Comments about Linux/Ubuntu from a former MS-programmer

[Ari Torhamo]

ma, 2006-04-10 kello 20:33 +0200, Vincent Trouilliez kirjoitti:

> That said, if I want to browse the web I use Galeon or Epiphany, but I
> quite liked the concept that Nautilus being a file browser, it was able
> to browse any file anywhere, regardless of protocol. If it can read
> local files, then why not remote files on SMB or NFS or FTP servers. And
> if it can browse via FTP, why not with HTTP. If just for consistency's
> sake, I found it quite logical/good, that it was able to use HTTP.


Sorry Vincet for you getting this twice :-/ A year and a half doesn't
seem to be long enough for me to learn to reply correctly on this
list :-)

I don't know if Nautilus should be a web browser or not, but the term
"browsing" appears to be used in different ways in the context of web
browsing and the context of browsing a file system. When people talk
about browsing a file system, they usually mean opening folders and
looking at the file listings inside them. Browsing the web means opening
certain types of files (HTML or other) and having their content
presented. The fact that Nautilus is able to "browse" a file system
doesn't mean that it should be able to "browse" the web - these are two
different things. When I think about it, are there any types of files
that Nautilus does open?

Perhaps it would be handy if Nautilus could browse the web too, but as I
see it (as a non-expert) that would be a kind of anomality in it's
behaviour.

Cheers,

Ari