On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:44 -0500, Timothy Pearson wrote: > > 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. > > Yes. > > > 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? > > Tim > > That sounds reasonably intuitive. The primary end user behavior (press or click delete) is preserved - John