Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
leoquant
(Idea reviewer)
wrote on the 4 Jan 10 at 18:10
|
|
|
I really don't see how this makes the "screen-management" any better.
But could you please describe your problem in other words?
It may be that I do not quite understand your idea.
|
|
|
When we have an image we want to screen, we do define the background of the desktop.
If you move or delete the image you put the screen disappears.
To overcome this problem, I think it would be nice to duplicate the screen in the location where is the default, who will keep it even if you move or delete the original
|
|
|
|
Yes I agree. Of for exemple you choose an image on an external device, you must think to put it on the computer. More of that, it shoud be easier if we didn't need to be careful to never change the image location.
|
|
DrG
(Idea reviewer)
wrote on the 5 Jan 10 at 08:07
|
|
|
|
What about changing the background to another image , or care not to delete the background by placing it on a safe location .
|
|
|
I think the idea does make sense in a way, only that my opinion is that when a an image is selected as a background image, it should be copied to a different location (e.g ~/.backgrounds) so as the background will remain even if the original image is being moved/deleted.
Another idea though, is to 'follow' the location of the original image just like in OS X, which only applies if the image has not been deleted.
|
|
fizyk
wrote on the 5 Jan 10 at 21:46
|
|
|
automatic creation of a duplicate in the same folder could be confusing. People could delete that duplicate, simply because it's not a file they saved or created, and they have that picture in that folder anyway.
So -1 for first, but +1 for second solution.
|
|
oha
wrote on the 6 Jan 10 at 21:34
|
|
|
|
@fizyk: I think you misunderstood the first solution. The image is not to be copied into the same folder, but into the folder that contains the background images that get shipped with the default install.
|
|
|
@oha: I also misunderstood the first solution. What you say _does_ make sense, and I think it's an even more elegant solution than number 2, as all wallpapers that you see under Appearance->Background would be in the same directory (so manually editing the content of that directory would also change what's shown in Appearance->Background).
Also, instead of copying the images, they could be hard-linked in the wallpaper directory. So, if the image is "deleted" from the used original directory, or it's moved, the hard-link would still work and point to the actual image. As a side effect, if the image is edited, then the wallpaper will be changed too. This might be good or bad for the end user, I really don't know, maybe just copying the images is simpler and more intuitive.
|
|
daas88
wrote on the 11 Jan 10 at 18:00
|
|
|
|
I have the same problem sometimes, because i have my images and other data in a separate partition from /home, and when the partition is not mounted the wallpaper dissappears. I liked solution #2.
|
|
armware
wrote on the 12 Jan 10 at 06:49
|
|
|
i can think of a few reasons why this is a good idea.
set wallpaper from browser without saving a copy
scripting
depending on the scope (ubuntu, gnome, kde?) it'd be a simple implementation
|
|
wolterh
wrote on the 23 Jan 10 at 07:58
|
|
|
I think making a wallpaper file is a good idea, but not under the home directory. Many users think that putting files under the home directory, even if invisible, is annoying; I am happy to include myself in such group.
I think the wallpaper should be put either in
~/.local/share/nautilus/wallpaper/
~/.config/nautilus/wallpaper/
|
Post your comment
|
