Re: Installing Cinnamon 2.0
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:44:11 +0200, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
Have you considered NAS?
No way!
What's wrong with NAS to elicit such a rejection?
Money.
GVFS is absolutely optional software.
You only ever consider things from your limited use-case
No.
Simply because you mount external drives manually
or via udev-without-gvfs, doesn't mean that this is the best way for
the majority.
It's better to install software that damages the drives instead?
Why not making it optional, as it's done for Xfce's Thunar?
You've also complained in this thread and previously about compliance
with green drives. I could've replied: "I only ever connect an
external drive to my computer long enough to copy in and/or copy out
files. So the Brussels bureaucrats who came up with this standard have
yet again mis-spent my tax GBP by wasting their time on researching,
writing, publishing, and enforcing this nonsense - and probably making
drives more expensive in order to comply with this standard!"
I'm against this EU Regulation too (I guess you only think about your
limited use-case;) but this has nothing to do with the fact that GVFS is
crappy software, so I'm also against GVFS waking up a drive without a
valid reason. Being against the EU Regulation doesn't mean that I'm
against sleeping external drives.
Furthermore, have you filed a bug against gvfs for it to be made
compatible with EU green drives? Has someone else? If the developers
aren't aware of this problem (they might use external drives the way
that I do, do example!), how can they improve their software?
Not only that, we, another one and I planned to fix it, but that's another
story and I'm sad to talk about it.
Reply to: