Message: previous - next
Month: September 2010

Re: [trinity-users] Re: [trinity-announce] Trinity pre-release freeze

From: "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:44:43 -0500
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:19 -0500, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> > Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> >>> Also on the Squeeze install all the icons on the desktop belong to
>> root?
>> >>> Including trash and my documents, a strange "konqueror web browser"
>> icon
>> >>> is on the desktop belonging to root and I can not put it in the
>> trash or
>> >>> delete it, this is definitely not a "point-n-click" system.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I was not sure if those icons should be included by default on
>> Debian;
>> they can be removed easily enough through the use of Configure
>> >> Desktop->Behavior->Device Icons.  Simply deselect the icons you don't
>> want
>> >> to see and they will magically disappear.  This feature is similar to
>> the
>> >> old Microsoft system icons system; you cannot delete as you would
>> other
>> icons because they are part of the desktop itself.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > On my laptops Lenny install I have icons, webcam, documents, home,
>> system and trash, all those icons belong to "user: jimmy", "group:
>> users", this has nothing to do with device icons, the Trinity Squeeze
>> system says all the icons belong to root and that is the problem.
>> >
>> > Even your Trinity on Ubuntu says the icons on the desktop belong to me
>> "user: jimmy, group: jimmy" I can add and remove what I want.
>> You can remove those icons from within the "Device Icons" page.  The
>> reasoning behind making them root owned (and therefore impossible to
>> delete from the desktop through "normal" means) is as follows:
>> OLD WAY: User A decides to remove an icon from the desktop.  He or she
>> deletes said icon through the delete key and empties the trash bin. User
>> A
>> later on decides that he or she wants the icon back.  Since it has been
>> deleted, the only obvious way to get it back is to create a new profile
>> from scratch (most people don't know about /etc/skel).  This is not
>> exactly user-friendly!
>> OLD WAY: Developer A notices that one of the icons is broken on some
>> systems, so he decides to change the .desktop file responsible for the
>> icon.  However, there is no way to propagate the change to existing user
>> profiles, as /etc/skel is only copied on first login.  Therefore, the
>> developer has to instruct people to recreate their profiles, or copy a
>> file from /etc/skel and change permissions on it.  This is not user or
>> developer friendly, and acts to make Trinity less accessible to the
>> average user.
>> NEW WAY: User B deactivates the icon through "Device Icons".  When User
>> B
>> wants the icon back, it is available in "Device Icons" and can be
>> reenabled with a few mouse clicks.
>> Developer B propagates a .desktop file changes to the system directory
>> where the icons are stored.  All users receive the updated icon .desktop
>> file transparently.
>> What I can do is to change the default under Debian to not show the
>> icons
>> by default, however I would like some input from the other Debian users
>> on
>> this list as well.  Thoughts?
>> Tim
> I think the technology is sound but the user experience is probably
> non-intuitive.  I thought about capturing the delete and turning it into
> a disable but that would leave the user ignorant of how to restore it.
> I wonder if there should be a context menu item for "Configure Desktop
> Icons" which would point to Device Icons.  I also assume it is all
> configurable via rc files in Kiosk mode.


> Perhaps the menu item should be "Enable/Disable Desktop Icons" or we may
> simply make it pertain to the specific icon and have a "Hide This Icon"
> context menu item.  That would still leave users ignorant of how to
> restore it but would probably be the most intuitive.  Just my two cents

The best way to handle this might be to trap the delete, and pop up a
message box with a quick description of how to restore the icon.  However,
I'm not sure that such a change can be made for 3.5.12 due to the freeze.

Thoughts on this method?