Why is the "libray" so much more complicated that the system folder?

It is both good and bad.

Bad part first.
For old people and the computer challenged it is indeed harder for them to compute the new system compared to the old one.

The Good.
It is more powerful, and might look less 'lame' to those *nix gurus and those pro's who never liked the exaggerated simpleness of the mac.

Perhaps we must sacrifice ease for power. But osx is still young, it can still change.

My really simplistic view of the Library folder is that it allows true multi-user capabilities. And it provides a great deal of safety for the system overall. The system has a library, and only people or programs that have the right to mess with that folder, do, and then only rarely. Each user has his/her own library folder and they can f* that up as much as they want. It won't bring down the whole system. No more missing fonts screwing up the system. No extension conflicts. And, if everyone and his brother has screwed up their individual accounts, root can retrieve most of the important stuff (as long as root is used properly, and that means RARELY). Both simplicity, (want to back up a user and his/her preferences? Copy their home folder) and power (want to prevent some precocious kid from adding a 1000 fonts to everyone's system folder? use individual libraries). No problems there. Just some adjusting.

It's not any more complex. You were used to the Classic System Folder, so now the new OS X system folder seems complicated. It's just alien to you, nothing more.

Many would say the old system folder was a real pain in the ass, because it was more difficult to modify, easier to corrupt, and less powerful.

[quote]I am mainly tlaking about the inibility to drag a font or somthing into the libray and have it place it in the corect folder.<hr></blockquote>
Ah yes, now I see where you're going with this. I agree that the drag-and-drop feature of the old System Folder was certainly a nice bit of the Macintosh experience. It's not absolutely essential, but It would be nice to see this return in a later version of OSX (Apple has much higher priorities right now).

The drag and drop thing would be cool. But it would also be nice if they put a little user symbol in the users library icon and a little mac plus symbol on the system wide library. (Not for the whole icon, just on top of it.. you know) I think this would give novice users a better implication of the effects of adding things to each folder.

I think Apple should also put icons on the folders in the Library just like they did in the old system folder. This would make it a lot less intimidating. Unless they're trying to discourage the user from mucking around in there... but in that case, they shouldn't make the user have to go in there to accomplish so many tasks. (Fonts, Imovie plug-ins, prefpanes,Internet plug-ins etc.)

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: BKuchta ]</p>

I definitely have to echo the post previous to mine. The Library system does make sense, and it is the best way to implement multiple users. Yet, its structure and appearance should be changed to make it more user friendly. Here's what I would do:

1) All of the major folders that house important items such as fonts and preferences should have identifying icons, just as Classic Mac OS had.

2) The Library contents should be cleaned up, so that its items are organized more logically. It seems like applications and system elements feel free to arbitrarily place their support folders there, and so the Library folder looks very messy. A more strict order should be implemented; at the very least, application support folders should be contained in one Library sub-folder called "Application Support."

3) The elegant practice of automatically rooting special files to their proper places should be reimplemented. That feature helps to make the system feel more intelligent. (However, now that type and creator data is defunct in OS X, I don't know if that feature could be put in.)

4) Even though the OS X System folder isn't to be touched, its visible contents should also be organized elegantly with descriptive folder icons. And there's really no reason to have a System folder and then a single folder contained therein called Library - if only a single folder exists in a particular parent folder, then take the contents out and display them directly in the System folder.

Part of the Macintosh way is that each element of the system that is visible to the user should be user friendly. It's just not good UI to have poorly organized folders and obscurely named files. Apple developers should take some time after they have finished other projects to clean all of this up. It's not a major gripe, but it would make users feel more at home.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>

Big Mac, I couldn't agree with you more.

Though, at this rate I think we'd be lucky to see these "innovations" until OSX 10.5 or 11.0 since they show a dramatic change in how the user interact with the system.

Even so, it will take time. All that's changing is working around what the OS really is, a Unix.

That and there is also Darwin. You mess up OSX, you can't use Darwin anymore.

There are many benefits from Darwin project OSX is privledge to you know.

~Kuku

[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>That and there is also Darwin. You mess up OSX, you can't use Darwin anymore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not exactly. What Big Mac is suggesting would only apply to the Finder and how the user interacts with the Library structure via the Finder; it wouldn't change anything about how the Library "system" inherently works.

We're talking a high level of abstraction here. It shouldn't touch Darwin.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>

I think these are all very good ideas. I'm going to send this in as feedback if ya don't mind, Big Mac.

However, one thing I was wondering was whether anyone less than admin even needs to see the System folder in the first place? Could it be made visible only to admin & su? Bad idea?

Starfleet that's likes saying I'll make another map on top of your map so people can go my way. Sure your map is there but people will see my map.

You can do that, but it's just ignoring others.

Sure you can rewrite the finder anyway you want, and you can put an abstraction layer on layer on top of darwin. BUT Darwin library is still the same way. SO any time you try to sync it you have to go, well A goes to B and then darwin goes from A to C, so I have to follow B to C which is D...

There is a reason library is as it is now, because the darwin hiarchy is made that way.

It's a very basic problem here. Even Carbon apps are really just .../Packages/content/... You can hide it, but getting to /content/ is still the same way. You move it, it breaks.

~Kuku

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Kuku ]</p>

Thank you to everyone who received my suggestions warmly. Please feel free to send them off to Apple if you wish. I'm planning on sending a lot of feedback to Apple myself, once I get the chance to write it all up.

As far as Darwin and potential incompatibilities from broken hard links go, I don't really think this would be a major concern. Sure, Apple may need to recode some hard links to the System library, but as Starfleet stated, what we see in that folder is pretty high level. Darwin has its own UNIX directory structure that it's much more directly connected to. The changes we've suggested wouldn't be altering that UNIX layer in any significant way.

Mac OS X (or the Finder) already does much of this. As users, we live at a higher level of user interaction, so we don't see things that are generally irrelevant to us - for example, the /etc folder. It's invisible to us in the Finder, but it doesn't break Darwin to have it that way.

As far as mapping goes, mounted disks don't really mount at the "Computer" level. They appear in some obscure, invisible subfolder. Again, this obviously hasn't had any negative impact on the way the system works, so.. well. Draw your own conclusions.

Michael, OS X contains a built-in spell checker. OmniWeb uses it. Have you considered utilizing it?

[quote]Originally posted by Michaelm8000:
<strong>

that is BS! you can have the same "power" in the library but still have it easy if not easyer to use than the system folder. Siplisity is the key to a fun computer. But Siplisity and Power is the key to a great computer. OS X needs both. And yes, it is posible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Somebody needs to start a petition for Michael to use spell checking..