Re: spatial finder

[Enrico Sersale]

On 2004-06-16 13:29:12 +0300 Frederico Muñoz <fsmunoz@gesal.org> wrote:

> On 2004-06-16 11:09:07 +0100 Rogelio Serrano <rogelio@smsglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2004-06-16 17:58:04 +0800 Nicolas Roard <nicolas@roard.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 16 juin 04, à 10:48, Enrico Sersale a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> On 2004-06-16 05:44:34 +0300 Rogelio Serrano <rogelio@smsglobal.net> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Can we use the new gworkspace finder in spatial mode?
>>>> 
>>>> What's that???
>>> 
>>> my .02€:
>>> 
>>> Something that works great with few files and shallow directories, and 
>>> badly with plenty of files and deep directories. Eg, it's not that good 
>>> for today computer's use.
>>> 
>>> You just need to see the users response to the now by-default nautilus 
>>> spatial mode.
>>> 
>>> Workspace UI is much better suited to Unix use, imho.
>>> 
>> 
>> Im going to use berkeley db to store files or file paths and additional 
>> file attributes in a flat namespace and use a spatial finder. Im going to 
>> hide unix from the user.
> 
> Altough hiding the filesystem from the user helps the usability of a spatial 
> finder it is not dependent on one... GWorkspace can already do the same using 
> the same mechanisms that NeXTSTEP (and I suppose Mac OSX) used: hidden 
> directories and a new namespace. I'm looking right now at my finder window 
> and in the root I have /Local, /System, /Network, /User and /Volumes. Add to 
> this the icons for directories (.dir.tiff) and the underlying filesystem is 
> hidden from the user.
> 
> With this in mind I suppose that to make GWorkspace "spatial"  one would set 
> the default view to iconic and open a new dir in each clicked icon (and make 
> sure that the new window remebers its atributes). I'm with Nicolas on this 
> one however: I think that the default view of the Finder is more appropriate 
> to today use of a computer and fits better with the Stepish paradigm. Having 
> said that I don't see anything wrong in supporting alternate modes, as long 
> as they are not the default.

At the beginning of this thread, you used the word "finder" meaning "file 
viewer" and, having GW an other object named "finder", I totally missed the 
point :-)
I didn't know that, now, that thing is named "spatial", but I've used the old 
Mac Finder from '86 (Macintosh 512) and I can't say that I don't like it!
The idea that each object opens in its own window, a application window if the 
object is a editable file and a finder window if it is a directory, remains, 
for me, the best and easier to understand way to represent the file system. 
And: a single click select a object, two clicks opens the object you selected. 
Easy and natural.
Sayd this, I must say that, now, I'm using only the gworkspace browser; the 
"spatial" view is, as I've said, the easier to understand, but, if you know 
whath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xdm/System.xsession" and this kind of things mean, 
the browser is faster and more efficient.
Anyway, I think that you can already use GW in this way; it remembers all the 
attributes of the opened windows so, if you keep all your windows in "Small 
Icon" mode (no icons path but the paths menu that goes back till "/") and ctrl 
double click on the folders to open a new window, you've got a "spatial" viewer 
(if I'm not missing something else...).  

> I must confess that I've red numerous articles about the spatial file 
> managers and I'm one of those that "still don't get it"... they always go on 
> and on on how it isn't only a matter of opening a new window for each opened 
> component and remebering the attributes of that window, but in the end that's 
> all I can actually see... all the talk about the folders being like objects, 
> etc, maes some sense, but in the end it boils down to "each click opens a new 
> window".
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Frederico Muñoz