That's a start, but a Public would make so much more sense. Then when you want to share something you do that, but you don't have to separate the organization of your documents and other personal files by whether they're "private" or not. Would it really be too hard to add a checkbox for this so people could choose for themselves? If you collected the data on who choses what, I would be willing to bet even if it weren't default at least 50% of people would choose to protect their home directories.
As an aside, the ~/.appname being private is by no means standard or default. In fact, most of them are public. A short list: .bluej .codeblocks .config .dia .evolution .fontconfig .freemind .gimp .gstreamer .gtk-bookmarks .hardinfo .icons .java .kde .nautilus .openoffice.org .subversion .svnqt .texmf-var .themes .update-manager-core .wapi .wine And that's just on my system... On a semi-related note, is there any actual reason why Linux defaults to cluttering home directories with invisible files? Mac OS X's system of storing everything in a Library folder again seems far more intelligent, as we could avoid this whole problem by locking the ~/Library folder as Mac OS X does. -- Home permissions too open https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/48734 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
