OSNews

> Use the terminal for certain types of file management; it is
> far more powerful than any file management system no matter
> the mode.

Way to go spatial ;-D

I wonder if there are so few interesting news out there that justify this old spatial vs. navigational discussion all over again. Is there _anything_ to be added that has not been addressed in the previous articles and comments?

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7548
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7344
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7092
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6662

Oh well..

Is there _anything_ to be added that has not been addressed in the previous articles and comments?



I'm sure there is! Why don't you go out and find it! Instead of frowning!

Lot's of Windows Explorer style DEs, with the folders in the left panel and the files in the right. Are there any Mac OS X style ones?

I've used many different style file managers, including Windows XP, older Windows versions, various Linux DEs, and Mac OS and Mac OS X. Mac OS is by far the easiest, mixing the folder tree into the file list. It makes it possible to easily move files from one folder to another, and to see the entire organizational structure of the files on your disk.

Is there anything comparible in Linux land?

CaptainN,

The answer is yes! Konqueror can be easily configured (with a gui in less than 30 seconds) to do what you are looking for. As a matter of fact you can even configure it (also with a gui.....) to show two panes with different folders opened in each pane and you can drag and drop from on to another. GNOME's "user is idiot" approach (make spatial default and configuration a nightmare) needs to be retired. KDE's approach (easy default/easy to change to what you want) is a lot more flexible and lets you decide what you want YOUR file manager to do.

theKid

when is there going to be some innovation vs. spatial devolution?

Such a tree-based listview is somewhat of a planned feature for Nautilus, it would be very nice to have indeed.

Having 2 file managers in one window isn't quite the same as Mac OS X's column view which was inherited from NeXT which is hierachical. You start off with one column and when you click on a folder another pops up and so forth and you can use the bottom scrollbar to go back to previous folders.

...I recommend Filelight ( http://methylblue.com/filelight/ ). Very good for "house cleaning!"

Looks interesting.. Too bad it is written in QT.

OK I'll bite..why exactly?

"OK I'll bite..why exactly?

dont feed the trolls just the pigeons

I (as a Mac user) find the spacial interface mode much less productive as a navigational interface. I've expirienced both interfaces (spatial from Mac OS 6 until 9) and I currently (Mac OS X) stick with the navigational interface, as this mode makes it possible for me too much more quickly get to my files and applications.

I installed GNOME 2.6, tried spatial mode, and just found it too slow and cumbersome.

My PC is not particularly fast (Celeron 366 w/256MB RAM) but thats no reason i shouldnt be able to manage my files effectively.

Windows just took too long to pop up, and with the number of them involved in spatial mode, it was just a management nightmare.

Plus, its broken. In image browsing mode, the window doesn't remember its settings, you have to drag the pane-separator so you can read the image details every time you open a window in that mode. Thats a minor bug, but they shouldn't have shipped it with obvious, glaring, and annoying bugs. If a feature is broken with respect to spatial views, disable it completely.

Why they didnt just make the standard windows remember their layout and position - in the case you have multiple views, offset the window by some small amount about so there is some, but minimal deviation from the saved setting.

So I turned it off, and will probably never use it again. I simply prefer the 'normal' nautilus browser windows. Spatial gives me nothing more than i had before - its just more restrictive.

Personally, I think GNOME has more pressing problems than the window placement policy, but if they want to change the look and feel of the desktop with every major release, I suppose thats their prerogative.

Kind of makes any claims the GNOME people make about usability and consistency being important rather laughable though.

Great, let's get rid of nested directories altogether! What an innovation!

I kind of use a combination of spatial and navigational. I use the Finder in the navigational state, but my most important folders have a spatial view. I put all my current projects at the left, and less important stuff in a right column. Or I put all programming related stuff in row 1, manuals in row 2, et-cetera in row 3.

So I keep a shallow directory structure, take advantage of spatial memory when I'm inside my folders, but keep the speed of navigating to a folder that is typical of the navigational approach.

I just don't think the position of a window on the screen, or the 1-on-1 correspondence of folder and window are important or necessary to take advantage of spatiality. Your filemanager just needs to be able to remember the place of the files inside the window.

You've essentially come to the conclusion that Jobs so faithfully proclaimed. Spatial file managers turn you into a janitor. You spend 90% of your time "organising" your files so you can get at them quicker. This is not a good thing, it demonstrates that spatial navigation is not up to the task. The column view of Mac OS X on the other hand is phenomonal. It makes excellent use of spatial memory without turning you into a janitor. I've even written a (much less pretty) port of the column view to Windows XP. See:

http://slider.sourceforge.net/

the entire exe and source come to less than 70k

It's about time this stupid myth was ended. No one aims a piece of software at idiots if they intend to use it themselves, which in free software terms means almost no one at all.

The Gnome approach is that people don't want to spend their time configuring their software. I agree with this totally, even though I use LiteStep in Windows. What I found after months of changing my interface to my computer, is that eventually I found something that just worked as I wanted and it stayed the same until I quit Windows. In Gnome this took me about 2 days, since when I've hardly changed a thing.

I didn't come to Gnome 2.6 with the aim of radically changing how I worked with files or anything, I just thought it sounded like an interesting and considered idea, so I tried it out. It turned out that it worked very well, despite the huge shift (I used two-pane + tree file managers for years,) so I stuck with it. This seems to indicate that it is in fact a way of working that is "good" for people in general, not just for beginners or idiots. If you don't like it, don't use it, but it would be polite to spend a couple of days using it before starting to complain about it.

And interestingly, I don't remember hearing anyone saying they've stopped using Gnome because of the spatial shift...

You missed the point entirely. Reorganising files is something you may have to do after switching to spatial. Every file you make afterwards will be sorted appropriately for the spatial concept. That is, if you start from scratch with spatial, you will never have to reorganise your files for it.

Any major shift take adjusting to, spatial is no different.

We really need a tree view in the spatial nautilus. It would have the same drawback as the current 'browse filesystem' entry in that its not immediately obvious. But it would also be smaller, hopefully load faster, and would compliment the spatial browser instead of being a total alternative to it.

It would also be useful (and stop a lot of complaints) if the default nautilus behavior was pseudo-spatial (open in the same window) or if just the click behavior was changed so that the normal left double click opened a new window and closed the current one. I have no trouble with the current setup, but it really bothers people with mouse wheels instead of third buttons.

My PC is not particularly fast (Celeron 366 w/256MB RAM) but thats no reason i shouldnt be able to manage my files effectively.

Windows just took too long to pop up, and with the number of them involved in spatial mode, it was just a management nightmare.

My PC is also rather slow (P400 w/ 128 MB RAM) and windows pop up instantly for me, even over the network. I'm not sure why you would be having a problem as I don't think the extra 34 MHz would make that big of a difference, ESPECIALLY with the extra 128 MB of RAM to compensate.

As for the amount of windows popping up, you can double-click with the middle mouse button to open a folder while closing the folder that you were just in. This simple mechanism was key to getting me into spatial. Hope that helps.

I have no trouble with the current setup, but it really bothers people with mouse wheels instead of third buttons.

Sorry to post again already, but this was posted while I was posting, apparently. Do mice with mousewheels not also have the wheel functioning as a button? I've only had two wheelmice, and both wheels could also be used as buttons. If this is not the case with all wheelmice, I'd like to keep that in mind next time I look for a replacement mouse!

With Mac OS 9 and below you had only a spatial Finder. All your files were organised in a spatial way from the get go because you created all your files on that machine. Jobs made the comment about being a janitor refering to that machine. So although you may be quite happy to have your spatial finder turn you into a janitor for the first few weeks because you see yourself as making a transition from a navigational file organisation to a spatial file organisation, what I'm telling you is that your new duties as a janitor are not going to stop, ever. Every time you create a new document or even become a little more familar with your existing ones you will once again find a need to reorganise all those files into new categories that are less than two layers deep.

I think that the whole spatial vs. navigational thing isn't really worth arguing over, as it's not going to be around much longer from the looks of things. Windows is developing WinFS (talked about in the first part of this blog post http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=622 ), OSX is getting Spotlight ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.html ), and Linux has two similar projects going, Storage ( http://www.gnome.org/~seth/storage/ ), and Beagle (http://www.gnome.org/projects/beagle/ ).

