Comments about Linux/Ubuntu from a former MS-programmer

[Eric Dunbar]

On 10/04/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell at joe-job.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 12:23 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> > > no. Nautilus is for Gnome and Konqueror is for KDE. They were made for
> > > the same purpose but for different desktops (although Konqueror doubles
> > > as a web browser while nautilus does not.
> >
> > My point precisely.  Nautilus is purely a file browser (aiui - noting that
> > I'm not a Gnome user).  That should mean, presumably, that it should play
> > nice with NFS mounts (and probably CIFS/SAMBA _mounts_) but I'm not at all
> > sure it needs to be more aware of the network than that.  Konqueror, otoh,
> > is supposed to be completely network aware, making it seamless to use any
> > KIO slave as a filesystem.  They're not "made for the same purpose" at all.
>
> Nautilus can't browse the web?  Since when?  It definitely used to be
> able to.
>
> I think the separation of web and file browser is a huge usability bug -
> one of the nicest features of Windows is that you can browse the web or
> your local filesystem from the same app.

It's also the source of a lot of security problems (give your web
browser major file system duties ;-), and, I find that the mixed
paradigm of web and file manager confuses your run-of-the-mill
computer users.