Filesystem - hiding system folders?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 29 March 2006 06:18, Chanchao wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> ...a good explanation for why things are the way they are.
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> Alan also wrote:
> > The most compelling reason is the POV *nix developers have
> > of their users: Our user are intelligent people who
> > know what they are doing,  are not complete idiots and
> > don't need their hands held. We do not need to protect
> > our users from themselves. Windows OTOH has this
> > view: You are an idiot.
>
> I have to say the latter seems the safer assumption. :) 

It's an assumption based on no evidence at all, and insulting to boot. 
Look, users are not idiots. They do have preferences, and usually 
start at the beginning of the learning curve. But assuming they can't 
understand and therefore have to have stuff hidden from them is 
gross. I've done training, this is how it goes:

"What's in /bin?"  "Programs. You don't need to touch it."   "OK"
and so on down the list. Next question is often:

"Is there are place for my own stuff?"   "Yes, your home directory. 
It's either /home/$USER, the 'Home' link, or '~', depending on what 
interface you are using."   "Cool. Let's get to work"

> And the 
> people who know what they're doing will still be able to do things,
> and because they're perceived to go 'deeper under the hood', their
> pedestal will seem higher and their kind will be even cliqueier
> (God I hope that's a word). :)  So they might actually like it.
>  Power users probably don't use nautilus for just about anything
> other than organizing pictures anyway?

Is that your own personal thoughts on the matter, or a conclusion you 
have come to after doing a rigid usability study?

I'm not flaming you, you just seem to be making many assumptions about 
users and how they use their computers. To borrow a line from proven 
programming techniques: Do TheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork. 
This translates to 'the files exist, so display them'. It also means 
that we should follow the rules of the underlying OS, which only 
supports display and non-display of dot files. You can change 
nautilus, sure, but then you have to patch every other file manager, 
shell and browser out there (which can all browse a file system), 
plus every Open/Save dialog in all apps, to do the same thing.

The system is not broken, don't try and fix it.

> > There are other ways to accomplish what you want - like
> > restricting users to their home directories. Meanwhile, 10
> > minutes of user education nicely solves the entire problem as to
> > what all these directories are for.
>
> I seriously doubt you can GET 10 minutes of reading technical stuff
> from most users. However a 10 minute cartoonish animated
> walk-through presented by a cute animated mascotte figure named
> Ubunny: Maybe. [ Initial toe-cramp now extended to well beyond the
> buttocks ]

Now we are assuming that users can't or won't read. It's simply not 
true. What is true is that we have to compete with tons of other 
noise for their attention. Aunt Tillie is not required to know the 
system's inner workings to use the system, but she does need to know 
how it's structured, like how folders can contain files and 
sub-folders. The classic analogy of a filing department in a business 
which has cabinets, which contain drawers, which contain card 
folders, which contain documents works brilliantly here.

At the same time, explain that there are folders which contain 
programs and other stuff that Ubuntu uses to make it all work, and if 
she needs to see them they are there. So you say "The programs are in 
folders called bin and sbin. You can run them directly, but you can't 
delete them or change them, so don't be intimidated by them, OK?"

> Seriously though, something accessible and not boring looking might
> also be the way to smoothen the initial steep learning curve when
> moving to Ubuntu from other non-*nix operating systems. Even an
> erm, "less manly looking" getting-started presentation that
> actually teaches some concepts might still be preferable to things
> like Automatix or Ubuntuguide that just do certain things without
> the user knowing what's going on and what's being fixed (or
> broken).

Why are you claiming that Linux has a "steep learning curve"? I see no 
evidence for this at all. In fact, I see the opposite. I've delivered 
end user courses using Ubuntu Warty of all things and no-one had any 
trouble grasping the concepts. Ubuntu makes this easy as it 
simultaneously exposes the utter simplicity of a *nix file system and 
removes irrelevant clutter. It's not the same thing as Windows in the 
same way as a radio is not the same thing as a CD player (but both 
play music). Don't underestimate the ability of the average human 
being to understand how things are different and therefore cope with 
it. Even the shell - easiest thing in the world to explain

Especially don't make the classic mistake of focusing on that one 
luser who insists on his right to not think. For every one of them, 
there are 99 (or more) others who get it right, have very little 
trouble at all, but don't particularly mention it much.

p.s. When reading this post, make allowances for those parts of Ubuntu 
that don't work yet and do need knowledgeable intervention at this 
stage. It's still an incomplete project.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five