Its not like they take 2 minutes or anything - the delay is in the order of a couple of hundred milliseconds, but it is noticeable enough to be annoying when you have to traverse a deep folder heirarchy.

Where previously you could click through and have the content appear in the same window, or use the tree pane to find what you were after, now you have 6 or more windows cluttering the screen - each of which takes that little extra bit of time to display and repaint etc.

It 'feels' slow, even if its not empirically that much slower.

I solved the problem, I disabled spatial mode. It doesn't work for me, and I find it counter-productive and restrictive. YMMV.

The reason I like naviagational approach over the spatial view is since I am one of those people that like to organize my files into folders. I like looking at a file list and seeing everything in it without having to scroll or search through hundreds of files to find the exact file I am looking for.

For example I have a private directory with my private stuff, a work for work documents, data etc. A misc. one for all kinds of other stuff. For example when I realized that I had too many java related directories under misc I create a new directory under misc called java and moved the relavent directories there. When I realized that I had too many files under it I created one for db, one for server etc.

The way I like to organize stuff is to create a directory structure that make sense to me. If I want to find stuff I go to one or two places and if it is not there I know that I have not missed it because the signal to noise ratio in my directories are very high (signal - the files I am looking for, noise - other files)

If I get more than 40-50 directories and files in one place I start getting irritated and have to clean up the directory either by removing files or moving them to another more appropriate directory.

My two sents worth.

The ease of use of file managers is a very relative thing. What is easy and handy to someone in some situations, isn't easy to someone else, or in some other situations. Too restricted file management features and options, even if in the name of usability, is a mistake.

Generally speaking, there seems to be quite a clear consensus that navigational file browsing is usually much better and faster than a spatial mode for people who have used computers a lot. However it may very well be that spatial mode is clearer for people who don't have much expertise with computers.

GNOME developers have decided to support newbies and non-experineced users. I warmly support GNOME usability guidelines, but forgetting to support active and experienced computer users can prove to be a big mistake. For example, I think that GNOME developers should make it much easier to change between the spatial and navigational mode of Nautilus than it currently is.

Personally I've tried to use the spatial Nautilus for some time now. It is ok, easy to use, and sometimes I've already thought that I even like it quite a lot. Spatial mode does have its many good points. But now, after all my personal experience, I've come to the conclusion that I do need navigational file browsing much more than what the default Nautilus gives me.

Lots of people have tried to make, and show others how to make, spatial Nautilus more effective by arranging folders and files better etc.etc. I find that sort of guidance more or less artificial and unrealistic. A good file manager should be effective, easy to use and fast what ever the file and folder structure is.

Also, Nautilus is even now only a semi-spatial file manager. If it didn't provide several optional navigational browsing features (though they are restricted), I would have changed it to browse mode already.

I support a good combination of good, proven file management features and options. Too restricted features and options don't mean ease of use.

I've been on UNIX-ish machines for more than fifteen years now. While I'm a GNOME user, even before 2.6 I didn't use Nautilus 1% of the time I do file manipulation from the command line. I'm not saying that my way is the right way; I'm simply saying that it's the right way for me. I think like the command line now. When I use Nautilus, navigational mode fits in with how I see things mentally from all my direct use of the shell. Spatial nautilus doesn't fit in with the way I'm thinking of file manipulation 99% of the time I'm doing file manipulation.

What I do wish I could do, however, is set some directories to come up in spatial when opened, while navigational is the default. Why? I don't use my home directory as my desktop (too many subdirs), but I do have desktop entries which are symbolic links to various subdirs that I need to access frequently. In those places, I rarely ever need to drill down any further. So I wish that clicking on those desktop icons would bring up a nautilus window in spatial mode, since I won't need navigational stuff there because I won't be navigating.

I've actually stopped using Gnome since 2.6.
Not because of the spatial stuff (since I never use nautilus anyway), but because enough is enough. I don't see how targetting "dumb" users will make them any smarter; it just keeps them dumb.

What made me quit using Gnome was the new file dialog. When they removed my tab completion it was just enough. Let's focus on what's unique about Linux and X and embrace that, instead of just trying to copy Windows.

