Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5100 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] subfs & Doug's ranting
- From: Fergus Wilde <fwilde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:53:14 +0100
- Message-id: <200406080953.14822.fwilde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 04:35, BandiPat wrote:
<etc>
> Doug,
>
> You obviously haven't seen 9.1 yet or you would have a better
> understanding of the subfs system. As Patrick pointed out, it is
> indeed something to add user friendliness to the Linux desktop. It is
> something that is needed to draw other OS users to Linux on the
> desktop. How many times have you tried explaining to someone why you
> have to "mount" or "unmount" removable drives in Linux? They begin to
> think you are talking about your computer in sexual terms after a
> bit! ;o)
>
> That is the reason for subfs system, to eliminate that. I think this
> relates to the "supermount" project, which kinda died and is now the
> "submount" thing in SuSE. You no longer have to mount or unmount, it's
> done automatically with this. Just put a disc/disk in, it reads it,
> opens it and when done, hit the eject button on the drive! I too agree
> with Patrick, in that a bit of reading before ranting might have helped
> to prevent the rant. ;o)
Yes, but it doesn't work properly yet, that's the point. I agree it will be
excellent when finished, but for the present release it's working a lot less
well here than the system under 9.0 and before that everyone understood. And
experience with other systems tends to make everyone particularly sensitive
to parts of the OS that step in and take over to be 'helpful' only to screw
things up and leave the user without an obvious means of manual intervention.
It's obviously a matter of luck, but here at least on several previously
highly reliable systems 9.1 has left usb handling far weaker and far less
predictable than in previous versions.
>
> As always, Linux is about choice and you can revert your setup back to
> the old way, if you so desire. So far, I haven't seen any reason to do
> that as this is quite convenient and I'm already spoiled.
Perhaps the means of reversion should have been better advertised and subfs
described as experimental. I certainly wouldn't wish to see its inventors
and developers discouraged, as it will be very nice when it's finished, but
it ain't right yet.
Best
Fergus
>
> Regards,
> Lee
>
> --
> --- KMail v1.6.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.1 ---
> Registered Linux User #225206
> On any other day, that might seem strange...
--
Fergus Wilde
Chetham's Library
Long Millgate
Manchester
M3 1SB
Tel: +44 161 834 7961
Fax: +44 161 839 5797
http://www.chethams.org.uk
<etc>
> Doug,
>
> You obviously haven't seen 9.1 yet or you would have a better
> understanding of the subfs system. As Patrick pointed out, it is
> indeed something to add user friendliness to the Linux desktop. It is
> something that is needed to draw other OS users to Linux on the
> desktop. How many times have you tried explaining to someone why you
> have to "mount" or "unmount" removable drives in Linux? They begin to
> think you are talking about your computer in sexual terms after a
> bit! ;o)
>
> That is the reason for subfs system, to eliminate that. I think this
> relates to the "supermount" project, which kinda died and is now the
> "submount" thing in SuSE. You no longer have to mount or unmount, it's
> done automatically with this. Just put a disc/disk in, it reads it,
> opens it and when done, hit the eject button on the drive! I too agree
> with Patrick, in that a bit of reading before ranting might have helped
> to prevent the rant. ;o)
Yes, but it doesn't work properly yet, that's the point. I agree it will be
excellent when finished, but for the present release it's working a lot less
well here than the system under 9.0 and before that everyone understood. And
experience with other systems tends to make everyone particularly sensitive
to parts of the OS that step in and take over to be 'helpful' only to screw
things up and leave the user without an obvious means of manual intervention.
It's obviously a matter of luck, but here at least on several previously
highly reliable systems 9.1 has left usb handling far weaker and far less
predictable than in previous versions.
>
> As always, Linux is about choice and you can revert your setup back to
> the old way, if you so desire. So far, I haven't seen any reason to do
> that as this is quite convenient and I'm already spoiled.
Perhaps the means of reversion should have been better advertised and subfs
described as experimental. I certainly wouldn't wish to see its inventors
and developers discouraged, as it will be very nice when it's finished, but
it ain't right yet.
Best
Fergus
>
> Regards,
> Lee
>
> --
> --- KMail v1.6.2 --- SuSE Linux Pro v9.1 ---
> Registered Linux User #225206
> On any other day, that might seem strange...
--
Fergus Wilde
Chetham's Library
Long Millgate
Manchester
M3 1SB
Tel: +44 161 834 7961
Fax: +44 161 839 5797
http://www.chethams.org.uk
| < Previous | Next > |