[Thunar-dev] hello to Thunar-dev!

[Jasper Huijsmans]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 03:10:34AM -0500, jamec at umich.edu wrote:
> Quoting Benedikt Meurer <benedikt.meurer at unix-ag.uni-siegen.de>:
> 
> > James Cho wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> >
> > Hello James,
> >
> > > I'm a longtime Windows user (who isn't?) but have used Linux for a
> > > couple of years.  I also use OS X fairly frequently, but not for any
> > > serious work.  I've used xfce for a few months now, and have many qualms
> > > with how xffm is designed.  In short, what I consider to be the ideal
> > > file manager design would be OS X's Finder plus an address box next to
> > > the buttons row.  It's simple and allows for quick access to long
> > > directory addresses, nothing more is needed I think.  Interestingly,
> > > after years of Windows customization I eventually settled on  that
> > > layout for folder windows in Explorer.  It works well and is very
> > > compact, and it's what 90% of people need, nothing more.
> >
> > So you are suggesting a spatial view ala Nautilus?
> 
> As a simple "view" option, yes.  Some like spatial views, some don't.  Many have
> very strong opinions for and against it, many don't.  How does making spatial
> view optional not satisfy everyone?  Why can everything else be optional, but a
> spatial view not?
> 

Actually there is no such thing as a spatial view. A spatial file manager is
about behaviour and metaphors, not only about looks. A simple view in a
navigational file manager should be possible by hiding the side pane,
shouldn't it?

And I sure hope not everything will be optional. For usable software it is
important to make choices. Options come at a cost, which should be balanced
against the benefits. 

And, I think it is important to start small. It is much easier to add features 
and options than to remove them without making people unhappy.

	Jasper