabs; I hope they do not try to glue a daily
set of newspapers together before reading them…
What is the real cause of all these attacks on the spatial Nautilius?
In my opinion, it is just bad file organisation coupled with
a bunch of old bad habits. It’s really hard to use a spatial
file browser if someone keeps his or her files in a ten-folder-deep
structure. Browser-mode file browsers hide the lack of thought
and organisation in the filesystem structure; spatial ones do not.
Folder structure should be simple and as shallow as possible,
and the “master” folders (something like My Images or
My Music folders known from Windows) should have their own
shortcuts on a GNOME panel, so that playing your favourite
song would only require opening My Music from the panel,
opening the appriopriate album folder and double-clicking
a file icon, instead of browsing straight from the home
directory (or, worse, the root one) through several levels
of subfolders.
Keeping the filesystem structure clear will also reduce symptoms of the next
problem mentioned in many reviews: screen clutter. By the way, I cannot imagine
how spatial browsing must lead to screen clutter: opening folders
with double-middle-click or Shift-double-click closes the parent folder
window at once. And even if it is not enough, one can click one field
in the gconf configuration editor and turn Nautilitus into
“classical” non-spatial file browser. Don’t know how to
use gconf? Then you shouldn’t change the way Nautilitus works,
I presume.
What’s worst, attacks on the spatial browser try to stop the innovation.
While it is hard to call the GNOME’s spatial Nautilius “innovative”, as spatial
browsers have a long history, to mention only the famous Macintosh Finder,
it is certainly innovative to bring this idea back to life, after all these
years of browser-like file managers domination. Even Apple and Microsoft,
after years of commitment to spatial interfaces (though much half-hearted
in case of Microsoft), turned back and tried to ride the ‘web browser
alike interface’ hype, with not so brilliant results. And now, when the time
to ressurect the spatial ideas has finally come, people accustomed to the
bad interface design try to defend it only because for the past years
they have been using it! They seem to be againt re-learning the new interface,
even if it promises to be so much more straightforward and natural,
and keep using something that reminds Windows 1.0 MS-DOS Executive
or Windows 3.0 File Manager and not a modern file browser.
While spatial Nautilius is not perfect (why oh why does it need 2
minutes to list 3000 files stored in one folder while Windows NT 4.0
Explorer lists 10000 files in 15 seconds on the same machine…), it is able
to recreate the desktop metaphor that started the graphical desktop revolution
with Xerox Alto and Star so many years ago. Please, don’t stop all these
good ideas coming back again. And remember that the spatial applications do
not organise your work by themselves: you have to help them and keep your data
organised yourself and then you will see how much spatial interface may make
work easier and more effecient.
Radoslaw Sokol is a network administrator in Poland.
OSNews’ EIC’s opinion:
Personally, I am all for the spatial interface, but not on top of the current hierarchical file systems. When filesystems become fully DB-based and MIME-based with no folders (they would be sorted based on extended attributes criteria, not based on folders) *then* a spatial interface would make absolute sense because each view/window would represent a different “search” result based on attribute search: For example, “show me the files that belongs to XX package, were created before 2004, are JPEG or PNG and their EXIF information includes the word ‘Greece Holidays'”, a query created by an easy to use dialog, like in this example. Each query can be saved down if the user wishes to, and because each one is unique, it would need to be represented in a different result window, that’s where the spatiality should come in.
But as things are today, the spatial Nautilus is going live before its time. Explorer-like file managers are a better bet for the kind of filesystems we utilize today. Yes, spatiality is the future. Not just yet though because the filesystem part needs a grassroot “upgrade” too.
