> > On 10.23, Brad Felmey wrote: >> On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 11:40, Buchan Milne wrote: >> >> > So, when can we add an icon on the desktop for smb:/ in KDE and >> GNOME by default, called something like "Local Network" (I have one >> on my desktop - - actually called "Windows Network", and it works >> great). >> >> I concur. This is exactly what I've been doing with my users. Just put >> a konq link on the desktop called "Windows Network", and point it to >> smb:/. I also added it to the personal toolbars in Konq, so it's easy >> to get there from wherever. It's seamless to them, and really went a >> long way toward their happiness in Linux. > > I disagree here. > > Why is everybody so found on making Linux look like Windows ?
How about the fact that migrating an enterprise network means catering to 95% of users who have never seen anything but Windows? Of course, this issue would be much less pressing if there were some way to control desktop shortcuts globally (at least pre-desktop) without having to script it all. > Linux is linux, it is great, and works its way. Why everybody thinks > that what Winblow$ does is sliced bread wrt user interfaces/interaction > ? So, it is a good idea to hide *all* the functionality of the OS? Many people have problems working with the Windows machines (make that >95% of the machines they access) on their network. I would like to spend less time answering "but where are the shares on the network?" which could be achieved by this. > That is the never ending problem. You can make linux _look_ like > windows, but never _behave_ like windows (unless you fill it up with > bugs ;). I didn't ask to be able to right-click on the icon and choose "properties". I just think that it should be readily apparent to newbies (who are otherwise clueless about ssh, scp, kio_fish, NFS, rsync, smbclient, smbmount etc etc etc) that Linux is viable on a Windows network (or other network for that matter). > The user comparing it will always say 'mmm, almost, but not the > same, this is a windows-wannabe'. But that's better than "it can't even network with my office lan at all". > BTW, if this ever comes to mdk, plz think that a network neighborhood is > not a 'windows' nbh, you can also see nfs shares... Learn from osx, the > network browse window shows AppleTalk zones and SMB zones, you do not > distinguish them. Well, at present lisa is so depressing that I can't really suggest lan:/ over smb:/. If lisa is improved (to show something like this: LAN Browser: -All machines (current content of lan:/, showing all protocols) -Windows-compatible (smb:/) -Netware-compatible (as yet non-existent ncp:/) -Unix-compatible (as yet non-existent nfs:/ or autofs:/) -Directory (a better ldap:/, with working AD and NDS support) ) then I would agree. But, in a network with more than one subnet and/or workgroup, lan:/ is not able to do as well (for smb) as smb:/ (trust me). Since there is no precedent on unix for even needing to show an NFS browser on the desktop, I don't think it's such a high priority (since autofs can take care of it anyway, but can't do the same for most smb shares). We could have had some cred for shipping with an smb:/ icon (since it is trivial to do), and do plan on the rest for later. Or we could just wait for everyone else to have it first. Innovation, here we come. And maybe someone can actually make drakconnect work sufficiently for winbind authentication setup to work during installation for people other than RHCEs and LPI cert holders. (sorry, but it's just depressing to see a feature which worked great in 9.0 trashed, when there is only one other distro with the same feature, and they get rave reviews for it ... and I don't feel confident enough in it being working sufficiently in 9.1 and 9.2 to actually do any work advertising it - even if it was responsible for getting 10 desktops into an enterprise windows network) Regards, Buchan
