<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-2" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <blockquote cite="mid:787b0d920905280158m651b8c77ubcce34e1534390be@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I think it's very important if we want to keep pushing Sugar that we distinguish between design decisions and bugs and unimplemented features. If we bring down good design ideas not by themselves but because of its implementation status, we risk ending up with nothing that brings new value compared to existing desktops. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> You say that like it would be a bad thing. The existing desktops are at least time-tested. Learning to deal with the common features of modern desktop systems is very valuable for children. </pre> </blockquote> This relies on the assumption that 8 years from now when children grow up we will still use directories. I do not dare to predict the future so I will leave it to you... :) The following things unfortunately cannot be done with a flat filesystem view: 1. Revision based view. 2. Tagging. Of course, these views could be shown as a tree-like structure but it does not necessary mean that a filesystem should be the underlying storage. It is a totally different problem that the current Journal barely implements those things but dropping it in favor of "time-tested" solutions is a mistake IMHO. (Note that no filesystem solves those problems I have mentioned.) Another different problem is that Sugar should have a compatibility mode for example for USB drives but it will be implemented as I know so talking about that is moot. </body> </html>