Comments about Linux/Ubuntu from a former MS-programmer

[Sasha Tsykin]

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.

Sasha