Feature request: browsing filesystem in gnome "computer" menu

[poptones]

-Scott James Remnant

Double-click the Computer icon, and resize that window, and close it.

Then double-click again, should that load the browser in the same
place

it was last time?



Ok, probably.



Now double-click the Home icon, resize that window, and close it. 
Then

double-click again, should that load the browser in the same place it

was last time?



Probably too.



Now double-click the Computer icon again.  Which set of settings
should

that follow?  What about if you choose the Network icon instead? 
Where

do those settings come from?-



Which is another great annoyance that breaks the previously mentioned
UI philosophy of "not getting in the way." Why cannot the "browser"
even remember its last geometry? If I am not using spatial mode I have
zero capabilities of opening the window back where I wanted it and at
the size I wanted it unless I manually edit the shortcut. Even changing
the metadata has zero effect, from what I have seen, on "browser"
geometry. So, clicking on any of those buttons you mention is -exactly-
the case you describe: it's nothing but another of the same window,
offset 10 pixels or so from the last, pointing to slightly different
content.



-And what happens if you double-click the Computer icon, and navigate
to

the Home directory within that browser, and close it.  Do you then
open

the Home icon's window in that location, or the last location a window

was left after double-clicking the Home icon?-



Leave the stupid thing alone, change the content for this instance. If
someone really wanted the new window open, they wouldn't be clicking
the button that said "just one window."



-Are desktop icons and panel options just launchers for separate "file

manager" applications with different starting points?  So these are

special, and different to the icons *inside* the file manager window.

Why don't they look any different?-



Good question. So why are they still on this "Computer" menu after I
disable spatial mode? Why don't they turn into a single "browser" icon?
Where is the consistency here?



-You can't just pick and mix what bits you like, that way leads
UI-hell.

Decide on *one* set of rules, and stick to them.  Nautilus is
extremely

consistent.-



In this case, it's just as inconsistent as it is consistent. And still
no one has explained what that "window always new" setting is supposed
to do - it doesn't alter behavior in either mode, from anything I have
seen. So is this "consistency"  because it doesn't change anything? 



Would it really be so impossible to allow middle click in browser mode
- which right now doesn't do anything at all except duplicate left
click - become "open in new window?" 



-One of the main complaints about spatial is that it leaves a lot of

windows open if you navigate into a deep directory hierarchy.



The sexiest way of solving that is to have the parent windows fade and

vanish if you don't use them, so you just double-click your way down
the

tree and the parents quietly vanish.  (Yay composite).-



What "composite?" It's all or nothing here. Either it remembers every
single folder position and you get bouncing folders, or it doesn't
remember ANY of them and you don't.



The "sexiest" way of doing this is to let THE USER set his or her own
"bookmarks." I use (or would use) "spatial" mode all the time - but I
don't want it on every single folder. So let those "bookmarks" remember
geometry and we're golden. THAT would be sexy and consistent. At the
very least it would be an order of magnitude more useful than what we
have now: I have a half dozen folders I use a lot, and every time I
want two of them open at once it becomes a cacophony of opening,
clicking and dragging those "browsers" - simply because "spatial" mode
is so utterly obnoxious to me the first place I head upon install is
the disable feature. 



Creating shortcuts is not "consistent" simply because I get different
results for opening those folders depending upon where I opened them.
If I open the folder from the shortcut I made mysel I get the desired
geometry, if I "open in new window" (which I have to do explicitly
because there is no browser mode single button click to allow this and
because that gconfig mode setting doesn't actually do anything) I just
go back to that default window that pops up right where the other one
opened. 



I cannot set the folder to open in its own window or with desired
geometry when opened in new window even by making a custom launcher for
it, because that feature seems to have disappeared from the context
menu. The documentation when I click "help" says I can do this by
selecting "View As" and choosing the setting I want, but guess what?
That ain't there either. (In fact, it would seem we no longer have the
capability of changing this behavior on ANY single object. I used to be
able to change settings "for this item only" but now if I want to change
a setting it only offers to do so for every object of that MIME type.)



Basically, it seems that since gnome rediscovered this spatial anomaly,
with every new revision of gnome/nautilus we get one or two tiny
features (now we can view hidden files without a script, yay!) but lose
even more major functionality.



I have even changed the metadata on folders myself, adding a geometry
preference to the folder's xml file, and the only consistency I see
here is "it's either one way or the other." You cannot, under any
circumstances, have a folder remember its own placement on the screen
when spawned in its own window, unless you enable "spatial mode" for
the entire stinking desktop.



Honestly, as incredibly ugly as I find kde, this is the sort of
nonsense that makes me think long and hard about installing it -
because, it would appear, to get any of the features I want I have to
use konqueror. But I would still prefer to use gnome because it has
greater beauty. So then I get to go back to two desktop managers, half
broken cut and paste functions, and inconsistent UI themes. Where is
this "consistency" then? 



Why this dogmatic approach to "consistency?" Why would you rather
alienate users - drive them away from gnome completely - than
accomodate them with a mere few preferences hidden away in the config
editor? 



Why is choice bad even when it is a choice made explicitly by the user?
Is gnome "the Republican desktop?"


-- 
poptones