Some people have a difficult time double clicking the middle mouse button when that button is a wheel, and because Nautilus is the only app that I know of that has ever used that, its unintuitive.

I happen to like the simple spatial style windows, but I have to agree that if its this big a problem for some people we need to come to a compromise configuration between spatial and navigational by default.

I think that a spatial style window, with the open/save dialogues path widget, a seperate tree view application, and a default behavior of opening in the same window (or autoclosing and opening the window at the same location (but with the saved size, 0 extraneous mouse movement) would be a good solution.

im starting to think that the desktop metaphor have to go compleatly. in its place a system like haystack and/or thebrain should be placed. quite funny that they both remind me of a cellphone or pda interface (not the pocketpc kind mind you). this is task based rather then files, folders and apps based systems. in fact the desktop metaphor that we have now can more be described as a fileing cabinet metaphor. i must say tho that i find the spotlight feature of osx tiger interesting in that you can have a virtual folder that continualy look for a search pattern and add these to its list. i wonder if the same can be done with winfs...

how a about a system that continualy saves files as you make them? to create a document of some sort you select from a create menu rather then go looking for the app to use. the apps become mere plugins or changes to the workings of the interface, if i install the what amounts to adobe photoshop under this enviroment it will give me new menus and create options for when i want to create a image rather then becomeing a seperate app (sure the comapnys will cringe at the thought of lost marketing entity but i feel then that you in fact level the playingfield). when i want to create a cd or dvd i select "create cd/dvd", when i have filled it with what i want it to burn it will go hide as a small entry in a sidebar or some other place (man i would love to see a taskbar where the button allso acted as a progress bar and maybe allso as a indicator that there was a dialog up, maybe with a icon so that you can tell why a app have locked. and the dialog should only be brought to front and focus when that button is clicked) while showing a progress indicator on the burn. the only problem comes from removeable read/write systems. here i feel that you allways should have a menu at hand showing rw units so that you can click one, get a split window where one part is showing whats on the media and one where you can search for documents that you want to copy or move onto it (yes some files mentality will have to still exist but in a slighty diffrent sense). maybe as this moment a index should be read into the system so that when you do future searches a small indicator shows what media its stored on (complete with name and type) so that you dont have to keep a record of whats on the media with the media unless your going to give it away.

some tools tho dont fit into this enviroment, like say a calculator. for this i propose a special tools menu where you have a list of tools and can by clicking on one have it appear in the current tasks list (man this is becomeing very mutch like haystakc in fact). when its clicked it should expand out from the tasklist mutch like what we see the calender do on ms longhorn shots. when you click away from it, it should shrink back and still show the last result. same deal with the calender. this one tho should support not only giving you date and time but allso act as a simple appointment book. all parts should be replaceable or expandable by installing extra plugins.

i wonder how this would work running as a wm on top of say linux. any coder willing to help me put it to the test?

I've used ROX-Filer for the best part of a year now and, for me, it is the best filer I have ever used.

It's difficult to describe where ROX falls in the navigational-spatial spectrum, because although I think I understand the spatial concept quite well, I've never actually used a fully spatial filer (unless the MacOS Finder counts, and I never used the Mac much anyway).

One thing I know that would very quickly bug me about the spatial concept is the fact that each folder should open in an new window (because it is a separate object). My folders are all nested, and I am the sort of person that would make a folder then give it a single sub-folder just so the path to the folder exactly described what was in it.

ROX opens folders in the same window, but resizes the window to fit its new contents, choosing an appropriate icon size - giving me a benefit of the spatial system - being able to roughly recognise a folder, and how many files are in it, simply by how its window looks (because said window "is" the folder) - without the window actually being the folder.

So, I suppose that it's a flexibility thing. I've never actually got on with "navigational" filers, such as Windows Explorer and Nautilus, probably because of the rigid fact that the window is a viewport to the filesystem that has little relation to it, and doesn't adapt to changes to its contents. Conversly, I doubt I'd get on with a spatial filer, because of the rigid fact that the window and folder are tied together, that they are one and the same - if I make a change to the way I'm viewing files, I almost always want that change to apply to the current window, not the folder that it is showing me.

