[mdlug] Very early screenshots for my "first person filemanager"

[Michael Corral]

2007-11-21, Monsieur Ingles, Raymond a ecrit:
>> From: Robert Adkins
>> 	Like instead of just files represented as boxes, there could be
>> files represented with 3D Avatars of the user who owns the
>> file wearing some sort of uniform colored to match the group...
>
> Um, (a) this is my first 3D graphics program, and (b) I'm trying to
> make this usable on older hardware - right now I'm getting 30fps, even
> in a directory with hundreds of files, on a ~700MHz box with i810 graphics.

When it comes to writing a file manager, get used to people making
lots of requests. :) No doubt somebody (ahem) will insist that you
include ACL support, so that Linux will be "ready for the desktop"
and "support reasonable security practices". ;)

> But now we've got 3D hardware in
> every computer sold, and we're not really taking advantage of it.

The only thing holding us back are those pesky monitors. :)
Until someone comes up with a device that can produce holograms for
the objects the computer displays, then everything will continue to
be just variations on the same theme (projections of 3-dimensional
objects onto a 2-dimensional screen).

> I'm hoping
> to find a new metaphor, like the 'desktop' was the metaphor of the new, 2D
> graphical world in the 1980s. I won't get it all right; I may not get any of
> it right. But I figure it's worth messing with.

I have my doubts whether it's worth it (until we get hologram monitors).
You could argue that many existing GUI file managers (like Nautilus or
Konqueror) are already 3D: the icons in many cases are "3D", icons and
windows can be placed "behind" others, etc. It's an illusion of 3D,
of course, and all that the "3D" apps like Compiz, etc, do is make
various degrees of better illusions (like adding thin grey gradients
next to images to simulate shadows, or adding perspective angles to
simulate depth). Until the 2D monitor issue is solved, that's what
we're stuck with. And I've noticed that many people who were initially
wild about Compiz got bored with it and went back to their "boring"
old "2D" desktops.

In the case of professional CAD software (like Catia, Unigraphics)
used in, say, automobile design, those illusions are helpful, because
you really *do* need to see what the side of the car you're designing
looks like in relation to the front or back. But for something like a
file manager, do we really need to see what the back of xorg.conf
looks like?

> As an example of how *not* to do it, see tdfsb:
>
> http://www.determinate.net/webdata/seg/tdfsb.html
>
> The file size range is too broad, you can't find small files easily, you
> wind up walking between 'buildings' of large files. Just looking at a file,
> you can't tell much about it except size. A few file types have special
> treatment but in a fun rather than useful way. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not
> knocking his efforts - he's got something actually out there, and well before
> me - but I think that's the wrong underlying metaphor.)

How are you going to handle files of size 0 bytes, since you can't
take the logarithm of 0 to determine the icon height? Even a 1 byte
file would have a height of 0 = log_2 (1), by your sizing scheme.

Also, will the display have a legend for the permission colors, so
you don't have to remember what color corresponds to what permission?
And shouldn't you have colors for setgid and the sticky bit?

> All that being said, the source will be out there soon enough, and if you
> want to add such things, feel free. :->

I'm not knocking your efforts either, I can appreciate the amount of
work you've put into it. It looks interesting. It's no Jfilerunner,
of course :p , but I'll definitely try it out when it's ready.

Michael