The above example comes from BeOS, where its file manager, Tracker, is also a spatial file manager (unfortunately also on top of a hierarchical FS with folders, so spatiality was also not well suited despite the fact BFS was an advanced fs for its time). When Tracker became open source in 2000, the FIRST thing users added to the codebase was the option to not open each folder on its own window. It was the most common problem users had with the fm, just like today with Nautilus. This says a lot and unfortunately the Gnome Project didn’t learn from history and they basically repeated the same mistake. — Eugenia
I don’t understand the aproach of browbeating people for not organizing their stuff better to fit with a more elegant UI. If browser-style file management makes organizing a smaller task, why be doctrinaire about spatial viewing of directories? More elegant is not better than more functional. Just because something is theoretically more consistent with a philosophy of UI doesn’t mean that it’s easier to use.
All that talk that the “spatial” zillion windows approach is Windows influenced simply baffles me. For me the “spatial” file manager is simply a reviving of the Win3.1 abomination. I used a tree approach to file managing before I’ve ever seen Windows. The DOS utility I used was called XTree. I later used XTree for Windows and would probably still do (in both Linux and Win32) if a native version existed (the Win16 one does not know about long file names).
And for Web browsing I prefer tabbed browsing 500% to any alternative. Having twenty open browser files (the IE way) is simply not the way I like it. In fact, even two open Web browser windows are one too much.
Might be ok for a small number of files – how about 200 business projects? Multiple clients? How should I organise that?
What if u have 100s or 1000s of files to organise – a deep consistent hierarchy is really the only way to go.
I tried it and switched it off after 2 weeks. It just doesn’t fit anything other than small time usage.
I think there is a problem, in understanding what
“users” want, and it seem so what they are being forced to want/use.
there has been melting an unwritten law within the UI-Designers,
“don’t force the users to use a behavior they don’t want to use”, when you have an idea on a “Killer(G)UI (c)” concept,
test it first with an average common user (this means not a
– geek
– nerd
– win32-without-mouse-keyboardfreak
– GUI-designer
and the best “NOT YOURSELF TRYING TO THINK LIKE THE AVERAGE USER”
),
who also got no hints how he/she should use it, then you will see how intuitive your GUI is, you will also see the pros & cons of your design
but I think spatial localfile browsing is a good solution and usable, except under Gnome, look at (IBM) OS/2 Warp 3
there it has been used, there it worked damn good,
Why KDE is now being seen on so many Desktops ?
– it favors many flavours off GUI-grafic-styles
– it favors many flavours off GUI-usage-styles
– it favors many widgets & not clumsegets
– it favors many flavours off GUI-behavior-styles
so it can simply be set to a mixture or purification
the user want’s & they don’t try to educate
the user, even when they think some long used ideas
are “not clean on an other context or more specfic on the devellopers personal taste”
(quote)
..
But as things are today, the spatial Nautilus is going live before its time*. Explorer-like file managers are a better bet for the kind of filesystems we utilize today. Yes, spatiality is the future. Not just yet though because the filesystem part needs a grassroot “upgrade” too.
..
(/quote)
*just add “& to die before it should”
Because, to put it simply, drawers suck. Sorry, the the physical world analogy you chose is one that DOESN’T work, and thank God we have computers. Specially ones without gnome.
Now, before this bs about having become used to a bad interface design, let me state that OS/2, which I used for many years, worked precisely as stated, unless you configured it to close the windows as it opened new ones. Thankfully, as it really cleared up screen clutter.
Now, as for screen clutter, the problem is that you don’t want anything else from the parent folder most of the time, so it’s there USELESSLY, and you have to DIVERT from whatever you are doing just to close the damned thing. THAT’S bad interface design.
On the matter of adding special folders to the bar, that’s fine if you really don’t have much to do. Sorry, but some of us do have to deal with thousands of files.
Finally, on the matter of gconf, I hope to God someone who thinks users should bow to software and not the other way around isn’t being allowed important decisions in gnome.
they accept the book metaphor with web pages, but reject the drawer metaphor with folders and files
Maybe because your metaphor sucks!
Sometimes they even abuse the physical metaphor of tabbed browsing by opening multiple pages – not subpages of the same web site! – in multiple tabs of a browser window.
Really?!? I dont know that rule! Thanks for tell me how to use my computer. After all, you know what is better for me, right, Mr. Gates?
