[ros-general] Ok guys...

[Gunnar André Dalsnes]

> 
> 1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer. 

What's the Shell button for BTW? I don't understand it's purpose as it
seem to do the same as the Explorer button? 

> and by all means winefile 
> and explorer should be seperate applications

As i see it, the ros file-explorer is currently a winfile clone. I would
rather have a ros file-explorer that is similar to NT4/Win2000 and have
the (more advanced and full featured) winfile-like file-explorer as a
separate app. So i guess i agree?

> Registry browser, NT Object File System or whatever the hell it's
called

In any case, it would be easy to provide this functionality in
separate/optional shell namespace extension contained in
explorer.exe/shell32.dll image (or maybe this is how it works
allready?).

> The Interface 
> shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not.

I agree.

> 2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows explorer toolbar has 
> back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users 
> computer.  Our explorer has none of these.

Yeah, we need that.

> 3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know what all was done, but 
> web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at 
> microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every 
> time explorer starts is a WASTE.

I agree. I loved the old NT4 explorer. Nothing fancy but does what it's
supposed to and super fast.

> Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows NT 4.0 
> explorer, 
> with quicklaunch, but nothing more. 

Yes!

> Make everything else addins or 
> compiletime options. 

I prefer addins contained in the explorer.exe/shell32.dll/etc. image. I
HATE compiletime options! Compiletime options is what ros/windows is NOT
about!

> The interface really should be more 
> similar to the 
> windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.  
> This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also 
> consume less 
> RAM. 

I agree.

-Gunnar