Re: RE : GSMBrowser.

[Fabien VALLON]

Vaisburd, Haim (HVaisbur@Advent.COM) wrote:

> Let me share an opinion, too.
> 
> I like the idea of uniform access to local files/FTP/CVS/tar arhive/rpms
> etc.
> (what Favien Vallon calls "web workspace") very much.
> Moreover, a hope to finally create such an environment is the main reason
> of my interest in GNUstep.

ugh ?
 
> Apart of virtual filesystems, another, even more powerful idea was to
> show different file types in the same window (frame). This is an extension
> of emacs modes to broader range of file types - not only texts, but folders,
> pictures, archives, etc.

It implies MDI interface.... GNUstep is not really design for that

> This is similar to what KDE did, but they set several fundamental
> restrictions:
> 
> 1. For most types, they do not provide editing. In Konqueror you can only
>    look and read. I think I'm just repeating here what Peter Cooper wrote.

This is the Contents Inspector.
    
> 2. For each type, there is only one mode (so-called "embedded viewer").
>    However, there are many situations where it does make sence to see
>    (and edit!) the same file with different modes. The simplest example
>    is to edit html file as plain text an then look at it "as a web page".
>    I can add more examples.

Inspectors Tools : doubleClic on Edit.app & double-clic on
Omniweb/Chimera/Safari clone/alexBrowser ...
You will have an Editor and a Browser.
You can have advanced features for both, one app design to edit
one app design to parse and display Web page.
 
> 3. Integration with command line is hard, but nesessary. I do not know
>    to how exactly do it. KDE tried to make an integration, and I think
>    their attention to command line is great. But I could never use what
>    they wrote for real work ( except of Ctrl-T, launch rxvt in the current
>    dir, of course ;).

I'm not sure to understand, you mean something like Terminal services ?

> Therefore, I can not agree that "Free Software already has a very good
> web desktop". Some great ideas are implemented, but, IMHO, we do not have
> a flexible and powerful modular-based environment in the Unix spirit yet.

Because this is not the Unix Sprit.
If you mount a NFS share, GW will browse it because this is transparent
from OS...
If you connect to a Ftp site with the command line, you use a separate
software. Why ? because this is not transparent....
Can I link a file ? no
Can I execute a binary ? no 
can I move a file ? no 
Why lies to users ? Are they stupid ?

You can connect to a FTP site with an app that is design for.
This app could include a FileBrowser quite similar to GW one
but Inspectors will be different, and behavour will be different
that why it is another app in another Window because ftp
is not local...

And in FTP.app you can add special FTP features (mirror/resume)
Do you want to add that in GW too ?
or do you want a poor FTP component in GW ?

> Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are pretty much borrowed from that article and my
> understanding of emacs. I have additional one:
> 
> 4. Instead of splitting - docking. Konqueror splits one document
>    window into panes, after that one pane can control another, e.g.
>    you click on files in the left pane and they are opened in the right.
>    Probably, we can instead dock document windows to each other and let user
>    assemble complex programs on the fly. Underlying applications would
>    know what they are docked to and modify they behavior. Now I'm not quite
>    sure whether it will be useful, but maybe some of you would like that idea.
>    With Objective C it seems to be possible.

It is possible of course with Objective-C but I don't think 
this is in the "spirit" of what OpenStep spec was write

Ah and when people define Emacs : "Unix spirit" are not the first words  :)

Fabien