I hope they do not try to glue a daily set of newspapers together before reading them…
And i bet you read only the front page of you newspaper. You try to click on the headlines, it does not work, you blame the webmaster and throw it away
Spatial interface can be great or not, but you are a moron. Period.
And yes, a dont speak/write english.
I later used XTree for Windows and would probably still do (in both Linux and Win32) if a native version existed (the Win16 one does not know about long file names).
Have you tried ZTree? It’s supposed to be the same as XTree, but for Win32. I haven’t tried it myself, but then I’ve always preferred the browser-style management over either tree or “spatial” management. I did use XTree, though, when Windows was still opening new windows for every directory.
And for Web browsing I prefer tabbed browsing 500% to any alternative. Having twenty open browser files (the IE way) is simply not the way I like it. In fact, even two open Web browser windows are one too much.
Exactly. When I want to check 3 different websites, I open 3 tabs and read the first while the other 2 load. I don’t need 3 windows just to read 3 websites.
As for file management being related to your method of browsing, I don’t really buy that. Most of us seem to use deeper directory structures to filter our files more carefully. I don’t want 5000+ mp3 files in my base mp3 directory, because I’d have to spend more time finding that particular song. So, I have individual directories for each letter of the alphabet, then directories for the individual artists, and finally directories for the individual albums. If it were possible to file the physical media this way without taking up significantly more space, I would. Any other organization of the songs (by genre, year, etc) can be handled when the files are loaded into a playlist, as most music software can manage that.
The way different files are managed depends on how you use them. Most of my interaction with my music files is not through the file system, but when I do go into the mp3 directory, I have a specific purpose, and the directories are organized accordingly. While having 3 or more directories nested from whatever base folder I start with is common, there’s always a reason for it (and I periodically go back through the more neglected areas of my directory structure, like download folders, to prune these back). Whatever time is saved by opening a new window for each directory is wasted in excess by closing windows that were only used once. The idea of “just double-middle-click” or whatever is rediculous if opening multiple windows is the behavior you are least likely to be using. In Windows the option to change this behavior is usually in the first panel of the Folder Options menu item of any explorer window, and there’s really no reason to make it any harder than that to change this behavior.
I’ve got the Finder set up like Nautilus — I prefer it to work that way. Frankly, it makes far more sense/works better.
When a file browser doesn’t open new windows for every folder it’s very disconcerting.
dead horse
What I want to know is… Why oh why do you have 3000 files in one folder… Or even worse.. 10000 files in one folder? I have one word — ORGANIZE
Thanks!
listen up all meta-data dislikers:
either put your file in a folder.
if you, you could have, just as well, put the folders name as the meta-data, and the work for you would be exactly the same, no loss.
you don’t have to enter dog, beach, and wahatever on your pictures, just as you dont have to create /my pictures/holiday/beach and put your ppics of beaches in there.
but for those who do want to, they should be free to.
and keep the tree based orginazition too, that way automatic meta-data indexing of folder-structure could be added to the objects and further enhance the usability.
I think the following statement from the article pretty much summarises the current problems with mainstream adoption of Linux:
“Don’t know how to use gconf? Then you shouldn’t change the way Nautilitus works, I presume.”
A better comment would have been:
“Don’t know how to use gconf? Then it is poorly written”
There is no excuse in this day and age for forcing users to jump through hoops in order to change basic functions of the GUI interface. A “normal” user should never have to look at config files or drop to a command line to change the behaviour of their GUI – it should all be achieveable from within that GUI.
I tell: why not?
these 10 000 files may not be my personal files, they maybe are the logs of asome program who do an by hour dump ?
what if I don’t feel like sorting my music in artist/album/track but rather take every single song, put them in “music” and then let my music player sort and work with it ? (pretty much the layout I have right now, lost of OGG Vorbis with good meta-data on them and rhytmbox to give me just the songs IU want.)
