[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Paul Sutton wrote: > > I think this is a perfect example of where Linux fails in a way, in > windows there is 1 method that works in the background, and for the most > part this seems to work properly just as it does in Linux when its a > nice clearn disro. Nah Windows has piles of legacy code as well, it is possibly worse in Windows as they didn't have to achieve consensus with a bunch of geeks before making their worst mistakes. Do you want a DOMAIN, or an ADS forest with that, or perhaps a WORKGROUP will do? Name resolution - you can still use WINS, NETBIOS broadcast, or just DNS (with Microsoft extensions). Just to mention the two most obvious and painful ones (for me) in Windows. Possibly Windows is better documented if you start with microsoft.com Which is why in Debian you use /usr/share/doc, then debian.org not Google to find the answer first (unless like me you know you wrote a blog post on this last time you visited the topic, and just search for your own blog posts, although that isn't guaranteed to be current!). > What is needed in the community is a consensus Perl regards "there is more than one way to do it" as an advantage. In this case the different tools achieve similar but different things. GNOME volume manager is no good for cross mounting file systems on mail servers, for starters you won't have GNOME installed (hopefully). Possibly the problem is too much consensus. Having a single clear vision can do wonders for a design, although it can make it idiosyncratic. > I think something as simple as plugging in a device and having it mount > so a user can write to it, is pretty simple and should simply work Absolutely, and all recent Debian installed I've done this is absolutely what happens. stick in a CD, USB, Camera - something useful happens. Where as I seem to recall Windows Vista makes a song and dance, and Microsoft can't decide if they should autorun things or not from mounted media. > I understand the need for choice, but if the desire for choice > compromises the system then there is an issue. I'm not sure you do. But choice doesn't compromise a system, lack of choice does. Bad implementations of choice may also be an issue. I think the GNOME volume manager is great, but the KDE folk probably aren't going to find it useful. But there's is a reasonable choice, I use KDE 8 hours a day, and KDE can do this sort of thing just as nicely in its own kway (sic). Some folk here choose to make things hard for themselves, by shunning tools designed to make it easier for them, but that is their choice it certainly isn't the default on Debian or Ubuntu, and they may well have good reasons for their choice (heck I manually mount all sorts of stuff myself under KDE because I like the detailed control). > Perhaps if we manage to get a venue sorted out someone can explain > fusermount, sshfs, and the other methods. as there has to be situations > where the others are more appropriate. Indeed, these again are different tools and solve different issues. Simon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html