Still, that's just me.

Sam

A good file manager should be effective, easy to use and fast what ever the file and folder structure is.


This has got to be the best comment I've come across in all the debates I've seen for and against spatial.

js

Before I begin, I would like to make an apology. After years of reading mountains of opinions on all my favorite news sites I was sure that my first contributions to the community would be something solid and factual rather than another spot of drivel to heap on the pile. Alas, I cannot resist myself so if you are looking for a insightful, well researched article you can cease reading here.
- Quote from the article

We are beginning to see an important innovation here, and I'm not talking about spatial navigation. Finally the pro-this and anti-that articles are coming with their own disclaimers. I believe that if OSNEWS standardizes this practice in all future articles written primarily from hearsay, speculation, and conjecture, it will go a much longer way towards protecting us from unhealthy computing habits than a navigational paradigm ever could.

The Rox behavior of opening in the same window but varying the size of the window sounds good to me. I hope that becomes the default behavior (or at least an option) of spatial nautilus soon.

I tend to exclusively use the middle click unless I know I'll be moving files around to a higher level directory. I have nested directories for more archival information, and fairly flat for working directories. Website and Resume are flat, Themes and System are more regimented.

What we need is really two different apps. One whose job it is to quickly locate the directories and files you need, and one to actually do the manipulation and work with them.

The answer is yes! Konqueror can be easily configured (with a gui in less than 30 seconds) to do what you are looking for. As a matter of fact you can even configure it (also with a gui.....) to show two panes with different folders opened in each pane and you can drag and drop from on to another.

I thought that sounded cool, maybe I'd be adding a KDE app to my desktop (ROX+enlightenment DR16 currently). Four minutes and one crash later I'd exhausted all reasonable ways of finding the option, and the closest I could find was an option to have two columns that both showed the same thing (which seems unbelieveably useless).

I think the correct way to describe the current stable ROX-Filer is non-spatial object oriented. It's pretty close to Windows 95 open-in-same-windows except that it resizes everything and chooses an appropriate icon size.

The Filer is a lot more configurable than Gnome. The current developer release (and CVS) has an even more almost spatial mode. If it did spatial perfectly, I think it'd run rings around Gnome (I cannot understand why anyone would put a menubar in a spatial file manager. It seems to make it an application, but the idea behind the spatial FM is that the FM is your computer). Also, I love the way you configure keyboard shortcuts in ROX.

But ROX certainly doesn't have a navigational mode, no matter how you slice it. No tree, no back button. The closest it gets is open-in-same-window.

Actually, Konqueror takes some of the steps you mention about tossing the desktop metaphor (though KDE obviously maintains the desktop.) Konqueror would actually make an excellent basis for a desktop-free gui.

"he apps become mere plugins or changes to the workings of the interface, if i install the what amounts to adobe photoshop under this enviroment it will give me new menus and create options for when i want to create a image rather then becomeing a seperate app (sure the comapnys will cringe at the thought of lost marketing entity but i feel then that you in fact level the playingfield)"

Any KDE app (any kpart, specifically) can fill the central window of konqueror, and acts as you describe--changing the menu choices of the otherwise stable outer frame. Web browser, file browser, text editor, music player, office apps, program browser, control panel, whatever, can be embedded. It's essentially like piping for graphical programs. And with konqueror's paning, you can easily have a file browser on the bottom, a program browser on top (so you can drag your files up onto the program you choose,) a terminal emulator stuck in there.

I agree with you on tossing the desktop metaphor, and making more a graphical terminal. I think that working from a root konqueror window would be a good start.

Hello,

I've always felt that Nautilus should _close_ the parent window by default, and provide a "recent locations" list, in case you need a recent location. But that list should be a global one, on the gnome-panel, not relative to a single nautilus window.

I implemented that behavior in my program ( http://logicaldesktop.sf.net ), and it seems to work well, but apparently the gnome developers are of a different opinion.

Any comment?

If you like the NEXTStep (MacOS X) Finder, you may want to try FileCentral.

It is by no means complete or even close to production, so spare youself the trouble to write This-And-That-Doesn't-Work flames. But I do appreciate patches.

Yes, I'm workin on it. Asyncron filetransfers, Shortcutlist and Keyboard-Commandos and Metadata-Management are on my list.

Love and Peace,
rboss

>A good file manager should be effective, easy to use and fast
>what ever the file and folder structure is.

A good vehicle should be effective, easy to use and fast what ever the people and stuff being transported is.

I guess you use your Ferrari to transport manure :-)

Well, where is the innovation in spatial organization?
On in browser-like organization?
Both are efficient in browsing the tree until you know where to go, you can easily go levels up, levels dows, revert operation in the history list... but both are weak in relationship between different levels of the tree, yes, you can make links from a to b and jump from a to b without have to browse in any way the tree, but you must have done it before using it!
A semantic browsing, with a section of "related contents" wich lists places with file of the same kind, with similar content and name (or other fields and tags) would be a nice and not to heavy "preemptive" help in research and provide "preemptive" and flexible linking-like utility.

I guess you use your Ferrari to transport manure :-)

Why don't you use a Ferrari to transport manure? Because it would degrade the value of it. Can you think of a use of a filemanager that would degrade it's value? Not all analogies are good ones

one of the things i really liked about it was when he was talking about it almost being like you arnt using a file manager at all. this is the feeling you got from pre-osx, and it means the gnome devs did their job well.

as for devolution, i dont quite get what people are getting at. how many microsoft "innovations" have been rejected by linux DEs? is how close you are to windows the benchmark for innovation suddenly? did i miss a memo or somthing?

the problem with spatial nautilus in *nix is the deep directory structures. a spatial file manager simply isnt good for quickly getting to files eight folders deep. however as the author pointed out, you have control over your home directorys orginization, and since 95% of you file management is in your home directory, this is a non-issue. if you are going hunting for something, use the file browser. if you are orginizing or moving large amounts of files, use the file manager.

im just tickled by the whole thing, with gnome 2.6 ive actually stopped using the commandline to manage my files.

apart from the article beein poorly written, making big statements without giving the slightest hint of an example, do we realy need more articles on that topic?
i mean it is realy not much to discuss: if you like the spatial nautilus then use it; if not switch to another desktop.

I use gnome and while I can't say I'm a spatial zealot, I do feel nautilus is ten times better to use than it used to be. The point I wanted to make was that I have seen a lot of people suggest that Konqueror is a very good file manager because it is easy to configure. I agree that Konqueror is a very full featured piece of software but I do not think it or anything else in KDE is quite to simple to configure. Consistantly I have been lost amidst options that KDE provides . This is why I always turn back to gnome. Just so I don't come off as a troll, I do think this is alright. If you want to tweak things like crazy KDE is for you. I don't like to tweak all the time so I will be sticking with gnome.

As a side note, there is also something to be said of taking the time to learn a system or piece of software in order to be productive with it. The multitudes who argue over vi and emacs have shown that learning a quality system can make you a much more productive person and I think this is also the case with KDE and to an extent gnome. No real revalations here, just my two cents.

your concept sounds like something i have been thinking about too, with apps beeing less monolithic than today.

more of the interface could be revolving around a document manager to make the user experience more consistent (a little bit like the unix "everything is a file" approach and the piping of data between small tools but in a graphical environment).

unfortunately today the software vendors try to cram as much functionality as possible into their apps making today's computers very application centric rather than task/document centric.

A good vehicle should be effective, easy to use and fast what ever the people and stuff being transported is.
I guess you use your Ferrari to transport manure :-)

It would sure be irrational always to change to a different file manager for all possible sorts of file managemnet tasks...

The default GNOME file manager is Nautilus. Nautilus is and should be both the "manure car" and "Ferrari" for GNOME file managemnt, right? If it cannot fulfil all those needs well enough for all sorts of users, the tool should be improved (or a person should change the tool). Though, I don't mean to say that using different filemanagers for special tasks wouldn't be useful too.

Also, I have indeed thought of maybe using both a spatial and a navigational GUI file manager. But when thinking that more carefully, why should I really bother? It shouldn't be too much to ask that I get my file management effectively done using only one good GUI file manager, right? The best solution would be to combine the best GUI file managemnt features into one tool.