See, that’s what happens if you let somebody with no clue whatsoever write articles. He does not know any bettern then to anounce ‘the right way’, and all others be silent.
What’s next by this author?
software: <pick your favorite software>
reasoning: <it’s your favorite isn’t it, so it owns>
random_needless_remark: <pick favorite arrogant remark here>
article: ‘This’, <software>, ‘owns because’, <reasoning>, <random_needless_remark>
work: <article>+
and by “real” i mean how it is organized in the machine. in
software. how the computer sees it. that the spatial
browsing methaphor isn’t an apt one because the “real”
structure is a tree. i think if new users truly understand
this, it’s much more empowering for them (probably their
first lesson in computer science without realizing it
thus when they see a url, they can envision the parent-child
relationship and they can just intuit “ahah! i can delete
this folder and insert this filename to get to were i was a
while ago!” rather than having to browse back multiple
pages and re-click through new links, which would be
equivalent to closing a bunch of windows and opening others
in spatial file management.
furthermore, continuing on with how empowering it is, that
heirarchical understanding prepares them for the command
line if they ever need to use it.
Thanks Eugenia for the additional comments.
They put the editorial into a much better context – of course everyone knows that such Opinions are not those of OSNews.com one might get the impression. it’s a good thing to clear this up.
There’s only one problem with the whole ‘book’ metaphor: it’s wrong. The author’s implication is that opening a new window is like turning the pages in a book. The only problem is, according to the author’s metaphor, I would have to open to those pages in an entirely separate book, meaning I would have to have page count/2 books inorder to read the entire novel. I’d much rather read the book within one book, or browser window.
Although I still prefer the browser mode, I think the whole ‘spatial’ idea is not a bad thing. But the spatial mode in Nautilus looks like it is in its infancy and a lot of things could be improved to make it actually usable. There are two things I can see at the moment:
1. Bring in a tree view. What I mean is: make it like in MacOS Classic Finder. Yes, just rip it off. It was extremely useful for browsing deeper nested directories and you could always double-click a directory to open it in a separate ‘spatial’ window. This should be really trivial to implement as the tree view code is actually there: it is used in the sidebar in the browser mode. Just make it a separate view (like ‘icon view’ and ‘list view’) and add ‘spatiality’ to it and here we go!
2. This is more a Metacity issue or window management in general but still… What I mean is when Nautilus is not the top-most application and you want to browse files and click on a Nautilus window/taskbar/whatever to bring it to front, all Nautilus windows should pop up together. Just like in MacOS Classic Finder again, and not like the current situation when you have to separately click on the taskbar to bring each window to front.
Not to mention the ‘docking folder windows to screen edge’ feature MacOS Classic also had. All the refinements like these made it a really pleasant experience. Well, it turns out I am a great fan of MacOS Classic interface although I have not used it a lot
But one thing I must admit: it was the spatial interface done right and I would not mind if Gnome developers tried to recreate its best features in their ‘Spatialus’.
and milk it.
Yes, I call them (“them” being authors such as the author of this article) elitist. No, I will never buy a Mac.
Too expensive, and I prefer to have complete control over my
system a la Linux (My preferred flavor is Gentoo – tweaker’s paradise). OSX my have the most “intuitive” interface
according to some, but I simply don’t care. I’ll work
using whichever window manager suits me in whatever manner
suits me, thank you very much.
My point is that the stance of “The way this works makes sense to me and is the *only* way it should make sense to anyone” is inherently flawed and arrogant in the extreme.
It is entirely noble and good to attempt to improve the user
experience through innovation and thinking outside the
box. It is arrogant to dismiss users as idiots for
*choosing* to stick to what they know or rejecting a
feature because it requires too much change for them
in the short term. They may in fact not think like you,
yet are just as productive doing it their own way.
Regardless of how wonderful gnome may be in theory,
users will drop like flies if they are treated like idiots.
I say this as an ardent GNU/Linux supporter.
