Comments about Linux/Ubuntu from a former MS-programmer

[Eric Dunbar]

On 11/04/06, Sasha Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Most run-of-the-mill computer users come from Windows, so I wouldn't
> imagine it confusing them. It's waht they're used to.

That's precisely _where_ I see them getting confused!