An example: navigational Nautilus shows me the correct folder path which helps me to understand where the files and folders are lovcted. It is easy to copy the folder address to terminal, for example. Such navigational information is very restricted in the spatial nautilus. How does too simplistic folder and file view help users understand where they are when they are browsing (yes, *browsing*!) folders with the spatial Nautilus?

Also, it is only an excuse to say that you should actually use commandline, or that you should just organize your files and folders better, if the spatial file management mode doesn't serve you effectively enough. Though, of course, CLI is very effective in many file management task, however.

But still, I do think that also the spatial mode does have its many good points. But it seems that many people seem to need more effective ways to manage their files than what a too simplistic spatial mode can give. And commandline shouldn't be the only answer to that need.

"navigational Nautilus shows me the correct folder path which helps me to understand where the files and folders are lovcted"

I agree, in my dealings with the spatial nautilus, one of the more confusing aspects for people was the current path tool. Although it would clutter the spatial window up more, I feel the best solution to this, would be to replace the current corner button, with the path widget from the open/save dialogue.

Browser mode seems a good thing when dealing with deep heirarchies, a tree and spatial could do the same. Its all a matter of personal preference.

Ok, first of all I have to say this was an exellent article. It finally made clear to me what the benefits of spatial mode are. So far I've always used deep hyrarchical file structures. Navigating them works best with a tree or single-windows interface (like walking through rooms). Using spatial mode here, would be like opening a drawer for every folder, of wich I have a lot, and having to close every single one afterwards. It just didn't occur to me that less folders just might be more because it makes things more manageble.

Before comming to this insight, I thought spatial mode would only be useful for GNOME Storage (or WinFS on windows, the technologies are comparable). Storage tries to make your computer understand what you want. If you type in that you want to see the document you worked on late yesterday, it will show just that. No need to navigate, so spatial mode makes sense.

But if Storage would be the only interface to the filesystem, users wouldn't manage files anymore. The advantage to spatial mode that it makes things more manageable would not apply anymore. What to do? Nobody would trust his computer when it comes to deleting files. You want to do that yourselve. So the solution would be using spatial mode on a normal filesystem, and than have storage index this.

But then you can ask yourself, what do i need Storage for? You know where you put your files, so you can probably find it faster than storage can. I think people should finally see the bigger picture here. Microsoft will probably make WinFS network-based. That is, if your computer can connect itself to the company WinFS server, it will be able to search those files as well. Storage seems to only be meant for personal file management. It shouldn't be. It should be a modular, pluggable (might even connect to WinFS recources), managable (every storage server can specify it's own pollicies, like file-caching, security and synchronisation) and easy to use system. Every standard installation should work out-of-the-box, but can easilly connect to other recources. Wouldn't it be great if you could just tell your computer, once you plug in at work, that you want to see the document your collegue worked on late yesterday?

One other thing storage could add is backup-management. If you configure a backup-interface for it (network drive, regular cd-images, whatever, this could be done with plug-ins), you could manage your backed-up files with storage as well. In nautilus you would have the option available to send files to storage, and than specify what recource to send it to. These recources could be your storage-server at work, or your local backup-interface. This would solve the problem that you cannot have too many files in spatial mode nautilus, while there are those files you want to keep forever, but probably won't ever use. Having an option available to back-up them would eliminate cluttering.

This "Storage V2.0" would be hard to program, but at least I wanted to share the idea. Is there anyone out there having more ideas like these?

Nice article, but know I *still* do not know what the difference is from spatial vs old file management. Please write something which explains that to non-insiders. As it is now, this article is useless to non-insiders.

Thanks.

I liked the article and reorganized my home directory to give it a try. So far I really like it

I only do not understand the authors comment to hide certain directories such as Templates Evolution etc. I can hide them by renaming them to .Templates and .Evolution but then the applications which use them cannot find those folders anymore.Is there anyway to make the icons invisible without renaming the directories?

