KDE-Forum.org

As an old Amiga user back in the days, I've always wondered why no OS (or desktop system) have picked up on having native support for application screens like the Amiga did. Some applications works great sharing the desktop, like browsers, etc. But some larger applications, that basically always takes up a lot of space (graphics, music, etc, etc) should be able to easily (be programmed to) open up a whole screen belonging all to itself, with menus and everything. I've never really got the idea of multiple desktops, if you aren't using multiple screen anyway. I have always seen it as kind of a bad workaround.

I think it's a much more elegeant solution, and it can't be that hard to implement, can it? Especially these days with 3D support, graphics cards with >100MB memory, etc, etc.

And another thing, but maybe something for another place, but what the heck..

Would it be hard to do, say, a smb (or whatever) system deamon that puts whole networks/workgroups directly into the tree? It would make everything so much more system transparant, instead of all these peculiar workarounds, no?

Quoted

Originally posted by Rinse
Dunno, but if an application uses a whole virtual desktop or a whole virtual screen, what's the difference?

I dunno.. Less clutter, more space for the application, etc. Why have several desktops when you don't always have use for them.

Quoted

Should be possible i guess, like a network daemon that checks for network shares and mounts them automaticly.

Well, that's not quite the elegant solution, is it. What I meant was simply something that "mounts" the whole network/workgroup, so that workgroups, computers, shares, etc, all are represented as a "directory" in the tree. Ie. they're mounted all the time, so to speak.

Eg. share DOC on computer HOODOO in workgroup VOODOO would always be accessible through something like eg. /network/smb/voodoo/hoodoo/doc.

Well, I don't quite agree with on the desktops, but hey.. I think there's a more elegant solution to be had

Quoted

Quoted

Well, that's not quite the elegant solution, is it. What I meant was simply something that "mounts" the whole network/workgroup, so that workgroups, computers, shares, etc, all are represented as a "directory" in the tree. Ie. they're mounted all the time, so to speak.

That's the same thing
That's what the network daemon should do..

But if you are using a static network with the same network shares all the time, you can add them to /etc/fstab yourself and get the directory tree you want.

Checkout smbmount for wich syntax you should use..

Yes, the supposed network daemon should do that, but it should never "mount" any shares per se, as they're always in the tree if it's available on the network. The only thing you should need in fstab is to mount, say, the samba network, and then the whole network should appear where you mount it. And if you access a particular share often, or even a directory somewhere in a share, you could use a soft link.

Putting mounts in fstab, or mount every share isn't very transparant, at least not to me.

But oh well, this discussion really don't belong here :-)