How often does a Macintosh user see the command line?
Is it a requirement of Windows 95 to use the DOS prompt?
Heck, Windows 95 *does* present a different filesystem when you're at
the command line (suddenly everything has abbreviated names). I'm not
arguing this means Windows 95 is a good design, but rather that it is
not as much a stumbling block for users as you're making out.
I think this is a fabricated reason to put the functionality into the
kernel. GUI users *don't* use the command line. People who do use the
command line will understand the implications and will move the whole
directory (using tar, or recursive copy).
> 2. Because GUI apps often invoke command line apps to do the
> work. If the GUI thinks there's a file somewhere, it will
> expect the command line app it invokes to find the same thing.
This is a programming issue not a user issue. You might as well argue
that /proc is broken by design because procutils needs to be modified
every now and then to understand new entries.
> 3. Because users who prefer the command line want the same
> features with the same ease of use, just no GUI.
Then fix the shell. Bash isn't in the kernel.
For another example of shell magic consider the dotfile standard. The
kernel doesn't have a "hidden" bit. The shell and GUI alike both hide
files beginning with a period. Why is this impossible for albods?
> BTW I'm arguing here that the GUI and command line should have
> consistent views. Nothing to do with the kernel per se.
Why? They're different things. Why should they look the same?
--
Nathan Hand - Chirp Web Design - http://www.chirp.com.au/ - $e^{i\pi}+1 = 0$
Phone: +61 2 6230 1871 Fax: +61 2 6230 4455 E-mail: nathanh@chirp.com.au
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/