Case in point, this article is up to 200+ comments, most of
which denounce the author as being full of himself (in
addition to something brown and fragrant).
The spirit of Linux is freedom to choose, not
indoctrination into Mac wannabe elitism.
True the article needs work. However as one person pointed out this article isn’t so much for the Gnome users as it is the Gnome bashers (of which we’ve had plenty). Today it’s spatial, but it’s been other relatively trivial things in the past.
The thing people need to ask themselves is “How are we going to have an award winning desktop, if we fight every decision with the same amount of viterol?” Like I said before it was things like color, today it’s spatial. What will tomorrows complaint be? At least closed-source has someone to cut these gordian-knots that the community seems to tie themselves into. Maybe it isn’t the decision you want, but then the software process isn’t frozen into “pleasing every, offending none” impotence either.
This article is basically “the way I do things is the only way to do… if you do it another way, you simply have bad habits. Shame on you.”
Ok. Shame on me. I hate multiple windows. Hate. It. I am not more efficient that way. It’s cluttered and mostly unorganized… for me, that is. One window for an application is how I do things. I am more organized and get more work done that way.
Tabbed browsing is a blessing for me. I click to links browser-style if I don’t care to keep what was on the original page, then use tabs when I want to line up the pages I’m using.
I produce a radio show. When I am researching a guest, I find articles, contact information, and related materials online. I keep them all on separate tabs in the same window. If I move on to a second guest or topic, I open a second browser window and do the same. But having new windows open for everything becomes a complete mess on my desktop. Same goes for file management, in my case. I want one window per subject/topic. If I’m working on more than one thing at one time, then I’ll add additional windows. But this forced-spatiality in Nautilus leads me to pull my hair out. When I’m done with one file and move onto a subfolder, I typically am done with that parent. I don’t want to have to close it after I’ve found what I’m looking for in the subfolder. That’s taking more steps than needed.
Anyway, that’s how I’m stifling innovation.
Sorry.
CP
As a long time KDE user, I commonly compare the features of KDE and gnome. (KDE is still winning)
But when I hear of spatial nautilus, I am jealous of a feature that is not in KDE. Because I expect Linux distributions to have unessicary, impractical, obsolete, and generally bastard programs/settings/configuration.
First of all, it is not always a good goal to emulate physical environments on a desktop. So it is a non-sequitur to say that because people know how to use this or that (file cabinet, etc.) that it makes one desktop GUI more intuitive than another.
Despite that, this comment really had me laughing…
[quote]I even know few people who never open more than one browser window, viewing all pages in tabs; I hope they do not try to glue a daily set of newspapers together before reading them…[/quote]
I also know a lot of people who read newspapers and magazines by flipping pages — pages that are physically bound or folded to make browsing through the content easy. They don’t rip apart groups of ads and articles and arrange them on their floor or desktop so that they can find them exactly where they left them the last time they looked.
The problem with Nautilus is not that it’s spacial, but that the i—-s who designed it decided that users shouldn’t have a choice. Using Gconf is not a choice, it’s an arrogant nerd-centric statement that anyone who doesn’t find Gconf “easy” shouldn’t be allowed to decide how Nautilus should work.
I simply use what I like.
Don’t make politics but give posibilities.
Bye.
I really don’t understand the idea of opening a new window for every click. I can’t have a link on my desktop for every file on my computer. If I want to get to something, I’ll have to use some sort of heirarchy. So, when I open a folder (or whatever spatial topic, whatever), I don’t care about it except to get to the item I want. I VERY VERY RARELY want to keep a parent folder open when searching for a file. Until a file search is a database query, there will be heirarchies in filesystems, whether they are actual folders or spatial concepts. It’s simply how humans categorize things.
I have to agree with Eugenia here. The spatial Nautilus is broken. I could totally see what she said about spatial being a good way to go on a DB-structure FS, too.
Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if they flipped the defaults for how you browsed such that shift-double-click used spatial mode rather than one-window mode.
