[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Installing Cinnamon 2.0



On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> 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.

Wouldn't that have been a better answer the first time around?


>>> GVFS is absolutely optional software.
>>
>> You only ever consider things from your limited use-case
>
> No.

See below...


>> 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?

Do you really think that the intention of the GNOME developers when
they designed gvfs was to create software that damages drives?!


>> 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.

You missed the "could've" like a previous poster.

If the regulation is to save electricity and drives, why not?

The point of the paragraph was to show you an example of what I
*_COULD'VE_* written if I were solely thinking of my own use-case.


Reply to: