[Bug 3212] Option to hide backup files as well as dotfiles?

[David Bailey]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
         
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3212         




------- Additional Comments From dr baileynet org  2008-06-27 22:18 -------
I fail to see the purpose of saying, it's okay if a file or folder is hidden if it has a dot in front of it, but otherwise, it's a bad thing. All the leading dot is in the Linux context is a file attribute that has the side-effect of changing the file name. This is very similar to Windows file extensions. Changing the name, such as ending in .txt or .exe, changes the file type. Frankly, the fact that you can't configure this leading-dot=hidden-file/folder seems to exude UNIX-quirkishness to me. (Yes, I made up a word.)

Frankly, I think developers or system administrators should have the option of hiding individual files or directories without leading periods in the filenames if they want them hidden. Of course, users should also be able to view hidden files or folders if they choose. If we're in the business of hiding ad-hoc files or directories, it makes sense that that metadata be stored in an extended attribute (xattr) rather than in a separate file. This is similar to if I add a dot in front of a file name and move it, I don't have to update a configuration file somewhere to keep it hidden.

My #2 sounds very similar to your ideas Gerd/Gambas, except that there would be two levels. One which is a system-wide filter list, which BTW already exists as a de facto standard through leading-dot-filename=hidden-file/folder notation. This could be implemented as a global configuration file which empowers the system administrator at the expense of the user, or perhaps a set of default user settings. (i.e.- This is what most users want hidden, but you can change this.) The latter approach leaves the user in charge but makes it hard for the system administrator to role out a new file-hiding standard. This may be a good thing or not depending on your perspective.

Finally you would certainly also have a per-user configuration set of filters that could work as a view as you stated Gerd.