Frankly, they should also have a tree view just like Windows Explorer. I find that I work in one of two modes. Either I’m drilling down to a directory so that I can see everything in it and open documents, etc., or I’m about to start moving things around the file system.
In the first mode, spatial metaphors (and I really hate the word “spatial” here, because it really misses the mark) are just useless. I want to get down to a particular directory and act on the files that it contains. Once I’m down there, the other windows are just crud floating around.
In the second mode, I’m typically want to move a directory or file somewhere else in the hierarchy. For this operation, having a folder tree visible makes way more sense to me. The problem with a spatial metaphor here is that I’m typically not moving the file or folder to a parent folder. Thus, all the windows that opened to get to that point are useless clutter and just make for d-n-d mistakes. Further, I have to drill down to another point in the hierarchy, so now I have multiple paths-worth of folder windows out and about.
Anyway, spatial browsing really doesn’t work well. I didn’t like it in 1984 with the first Mac and now I hate it. The only saving grace was that the original Mac used 400 KB floppy drives and you couldn’t put enough stuff on them to really develop deep hierarchies. Now, with 200 GB HDDs becoming the norm, the problem is acute.
As a long time Mac user I have to say the old “many window” approach was a real drag ( you spent all of your time dragging them out of the way!). What the Mac had was the ability to close the parent folder while opening a new one with option-click. This had the advantage of preserving the “spatial” settings for the folder you were opening, while eliminating the clutter of many open windows. Can Nautilus do this?
Paul
Well, Win31 did it and everybody hate the File Manager and the Program Manager which did this…
You are talking about Organization as a Justification to use Spacial Model, but then you say 10000 Files in a single Directory? What a mess is this? Why do you Need 10000 files? if those are Pictures than you need an Album Application or an Image Database or Something like that then is no need for putting 10000 Files in a single Directory…
About the structure of the File System Hierarchy, It is a Tree and the Common Browser uses the Tree Metaphor, exactly as the DownLayer of the File System is Designed…
Bye, thankz and think about it…
Sorry for My English!!
I really do not understand the hussle around this spatial thing. Please, rightclick and select Browse. I can’t stand this “spaciality” and I don’t use it. But for the sake of a debate…
Two-panel orthodox file managers were, are and will be the fastest, easiest and most usable progs for managing your stuff. Instead of trying to help users feel at home, teach him to camp out in the open and fosus on more important issues that fill forums and are mostly asked by people that are used to work with linux. Do you think that managing files is users first concern? And while we debate real linux krusader(s) sink.
“What the Mac had was the ability to close the parent folder while opening a new one with option-click. This had the advantage of preserving the “spatial” settings for the folder you were opening, while eliminating the clutter of many open windows. Can Nautilus do this?
Paul”
yes. use middle click
The guy is as clueless as he is arrogant. I mean, besides all the cheap shots at people who disagree with his way of using computers, he equals “old ideas” with “innovation” and goes on to compare Nautillus’ performance with that of Windows NT 4, a product that is outdated by anybody’s standard and to suggest that Gnome’s RegEdit clone GConf is an acceptable way to manage one’s UI settings.
I had the joy of installing NT4 on a laptop a few weeks ago. You can say lots of ugly things about it, but it’s fast, and the explorer interface is really minimal, like I want it. It’s a very valid comparisation, and one few file managers come out of winning, if you’re only looking at speed.
GConf, OTOH, is one of many reasons I prefer KDE. If you want to let people configure things, why not make it easy?
“Anyway, spatial browsing really doesn’t work well. I didn’t like it in 1984 with the first Mac and now I hate it. The only saving grace was that the original Mac used 400 KB floppy drives and you couldn’t put enough stuff on them to really develop deep hierarchies. Now, with 200 GB HDDs becoming the norm, the problem is acute.”
The problem is ACUTE, period. Regardless of how one browses their filesystem. Information overload is an ongoing problem which is partially why you are seeing DB-filesystems, and good search engines being toted. There’s already a story over on “/.” about Seagates 400GB HD. Several could easily give you a Terabyte to look through.
