I'm sure I have a bias against clicky interfaces in most cases, which has kept me away from experimenting with several otherwise attractive applications such as Rox and Matchbox.
Even when I was still attached to Windows I had been moving progressively further away from the standard interface, changing the shell to blackbox, and windows commander as file manager.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to clickable interfaces in general, of course. In some cases they are a very helpful alternative to remembering how to spell lengthy commands, and often just allow me to do stuff before I have any coffee. I guess I just find desktop icons and complex menu trees to be a bit of a waste of space (and I loathe the xdg format that so many developers have adopted). The exception being the ability in some environments to drag objects onto an icon and choose an action to perform on the object. I occasionally miss that behavior.i never use the mount app, it's too many clicks and i usually overrun. grrr! it's like playing one of those brain-dead mobile phone games.
(i hope that emelfm in the next version can mount easily just like 2.1b.)
Quote
The exception being the ability in some environments to drag objects onto an icon and choose an action to perform on the object. I occasionally miss that behavior.
You can do that with rox. That's one of the things I'm appreciating more and more about it. Write a script, include it in an application directory (executable directory), select your files, drag and drop, done. Here's the page I said I'd post: http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/rox-rocks-ii-application-directories/I don't use the mount app either. It loads ~4s on my DSL comp, which is way too much. Also the first 3 secs it is around the middle of the screen, before it jumps to the corner. I tried to change that with the -geometry switch, but it doesn't respect that. So I just don't start it.
I think more people hate the mount box than icons ;)
BTW it has only one icon, that doesn't change whether mounted or not. It shows a tiny green light in the lower-right corner of the icon if it's mounted. I don't think displaying 4 green pixels takes much power ;)Using DSL 2.1b... mount.lua = 1378 bytes it calls to ----> mount_common.lua mount_common.lua = 1299 bytes Total = 2677 bytes
The MurgaLua scripts in more recent versions are only a few more bytes as far as I can tell.
A mountable version of xtdesk would require an extra icon of ~3500 bytes plus the weight of the additional code to make the new version do what the current one doesn't. What quantifiable, noticeable, or appreciable difference in size and performance would there really be?Next Page...
original here.