I think it's ridiculous to bash Gnome as being for newbs. I've been using computers since the Trash 80 and have used as many different machines and OS's as the average age of the typical "grizzled" young geek just learning to shave and full of his own opinions. I find with Gnome 2.6 and spatial nautilus, the desktop fades into the background and I just work. I find the janitor comment hilarious. The landfills I've seen come out of navigational file managers on many different users' machines have been ugly as hell. Quite frankly, I never took to Linux until I finally discarded all the KDE zealotry and tried Gnome. I like 2.6 even better than previous versions.

Well, I kindof agree. Things tend to 'just work' with GNOME. But you'll have to do it the GNOME way. Spatial mode is one example where GNOME tries to be an interface that directs users to use their computer in a certain fashion (in this case concerning the file-structure). This makes interfaces look clean and simple, almost as if they were written for 'n00bs'. What looks that simple is actually the result of years of experiments and thought that have lead to this kind of well balanced interface.
However, if you don't want to do it the GNOME-way, it might be hard or even impossible. Spatial mode can be disabled, but that setting is a little hard to find for the average user. Other things just can't be altered without changing the code.

As a user, I like the no-nonsense interface, but sometimes I do want to do something that's not in GNOME. The obvious alternative is KDE. KDE however, is quite the opposite. It seems to be easy to add features to KDE (I think one of the things it has to do with is it being C++ based instead of plain C). That results in a lot of features, but no clear interface that kind of tells the user what to do at first sight. You just have to have a rough idea of what you want to do, right-click something and there will probably be something usefull amoung the bunch of options that KDE offers you. I can imagine that the average Linux-user likes this interface, because it offers choice. But since new users really don't even have a rough idea of what they might want to do with a Linux system, the only thing KDE has to offer them is a rough similarity with Windows.

I would like to have the best of both worlds: well designed interfaces with more options available for those that want to do things differently. KDE tries to do this by choosing reasonable defaults, while preserving the forrest of features. GNOME seems to be moving painfully slow into the direction of redisigning the way users interact with it. New user-visible features only get added if the well thought-out userinterface permits them.
To both projects the fast or rather slow development process is both a blessing and a curse. The question now is wich approach will first produce a desktop that the average user finds easy to use and is suited for all tasks.

Okay this "spatial" nautilus is going WAY too far and I'm getting way too tired of hearing about it. All it is, is windows opening in new windows. That's it. Every review I see claims it's "much more like real life". People, it's everything opening up in new windows.

It's like making the icons doublesized by default, and then the media praising it because "it's life-sized". It would recieve media attention, it would be compared to being like a real object and then praised when it's just large icons.

Same thing with spatial nautilus. Linux needs REAL improvements, not someone changing the windows to open in new windows out of boredom and giving the media pointless and worthless things to brag about.

No offense but if you want your windows to open in new windows, more power to you, but don't think of such silly things as a holy grail of genius especially when we could do it since Windows 95.

file: scd (Spatial Change Directory)
---
#!/bin/sh

xterm -e "cd $1; ls; bash" &
---
So now I have spatial file browsing, but what's the point?

There isn't anything here that I haven't heard sometime over the last forty or so years.

Everybody copies someone else. Apple had the first USEFUL spacial interface, but a much more primitive version was seen at PARC first. Xerox tried to sell it as the "STAR" system, but at $15,000 a seat it didn't go over too well (early '70's dollars).

But wait! I first heard talk of spatial windowing (it wasn't called that back then) when I was in high school taking FORTRAN IV in the mid SIXTIES.

Hey guys, we didn't have an interface (what the hell is that?) back then!

Both the spatial and the navigational systems work well. Of course neither is "pure". Both borrow from each other to some extent.

Apple got around some of the original problem with their icon based approach. This let users skip to the direct folder, program, or file without having to first navigate through several levels, or different folders, or drives.

It took me a while to get used to OS X's column view, but now I find that both approaches are better than either.

The problem is that sometimes one way is more efficient and understandable, and sometimes the other. I wouldn't want to be stuck with either one or the other anymore.

It's very difficult to come up with a new way of doing interfaces. The obvious ones have already appeared, and the non-obvious ones (such as Andy Hershfeld's (one of the originators of the Mac interface)), are just that, non-obvious, and difficult to understand. Go to his site (don't remember the address), and try to understand it.

This debate over the same things has been going on for a good forty years and will probably not go away anytime soon.