Why not just make a tabbed file manager… I would like that more than anything spatial… After all.. Don’t real life folders have tabs??? 🙂
this bug:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48085
and the attitudes expressed by nautilus developers with regards to this spacial browsing issue and the summary of these issues with regards to the very bug in question:
“I think severity of this bug should be critical, because this causes a loss of data…Btw, I noticed, that nautilus developers doesn’t care about compability with older versions, for example like in this bug with people, that used gnome1x with gmc, another example is going to spatial mode without user-friendly way to change to previous browser behaviour.”
are all indications that it is time for me to find a new file manager…
cd, ls, cp, rm and mv
those are good tools and bash -o vi is very useful too. Why bother with a retarded file manager?
Before someone begins to scream that THESE are NOT good tools…
consider that part of my everyday job is to keep a deep and complex file system up to date and nicely ordered, something for what I would NEVER use a graphical user interface, because it’s slow, unprecise and error-prone.
On a sidenote, is it just me or seem mac-centered developers do not care much about portability/compatibility/usability ( for other kin ) ?
Now, as the battle over my article is heading towards its end, I’d like to sum up it a little.
First, what many of the readers haven’t realized, the article is a little exaggerated. The things have been put in ‘black and white’ just to emphasize some of the points about the spatial interface. Of course, I really do like spatial Nautilus (not Nautilius — my fault), but I see the need to complement it with a classic file browser (and that’s why there’s a ‘Browse this folder’ option in Nuautilus’ context menu; seems that hardly ever noticed it). I really think that an average user is unable to organize his or her files and I can prove it just by walking down from my office to the other room, where some secretary girls sit in front of their computers and save every one file on the desktop naming it the way that they are unable to find it one week later. And finally, I am sure that many people will contest everything they are not used to, even if all they did to test it and see it only was to turn it on for a couple of minutes (and in fact they are no experts in the matter).
Second, I’d like to thank VERY MUCH all the people who did not agree with me and presented some opposite points. The aim of my article was to begin a discussion, and the form of it (a little arrogant) was chosen to filter out the people who do not agree and can say it, and the ones who have nothing to say and only comment “Go fuck yourself” or “You are such a moron” if they do not agree. I appreciate very much the discussion itself and all those who do not agree with me, but all I can say to the ones who just use dirty words is “think about yourself and do not touch the ‘Submit comment’ button for a month”.
Thanks again for all sensible voices, even if they were full of critics.
Maybe the nautilus crew can help Havoc Pennington with making metacity ‘spatial’. I hate that metacity always opens windows in the top left corner of the display (I know… I know… some gnome apps do have hooks to retain their window placement, but this is not universal among gnome apps, much less non-gnome ones).
What’s next? Gnome will ship with abacus instead of calculator?
Why not, moving balls around is more natural than clicking on some abstract buttons with numbers.
The whole HIG is a bunch of bullshit and it’s fundamentaly wrong.
Computers have nothing to do with real world. The whole analogy to real world objects is totaly wrong.
Computers were invented to manage massive volumes of data.
In real world a human will get overwhelmed by too many objects just like when working with computer files.
Just like one doesn’t try to count a sworm of flies or other insects outside the windows but simply uses a spray to kill as many as possible, so do we need good file managers to deal with thousands of files on a computer.
Nautilus is like that poor sob that’s still trying to kill the flies one by one with a flapper.
Get over it Gnome zealots, Nautilus is a poor excuse for software and even poorer for a file manager.
Gmc was a file manager, Nautilus is just another useless window taking up space on the desktop and the sooner it’s dead the better.
Microsoft gave us “Nautilus” over 10 years ago, why reinvent it again in 2004? Bill Gates must be loughing all the way to the bank when he sees what the Gnome developers are coming up with these days.
Gnome 2 and later versions will surely go into history, but not as remarkable software but as the worst ideas and sad jokes in software’s history.