Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5100 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] subfs & Doug's ranting
- From: Chris Carlen <crcarle@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:05:03 -0700
- Message-id: <40C5FFCF.1090609@xxxxxxxxxx>
Fergus Wilde wrote:
Wow, very nice reflection on the matter. I didn't realize this thread was going on before starting another rant about it below. The question now should be, how can we as the user community, who seem to be building a consensus on this that the new subfs stuff, convey our views to the Suse developers?
The consensus that I think is developing about the USB subfs stuff is:
1. would be great if it was dependable and polished, 2. should have configuration options in Yast with fine grained control over its applicability to both fixed drives with removable media like CDs and floppies, and hotpluggable drives like USB sticks, 3. shouldn't have been forced upon the users by default in 9.1 since it both isn't perfectly dependable yet AND is so radically different from what we were used to in <=9.0.
Good day!
--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crcarle@xxxxxxxxxx
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
Wow, very nice reflection on the matter. I didn't realize this thread was going on before starting another rant about it below. The question now should be, how can we as the user community, who seem to be building a consensus on this that the new subfs stuff, convey our views to the Suse developers?
The consensus that I think is developing about the USB subfs stuff is:
1. would be great if it was dependable and polished, 2. should have configuration options in Yast with fine grained control over its applicability to both fixed drives with removable media like CDs and floppies, and hotpluggable drives like USB sticks, 3. shouldn't have been forced upon the users by default in 9.1 since it both isn't perfectly dependable yet AND is so radically different from what we were used to in <=9.0.
Good day!
--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crcarle@xxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |